No. If the Big 12 expands by 4 and takes 3 from the AAC and MWC, the max CUSA could lose is 3 schools. They are already at 14 and could return to 12 with an addition of one school. These could easily be grabbed from among the SBC or independents UMass and NM St.

Keep in mind that CUSA, like the other G5 schools, is guaranteed $1 million per school from the CFP, with additional payouts based upon the relative finish of the conference among the G5 conferences and for appearances in an access bowl or the CFP. However, the $1 million per school is for a maximum of 12 schools. After that, the pot is fixed. There is therefore a financial disincentive for any conference to go beyond 12 schools. Losing 2 schools might actually be good for CUSA.

(07-28-2016 12:40 PM)orangefan Wrote:  No. If the Big 12 expands by 4 and takes 3 from the AAC and MWC, the max CUSA could lose is 3 schools. They are already at 14 and could return to 12 with an addition of one school. These could easily be grabbed from among the SBC or independents UMass and NM St.

Keep in mind that CUSA, like the other G5 schools, is guaranteed $1 million per school from the CFP, with additional payouts based upon the relative finish of the conference among the G5 conferences and for appearances in an access bowl or the CFP. However, the $1 million per school is for a maximum of 12 schools. After that, the pot is fixed. There is therefore a financial disincentive for any conference to go beyond 12 schools. Losing 2 schools might actually be good for CUSA.

And that incentive was put there by the G5. They could change it. In any event, there is a strong incentive to be stronger as you get a 5,4,3,2 or 1/15th share of the rest of the pot. And you would be splitting 4 ways if one of the conferences got swallowed.

(07-28-2016 12:40 PM)orangefan Wrote:  No. If the Big 12 expands by 4 and takes 3 from the AAC and MWC, the max CUSA could lose is 3 schools. They are already at 14 and could return to 12 with an addition of one school. These could easily be grabbed from among the SBC or independents UMass and NM St.

Keep in mind that CUSA, like the other G5 schools, is guaranteed $1 million per school from the CFP, with additional payouts based upon the relative finish of the conference among the G5 conferences and for appearances in an access bowl or the CFP. However, the $1 million per school is for a maximum of 12 schools. After that, the pot is fixed. There is therefore a financial disincentive for any conference to go beyond 12 schools. Losing 2 schools might actually be good for CUSA.

The max was changed to a 10 schools per conference.

(07-28-2016 12:40 PM)orangefan Wrote:  No. If the Big 12 expands by 4 and takes 3 from the AAC and MWC, the max CUSA could lose is 3 schools. They are already at 14 and could return to 12 with an addition of one school. These could easily be grabbed from among the SBC or independents UMass and NM St.

Keep in mind that CUSA, like the other G5 schools, is guaranteed $1 million per school from the CFP, with additional payouts based upon the relative finish of the conference among the G5 conferences and for appearances in an access bowl or the CFP. However, the $1 million per school is for a maximum of 12 schools. After that, the pot is fixed. There is therefore a financial disincentive for any conference to go beyond 12 schools. Losing 2 schools might actually be good for CUSA.

it's $1 million per school max of 10 schools. The G5 voted to take the other $2 million per conference and add it to the performance payout. So any G5 conference that goes above 10 schools gets less than $1 million per school.

Of course the higher you finish in the end of year rankings the more your conference will make.

Assuming the rumors come true (Cincy, Memphis, Houston, BYU), based on their previous strategy of adding markets I could see the AAC backfilling with UMass, NIU and Rice. Not only would they be adding a relatively strong basketball program and state university peer for UConn and also long-time relationship with Temple in UMass, they would be bringing in one of the elite universities in the world in Rice to give Tulane an academic peer. To balance the this, they also bring in one of the best football programs in the country out of the midwest/Chicago area in NIU.

Let's assume that the MWC goes and takes a New Mexico + a Texas school too - the Conference USA and Sunbelt can then potentially merge.

East
UMass
UCF
USF
UConn
Temple
ECU


West
SMU
Tulsa
Navy
Tulane
Rice
NIU

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

(07-28-2016 09:44 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 08:43 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  IT seems with the talent pool out there and with some of the moving pieces to things that it might come down to CUSA being ripped apart for MWC and AAC expansion/backfilling needs that could most likely leave the lower end schools that came to CUSA out in the cold because at that point I don't think CUSA would have anything to offer a current MAC or SBC school to gravitate towards it financially.

It appears that the CUSA will be the one that gets hit hard.

Not really, because they are already bloated with too many teams and in terms of TV revenue they've already hit rock bottom. The AAC will get hit the hardest by this because the TV deal I believe can be immediately renegotiated and maybe even voided and the one replacing it would be much worse. Not that the AAC TV deal is worth much but it could easily be cut in half or further and maybe even the exposure greatly lessened, which is the only real value the deal has been providing.

(07-28-2016 12:36 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 12:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:40 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:28 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  I never said that it would drive it. However, as I previously stated, Memphis football was a joke before Fuente (and Fuente actually only had two winning seasons there - 2014, 2015. His first two seasons there in 2012 and 2013 were a tough building project). So, a school that only had two winning seasons in recent memory with a coach that is no longer there is driving the bus? Riiiiiiight.

2 things...
1- it's not like UConn has better football.
2- Memphis has light years better geography

I agree with your 2 things. But I have 2 things, too.

2 things...
1 - UConn can bring NYC eyeballs and money. Memphis can't.
2 - UConn brings solid academics. That matters to Texas and Kansas.

I see your 2 things, and raise you FedEx.

Press conference at 10 am Tuesday again this time, just like the Big East announcement?

Didn't we get into the Big East?

(07-28-2016 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

I get the desire to have a CCG in football, but I don't see a huge difference between having a 16 game full round robin vs an 18 game one. In fact under that scenario UCONN/Temple/whoever of the good basketball programs would rather have more OOC games to increase their SOS. If they were for some reason at 9 all conference members the question that would have to be asked is would any addition be worth more than splitting the pie more ways? At this point I don't know that it would be. C-USA and pretty much every team that continues to reside there has been shown to possess pretty much no value to TV. Maybe you could convince me on NIU and/or UMASS but it's no slam dunk. Only team that might be available that would is Army just because of the Army-Navy game, but they've all but had a standing invite for years and haven't jumped at it.

I see AAC expansion canadiates as these teams:
Rice
Massachusetts
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Southern Miss

(07-28-2016 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

If I am one of the respectable basketball programs, I would prefer to have the two extra OOC games to schedule against national powers than to add another hoops patsy. Unless there were a great basketball program out there (and I don't see one) for the tenth team, the CCG isn't worth it to me. It's not like the AAC's CCG would be a particularly lucrative attraction compared with a UConn-Syracuse or UConn-Kansas basketball game.

(07-28-2016 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

Is it actually a requirement to have 10 teams in order to have a CCG? The Big 12 was/is planning to have a such a game in 2017 with 10 teams and a round robin schedule. What's to stop an 8 or 9 team conference from doing that? Not ideal but I believe it could be done.

(07-28-2016 01:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

Is it actually a requirement to have 10 teams in order to have a CCG? The Big 12 was/is planning to have a such a game in 2017 with 10 teams and a round robin schedule. What's to stop an 8 or 9 team conference from doing that? Not ideal but it I believe it could be done.

No. You can have a CCG with 9 or 8 teams as long you have played a round-robin schedule within the whole conference or the divisions. An 8 team conference could split into 2 4 teams divisions and hold a CCG.

The AAC is the Anne Boleyn of FBS. Everyone knew the second marriage wasn't going to end well, but she wanted to be G5 queen for three years until the P5 king removed her head.

Anne was buried in Norfolk, so.....

(07-28-2016 01:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

Is it actually a requirement to have 10 teams in order to have a CCG? The Big 12 was/is planning to have a such a game in 2017 with 10 teams and a round robin schedule. What's to stop an 8 or 9 team conference from doing that? Not ideal but it I believe it could be done.

No. You can have a CCG with 9 or 8 teams as long you have played a round-robin schedule within the whole conference or the divisions. An 8 team conference could split into 2 4 teams divisions and hold a CCG.

I don't believe that is correct. IIRC, 10 teams is the minimum for a CCG.

Does anybody know how much money the AAC received for its CCG this year? And, after expenses, how much each member school netted from the game?

(07-28-2016 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Big 12 takes BYU for FB only, then adds Navy (also FB only), Houston, and Cincy from the AAC.

In that scenario, the AAC would be left with 9 all sports members. There is no one they could add that would likely improve their CFP revenues or their NCAAT revenues. So why not just stand pat?

They would be left with three members who could hope to make the NCAAT with some regularity (UConn, Temple and Memphis). They would have a 16 game full round robin in hoops, and a perfect 4 home/4 away full round robin in football. Everybody could play in Florida every year. They still have some pretty good markets in their footprint, and with the low payout they have now, it couldn't get much worse if at all with the teams that remain.

With Boise coming back to the pack in football, they still have as good a chance as any conference to get the G5's golden ticket to the NY6. Why mess with that?

In your scenario, they would add 1 team, to be able to be at 10- to be able to have a CCG. And have a 18 game full round robin in hoops.

Is it actually a requirement to have 10 teams in order to have a CCG? The Big 12 was/is planning to have a such a game in 2017 with 10 teams and a round robin schedule. What's to stop an 8 or 9 team conference from doing that? Not ideal but it I believe it could be done.

No. You can have a CCG with 9 or 8 teams as long you have played a round-robin schedule within the whole conference or the divisions. An 8 team conference could split into 2 4 teams divisions and hold a CCG.

I don't believe that is correct. IIRC, 10 teams is the minimum for a CCG.

Does anybody know how much money the AAC received for its CCG this year? And, after expenses, how much each member school netted from the game?

No minimum is stated for hold a CCG now.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...-able-hold

here is the whole rule:
"Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference."

(07-28-2016 02:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  here is the whole rule:
"Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference."

So the minimum is actually the FBS minimum of 8 teams.

(07-28-2016 02:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 02:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  here is the whole rule:
"Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference."

So the minimum is actually the FBS minimum of 8 teams.

Yes. Good point.

My belief.

Craig Thompson talking about going beyond 12 makes me feel pretty sure that he thinks TV is going to come in low or no better than flat.

Based on past conversations with a high muckity at ERT, he has said consistently that the non-BCS now G5 are artificially under-valued in relation to audience because there are only limited key windows where there is not a P5 substitute that will deliver similar or better audience (not comparing Ohio State-Michigan type games, rather Indiana-Illinois type games). Because the G5 compete by offering greater supply than there is demand the price in those windows goes down. Fewer conferences competing, the greater the leverage in getting premium pricing for those late windows and weeknight windows.

I suspect Thompson has the thought that if MWC can pick up some of that inventory and maybe put another conference out of business that he can get some actual leverage. Problem is that doesn't work unless he goes really big (more than 16) or someone else is doing the same thing.

I believe it is a given that none of the leagues trust each other well enough to cooperate on a television agreement to get that leverage so expansion would be the only option.

The mystery elements:
If AAC loses two or more does ESPN invoke the right to terminate the contract (or renegotiate under threat of termination)?
If AAC does lose two or more does Navy stick around?