Why are you avoiding the question?

How is the current football money split?

You keep answering a question that is not being asked.

I said nothing has been said to the effect of how the football money is split.

Why don't you give the MAC office a call and see what they can find out for you if you're so eager.

(07-01-2013 05:17 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 05:09 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 05:00 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  This would be after ALL MAC bowl teams get reimbursed for ALL their bowl expenses. This might push school to get more competitive in football if they know that the better they perform, them ore money they get - and the worse they perform, the less money they get.

And how do they perform better if they don't have enough money to spend on football?

How does this logic not apply to the basketball side?

In basketball you only need two or three good players and a decent coach to get into some postseason tournament.

Football is much more complex. Recruiting costs are very high, equipment is expensive, facilities, academic support to stay eligible, the list goes on.

By distributing money based on current success, you create the exact same thing we all hate about the BCS.

(07-01-2013 06:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  By distributing money based on current success, you create the exact same thing we all hate about the BCS.

So why is it okay to do it with basketball?

You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on this issue (Can't have your cake and eat it too, choose your preferred cliche). If it's "bad" or unfair for one sport it's "bad" or unfair for all.

Either do it for both or don't do it at all.

(07-01-2013 06:36 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 06:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  By distributing money based on current success, you create the exact same thing we all hate about the BCS.

So why is it okay to do it with basketball?

Never said it was. I'm against that, too.

(07-01-2013 06:44 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 06:36 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 06:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  By distributing money based on current success, you create the exact same thing we all hate about the BCS.

So why is it okay to do it with basketball?

Never said it was. I'm against that, too.

That's cool, since Akron is probably one of the schools that benefits the most from the rule.

I'm guessing that Akron voted for the distribution change.

How does that get passed in basketball without also passing something similar for football? Hmmm...

Conference Base Payout is $12 million for each Go5.

Then an incentive of $2.5 to $6.5 million is added.

#1 ranked conference = $6.5 million
#2 = $5.5 million
#3 = $4.5 million
#4 = $3.5 million
#5 = $2.5 million

Then the highest ranked Go5 team goes to access bowl for an additional $8 million to the conference. Note: the highest ranked team may or may not be from the highest ranked conference. Example: NIU this year is highest ranked, but Old Big East top to bottom is highest ranked conference. NIU brings in $8 million to MAC, but MAC is 2nd ranked conference and earns $5.5 million from conference incentive.

Then add an academic APR incentive which brings the conference an additional $200,000 for each team in the conference that has an APR over 950 that year.

Bottom Line as I understand it.

On average the MAC will get lets say:

$12 million base
$4.5 million conference incentive
$1.5 million academic incentice
$0 for Access Bowl (some years add another $8 million)
TOTAL = $18 million for average year or $1.5 million per team.

In either case, the $12 million base will likely be distributed equal, the academic $200,000 will go only to the schools who earn it, and the conference incentive money will be possibly open to uneven distribution to higher performing MAC teams. When the MAC sends a team to the Access Bowl, that too could be unevenly split to ensure the team turns a profit and earns a bit in addition similar to NIU this year.

.

(07-01-2013 07:25 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Conference Base Payout is $12 million for each Go5.

Then an incentive of $2.5 to $6.5 million is added.

#1 ranked conference = $6.5 million
#2 = $5.5 million
#3 = $4.5 million
#4 = $3.5 million
#5 = $2.5 million

Then the highest ranked Go5 team goes to access bowl for an additional $8 million to the conference. Note: the highest ranked team may or may not be from the highest ranked conference. Example: NIU this year is highest ranked, but Old Big East top to bottom is highest ranked conference. NIU brings in $8 million to MAC, but MAC is 2nd ranked conference and earns $5.5 million from conference incentive.

Then add an academic APR incentive which brings the conference an additional $200,000 for each team in the conference that has an APR over 950 that year.

Bottom Line as I understand it.

On average the MAC will get lets say:

$12 million base
$4.5 million conference incentive
$1.5 million academic incentice
$0 for Access Bowl (some years add another $8 million)
TOTAL = $18 million for average year or $1.5 million per team.

In either case, the $12 million base will likely be distributed equal, the academic $200,000 will go only to the schools who earn it, and the conference incentive money will be possibly open to uneven distribution to higher performing MAC teams. When the MAC sends a team to the Access Bowl, that too could be unevenly split to ensure the team turns a profit and earns a bit in addition similar to NIU this year.

.

That is the exact plan I agree with.

The numbers are just a little bit bigger than that. The academic money is 300k per school for those that have the APR. Per 13 MAC schools that would be 3.9 million but that money is tied to schools not conferences.

There is also 1.5 million for expenses going to all the conferences, so really its 4.5 million for performance and 1.5 million (6 million) that could be pooled for MAC bowl participants, excluding an access bowl year which is another 6 million.

Now that 4.5 number is increasing each year by about 1 million dollars because the TV contract is backloaded and any of the addition money will go to the G5 raise pool.

Regardless of which direction JMU decides to go ( I wish doing nothing was not a direction), I hope your commish does something about that TV deal. When you look at next years C-USA and the MAC, not a whole lot of difference to main stream America viewers or educated college football fans. But the current TV $$$ says otherwise and that's an imbalance/ perception that needs to change.

(07-02-2013 11:35 AM)olddawg Wrote:  Regardless of which direction JMU decides to go ( I wish doing nothing was not a direction), I hope your commish does something about that TV deal. When you look at next years C-USA and the MAC, not a whole lot of difference to main stream America viewers or educated college football fans. But the current TV $$$ says otherwise and that's an imbalance/ perception that needs to change.

I've posted about this before, but CUSA is super fortunate that their TV partners didn't void or renegotiate their TV deal with the changes they suffered. I expect that you'll see a significant change in their next TV contract.

The sad thing (or funny, depending on your perspective) is that they need that TV money to just cover operating costs and when that disappears there will be even more fiscal hemorrhaging from those programs. That model is broken and they are just too stubborn, stupid, and/or proud to see/admit it.

In the meantime, the MAC is doing just fine with its TV deal and will likely be negotiating a significant increase in the next round while still having minimal operating expenses.

The MAC should receive money in-line with what the MWC and AAC will get and, again, the MAC has a significantly lower cost of doing business. I'm not sure how the raw numbers will shake out, but the MAC should be more than competitive in this area versus the other "non-contract conferences." So even if the "raw" numbers don't put the MAC at or near the top, I'm certain that the "net" numbers will.

(07-02-2013 11:58 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 11:35 AM)olddawg Wrote:  Regardless of which direction JMU decides to go ( I wish doing nothing was not a direction), I hope your commish does something about that TV deal. When you look at next years C-USA and the MAC, not a whole lot of difference to main stream America viewers or educated college football fans. But the current TV $$$ says otherwise and that's an imbalance/ perception that needs to change.

I've posted about this before, but CUSA is super fortunate that their TV partners didn't void or renegotiate their TV deal with the changes they suffered. I expect that you'll see a significant change in their next TV contract.

The sad thing (or funny, depending on your perspective) is that they need that TV money to just cover operating costs and when that disappears there will be even more fiscal hemorrhaging from those programs. That model is broken and they are just too stubborn, stupid, and/or proud to see/admit it.

In the meantime, the MAC is doing just fine with its TV deal and will likely be negotiating a significant increase in the next round while still having minimal operating expenses.

The MAC should receive money in-line with what the MWC and AAC will get and, again, the MAC has a significantly lower cost of doing business. I'm not sure how the raw numbers will shake out, but the MAC should be more than competitive in this area versus the other "non-contract conferences." So even if the "raw" numbers don't put the MAC at or near the top, I'm certain that the "net" numbers will.

I'm dumfounded there was no language in their contract that allows for renegotiation. Seems to me that the product that the networks signed up to televise has been watered down. Why would they continue to pay for what is essentially the old Sun Belt- a conference the networks deemed worth of virtually no money?

(07-02-2013 12:17 PM)olddawg Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 11:58 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 11:35 AM)olddawg Wrote:  Regardless of which direction JMU decides to go ( I wish doing nothing was not a direction), I hope your commish does something about that TV deal. When you look at next years C-USA and the MAC, not a whole lot of difference to main stream America viewers or educated college football fans. But the current TV $$$ says otherwise and that's an imbalance/ perception that needs to change.

I've posted about this before, but CUSA is super fortunate that their TV partners didn't void or renegotiate their TV deal with the changes they suffered. I expect that you'll see a significant change in their next TV contract.

The sad thing (or funny, depending on your perspective) is that they need that TV money to just cover operating costs and when that disappears there will be even more fiscal hemorrhaging from those programs. That model is broken and they are just too stubborn, stupid, and/or proud to see/admit it.

In the meantime, the MAC is doing just fine with its TV deal and will likely be negotiating a significant increase in the next round while still having minimal operating expenses.

The MAC should receive money in-line with what the MWC and AAC will get and, again, the MAC has a significantly lower cost of doing business. I'm not sure how the raw numbers will shake out, but the MAC should be more than competitive in this area versus the other "non-contract conferences." So even if the "raw" numbers don't put the MAC at or near the top, I'm certain that the "net" numbers will.

I'm dumfounded there was no language in their contract that allows for renegotiation. Seems to me that the product that the networks signed up to televise has been watered down. Why would they continue to pay for what is essentially the old Sun Belt- a conference the networks deemed worth of virtually no money?

I'm pretty sure they could renegotiate if they wanted but are probably thinking long-term as they will still need/want the inventory with ESPN locking up everything else. Plus, long-standing partner Southern Miss would probably not be too happy, Southern Miss is losing money left and right and taking away more at this time would probably be too much of a detriment as well as an insult. But there is no way that an "adjustment" isn't made in future contracts.

(07-02-2013 12:17 PM)olddawg Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 11:58 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 11:35 AM)olddawg Wrote:  Regardless of which direction JMU decides to go ( I wish doing nothing was not a direction), I hope your commish does something about that TV deal. When you look at next years C-USA and the MAC, not a whole lot of difference to main stream America viewers or educated college football fans. But the current TV $$$ says otherwise and that's an imbalance/ perception that needs to change.

I've posted about this before, but CUSA is super fortunate that their TV partners didn't void or renegotiate their TV deal with the changes they suffered. I expect that you'll see a significant change in their next TV contract.

The sad thing (or funny, depending on your perspective) is that they need that TV money to just cover operating costs and when that disappears there will be even more fiscal hemorrhaging from those programs. That model is broken and they are just too stubborn, stupid, and/or proud to see/admit it.

In the meantime, the MAC is doing just fine with its TV deal and will likely be negotiating a significant increase in the next round while still having minimal operating expenses.

The MAC should receive money in-line with what the MWC and AAC will get and, again, the MAC has a significantly lower cost of doing business. I'm not sure how the raw numbers will shake out, but the MAC should be more than competitive in this area versus the other "non-contract conferences." So even if the "raw" numbers don't put the MAC at or near the top, I'm certain that the "net" numbers will.

I'm dumfounded there was no language in their contract that allows for renegotiation. Seems to me that the product that the networks signed up to televise has been watered down. Why would they continue to pay for what is essentially the old Sun Belt- a conference the networks deemed worth of virtually no money?

Keep in mind that CUSA is getting its money from CBS and Fox, not ESPN. The ESPN offer to CUSA was only 40% per school compared to what they had been making.

I wouldn't mind if ESPN was willing to let us go with another partner like Fox Sport for basketball while retaining us for football and the midweek package.

Further I think the MAC values being seen rather than just money. CUSA schools seem to value the money more as they tend to ned it for their expenses. They tend to pay more to get the same thing.

(07-03-2013 01:17 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Further I think the MAC values being seen rather than just money. CUSA schools seem to value the money more as they tend to ned it for their expenses. They tend to pay more to get the same thing.

Correct. It should be pointed out that the MAC can afford to chose because its responsible business model does not include frivolous, haphazard spending. Plus, this allowed the Conference Brand to grow to a recognizable level which will make it so that the MAC can have both moving forward.

(07-03-2013 07:43 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 01:17 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Further I think the MAC values being seen rather than just money. CUSA schools seem to value the money more as they tend to ned it for their expenses. They tend to pay more to get the same thing.

Correct. It should be pointed out that the MAC can afford to chose because its responsible business model does not include frivolous, haphazard spending. Plus, this allowed the Conference Brand to grow to a recognizable level which will make it so that the MAC can have both moving forward.

Travel costs in CUSA are 1.2 million more for every MAC school with the exception of Buffalo and NIU.

Its the same thing with the AAC. The AAC is making 1.7 million on its TV deals. If the MAC can get to at least 1 million the Ohio MAC schools are coming out ahead by staying in a bus league.