(04-29-2015 02:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 02:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think you underestimate how quickly things can go. If UAB is gone on June 8, they won't be coming back. They'll be able to maintain the 14 basketball teams in 15-16 if UAB sticks around. Then be able to fill in the spot for the '16-17 season.

If UAB can hire a new athletic director and get a reasonable plan in place by the end of next spring to bring back football, they will stay in CUSA going forward.

What is a reasonable plan? It sounds like they need to be FBS for 2016. If not, why would CUSA let UAB get any CFP money the years they don't have a football team? Trying to restart the program, you think this money would be needed. Looking at this from what the positives of each situation.

PROS (Removing UAB)
- Bigger slice of CFP pie for CUSA Members
- Bigger slice of NCAA Units for CUSA Members
- Stay football only conference
- Removing a troubled program (What prevents this from happening again)

PROS of keeping UAB (I am really struggling of what would be the business positives to keep UAB other than it would be a nice thing for CUSA to do)
- ???

(04-29-2015 02:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think so. Especially with this news getting leaked, if UAB doesn't have a plan in place by June 8, they are gone. I think especially given what has gone on at UAB, it would have to be a fully complete plan to restore football at that point. I think CUSA's point is they will have 14 football teams in the 2016-17 season. Either UAB if they can do it now, or someone else.

Still waiting for you to explain why C-USA will be going to 14 so quickly....and please don't say 'scheduling'. I'm of the opinion we stand pat until movement from above places are membership below 12.

(04-29-2015 02:42 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 02:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think so. Especially with this news getting leaked, if UAB doesn't have a plan in place by June 8, they are gone. I think especially given what has gone on at UAB, it would have to be a fully complete plan to restore football at that point. I think CUSA's point is they will have 14 football teams in the 2016-17 season. Either UAB if they can do it now, or someone else.

Still waiting for you to explain why C-USA will be going to 14 so quickly....and please don't say 'scheduling'. I'm of the opinion we stand pat until movement from above places are membership below 12.

Why can't I say scheduling? That is a HUGE part of it.

To me, it's 2 things. Scheduling, and also how they've operated in the recent past.

I think the only way they don't go to 14 is if UTEP gives some indication they want to look at joining the MWC. I think it'll be either 12 or 14.

(04-29-2015 01:29 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  The by-laws say there will have to be a vote to expel UAB. UAB gets no NCAA tourney credits whether they are expelled or leave voluntarily.

Something wrong with that picture. Especially since UAB earned two tourney credits this year

(04-29-2015 02:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Why can't I say scheduling? That is a HUGE part of it.
To me, it's 2 things. Scheduling, and also how they've operated in the recent past.
I think the only way they don't go to 14 is if UTEP gives some indication they want to look at joining the MWC. I think it'll be either 12 or 14.

So you're saying the only reason C-USA schools will forgo hundreds of thousands of dollars/year each is to dress-up some scheduling issues 13 members creates? I'm not convinced.

Conference realignment has been relatively fluid this past decade and odds are there could be more movement in the future. Given the current CFP pay-out (i.e. $1M/school to a max. of 12), its clear that we jumped the gun in going to 14. That said, we now begin the process of right-sizing ourselves until the landscape changes again.

Which agruement makes more sense?

(04-29-2015 02:53 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 01:29 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  The by-laws say there will have to be a vote to expel UAB. UAB gets no NCAA tourney credits whether they are expelled or leave voluntarily.

Something wrong with that picture. Especially since UAB earned two tourney credits this year

Nothing really wrong with it of that is how it is written. Why people need to understand contracts. UAB made it easy for CUSA, no football means no membership. No membership means loss of conference money and benefits. Why employers love the people who quit, lets them off the hook for unemployment problems.

(04-29-2015 02:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Why can't I say scheduling? That is a HUGE part of it.

To me, it's 2 things. Scheduling, and also how they've operated in the recent past.

I think the only way they don't go to 14 is if UTEP gives some indication they want to look at joining the MWC. I think it'll be either 12 or 14.

The MW would then be at a 13/12 split. And where does that leave NMSU?

12 million/13- 923,076 per school
12 million/14- 857,142 per school

so we're talking a difference of like 68k there per school.

for TV- lets say it's another 68k per school- roughly 12 million for the deal(may be a smidge more but not by much).

So a total of like 150-200k tops. Hardly hundreds of thousands. And definitely where it could be recovered in the home gates by the schools for basketball.

(04-29-2015 03:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 02:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Why can't I say scheduling? That is a HUGE part of it.

To me, it's 2 things. Scheduling, and also how they've operated in the recent past.

I think the only way they don't go to 14 is if UTEP gives some indication they want to look at joining the MWC. I think it'll be either 12 or 14.

The MW would then be at a 13/12 split. And where does that leave NMSU?

I really don't think Hawaii will be in the MWC much longer- will likely go independent. NMSU is frankly SOL.

(04-29-2015 03:01 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Nothing really wrong with it of that is how it is written. Why people need to understand contracts. UAB made it easy for CUSA, no football means no membership. No membership means loss of conference money and benefits. Why employers love the people who quit, lets them off the hook for unemployment problems.

A simple solution for UAB's money might be; full membership payment next year as they begin their transition. 50% the following year (i.e. year two) if they have not been able to secure an appropriate home and none in year three with de-facto scheduling assisstance from the conference if needed.

It would make basketball scheduling a little easier for the MW.

So has UTEP passed on the idea of packaging themselves with NMSU?

(04-29-2015 02:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What is a reasonable plan? It sounds like they need to be FBS for 2016. If not, why would CUSA let UAB get any CFP money the years they don't have a football team? Trying to restart the program, you think this money would be needed. Looking at this from what the positives of each situation.

PROS (Removing UAB)
- Bigger slice of CFP pie for CUSA Members
- Bigger slice of NCAA Units for CUSA Members
- Stay football only conference
- Removing a troubled program (What prevents this from happening again)

PROS of keeping UAB (I am really struggling of what would be the business positives to keep UAB other than it would be a nice thing for CUSA to do)
- ???

UAB isn't going to get football money for any season they're in the conference without a football team.

Removing any number of teams will always increase the remaining teams' shares of NCAA tournament money. Are you advocating for CUSA to drop down to 8 members?

The conference has decided it won't have non-football members. UAB will either have to restart football or leave in a year. So again, what is your point?


I think UAB being a charter member of the conference gives them some leeway on your "troubled" point.

(04-29-2015 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 03:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 02:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Why can't I say scheduling? That is a HUGE part of it.

To me, it's 2 things. Scheduling, and also how they've operated in the recent past.

I think the only way they don't go to 14 is if UTEP gives some indication they want to look at joining the MWC. I think it'll be either 12 or 14.

The MW would then be at a 13/12 split. And where does that leave NMSU?

I really don't think Hawaii will be in the MWC much longer- will likely go independent. NMSU is frankly SOL.

I doubt Hawaii will leave MWC football. They are going to want to hold onto the 4 guaranteed home games/year they get as an MWC member. It would be too challenging for them to find 6-8 home games each year as an indy. It's more difficult to get teams to play FB games at Hawaii now because the ability to play an extra regular-season game is not enticing to most teams -- many coaches don't want to play 13 -- whereas teams were more likely to want the extra game when the "usual" number of regular season games was only 11.

(04-29-2015 03:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  12 million/13- 923,076 per school
12 million/14- 857,142 per school

so we're talking a difference of like 68k there per school.

for TV- lets say it's another 68k per school- roughly 12 million for the deal(may be a smidge more but not by much).

So a total of like 150-200k tops. Hardly hundreds of thousands. And definitely where it could be recovered in the home gates by the schools for basketball.

You have not shown how any CUSA member is going to have less total home games if the conference has 13 members instead of 14 members.

That won't be the case. It won't even be the case that each team will have less total conference home games. They'll just have to be careful on the dates.

(04-29-2015 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I doubt Hawaii will leave MWC football. They are going to want to hold onto the 4 guaranteed home games/year they get as an MWC member. It would be too challenging for them to find 6-8 home games each year as an indy. It's more difficult to get teams to play FB games at Hawaii now because the ability to play an extra regular-season game is not enticing to most teams -- many coaches don't want to play 13 -- whereas teams were more likely to want the extra game when the "usual" number of regular season games was only 11.

It seems like they always get 2-3 home games against PAC teams each season. That obviously doesn't mean they can get 6-8 each season, but I would say that teams do like the idea of going to Hawaii.

(04-29-2015 03:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  12 million/13- 923,076 per school
12 million/14- 857,142 per school

so we're talking a difference of like 68k there per school.
for TV- lets say it's another 68k per school- roughly 12 million for the deal(may be a smidge more but not by much).
So a total of like 150-200k tops. Hardly hundreds of thousands. And definitely where it could be recovered in the home gates by the schools for basketball.

Please explain how a couple hundred thousand dollars could be made up, every year, in hoops gates, by inviting any program to the conference? Plus the extra program would only come to town every other year; and if the program isn't added, the revenue could be made up by inviting some other OOC opponent.

(04-29-2015 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 03:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 02:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Why can't I say scheduling? That is a HUGE part of it.

To me, it's 2 things. Scheduling, and also how they've operated in the recent past.

I think the only way they don't go to 14 is if UTEP gives some indication they want to look at joining the MWC. I think it'll be either 12 or 14.

The MW would then be at a 13/12 split. And where does that leave NMSU?

I really don't think Hawaii will be in the MWC much longer- will likely go independent. NMSU is frankly SOL.

I doubt Hawaii will leave MWC football. They are going to want to hold onto the 4 guaranteed home games/year they get as an MWC member. It would be too challenging for them to find 6-8 home games each year as an indy. It's more difficult to get teams to play FB games at Hawaii now because the ability to play an extra regular-season game is not enticing to most teams -- many coaches don't want to play 13 -- whereas teams were more likely to want the extra game when the "usual" number of regular season games was only 11.

Here's going to be the thing though- they are already having money problems- how in the world are they going to be able to do the FCOA- which I would think for them would be pretty high. Also not sure how the Big West will handle the FCOA- if they do football for the FCOA, they must do 85 women as the FCOA, and if the Big West doesn't allow that- they're stuck.

Math for sports fans.

Article indicates CUSA distributable income is roughly $2.3 million per.

Let's assume next TV deal is identical in dollars.

Staying at 13 makes it an extra $176,923 per school.

Going back to 14 makes it same as now except for the first two years when it goes up roughly $77k for the entry fee.

Going to 16 takes it down by $287,500 per year except for the first two years when it drops only $56,730

Let's take Marshall about median in CUSA revenue. What is $287,500 to Marshall? 1% of operating revenue.

We aren't talking any real money here. Replace one conference flight with a bus trip in football, men's and women's basketball, women's soccer, volleyball, baseball, and softball and your net travel savings will be around $350,000, more if you are also able to save on one meal per team.

Forego $287,500 in revenue to cut overhead by $350,000? No one does stupid crap like that because the fans don't care about what it does to the budget they want to tout how much the conference spit out to their school.

It is no accident JMU and MTSU AD's have name-dropped JMU and Liberty, they are looking at cutting overhead and using the money for things that impact competive ability.

Now what we don't know is what CUSA revenue will look like from July 1, 2016 forward because CUSA hasn't announced a TV deal nor has any talk leaked (even though there seems to be a UAB related leak weekly). Find out what the TV deal looks like and you'll know what CUSA is going to do next.

My money remains on taking USA, slightly better travel for much of the west, slightly worse for much of the east, but it is a crossover game so not as big of an impact on east. JMU and Liberty, non-starters unless CUSA goes to 16.

(04-29-2015 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 03:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  12 million/13- 923,076 per school
12 million/14- 857,142 per school

so we're talking a difference of like 68k there per school.

for TV- lets say it's another 68k per school- roughly 12 million for the deal(may be a smidge more but not by much).

So a total of like 150-200k tops. Hardly hundreds of thousands. And definitely where it could be recovered in the home gates by the schools for basketball.

You have not shown how any CUSA member is going to have less total home games if the conference has 13 members instead of 14 members.

That won't be the case. It won't even be the case that each team will have less total conference home games. They'll just have to be careful on the dates.

The scheduling issue now is that the west has 6 and the east 7, same as this past season with Charlotte not playing a league schedule in 2014. Several east schools do not play a round robin within the division. They have 8 conference games but without the divisional round robin there could be a problem declaring a winner of the division and it also requires a waiver from the ncaa, which so far is not an issue.

(04-29-2015 03:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I doubt Hawaii will leave MWC football. They are going to want to hold onto the 4 guaranteed home games/year they get as an MWC member. It would be too challenging for them to find 6-8 home games each year as an indy. It's more difficult to get teams to play FB games at Hawaii now because the ability to play an extra regular-season game is not enticing to most teams -- many coaches don't want to play 13 -- whereas teams were more likely to want the extra game when the "usual" number of regular season games was only 11.

It seems like they always get 2-3 home games against PAC teams each season. That obviously doesn't mean they can get 6-8 each season, but I would say that teams do like the idea of going to Hawaii.

Not nearly that many. Look at their future FB schedules here. Hawaii has a total of 6 home games scheduled vs. Pac-12 teams in the next 11 years, including only one in the next 4 (Colorado in 2015).

Could Hawaii manage to schedule at least the minimum of 5 home games/year as an indy? BYU does it, and still makes money on football, but BYU doesn't have to worry much about possible financial losses, whereas Hawaii is a public university and does have to be concerned with the risk.