The conferences themselves were ruled able to set their own standards, the way I read it, which means the "low G5s" will probably create some cost restraints that will keep individual teams in those conferences from creating their own gap.

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 07:28 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Conference realignment is driven by money, and either C-USA or the Sun Belt can reconfigure in any meaningful way that will generate more money for their conferences.

The unhappy programs in C-USA do not have enough votes to change the conference's line-up. Sure ODU is exploring their options. Every G5 program is doing that. The truth is ODU does not have any good options right now. Maybe they could talk the Sun Belt or MAC into an invitation, but it wouldn't add any money to their coffers, and ODU won't generate extra money for the teams of those conferences either.

Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Latest USA Today if you have a better source lemme know.

I think the capacity to self-generate is an incredibly strong indicator of athletic department health. One state budget crisis, a change in university leadership, or someone in the university approving an institutional budget that presumes the school will hit 100% of its anticipated revenue and then doesn't, are all factors that can torpedo schools reliant on the transfer of university funds or student fees.

Self-generated measures the capacity to sell tickets, sell sponsorships, solicit and collect donations, and conference revenue.

Several FCS schools are now spending or out spending lower G5 schools for better players. The bigger names are in the MVFC, Big Sky, Southern, OVC and CAA who have the better teams. CAA do have the haves and have nots. I do think the ones who could actually spend the most could actually compete. I do think North Dakota State could spend like Boise State, UCF and others because they are a brand name university that people recognize.

(03-12-2019 08:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---unhappy programs can change the line up without a vote. CUSA knows that better than anyone other than maybe the WAC. All it really takes is like minded programs that believe they would be better off in a smaller more compact conference. And to be clear---Im not suggesting that will happen anytime soon---Im just saying all it takes is for the right leadership to be in place at a few key schools and the dominoes will fall in place---with or without the cooperation of the others. It only took 5 of 16 "votes" to essentially cripple the WAC and create the MW. Frankly, the way N Texas is investing in its athletic department I wouldnt be surprised if they and several other schools that are investing heavily are one day interested in creating a more compact conference that only contains the more robust athletic departments in CUSA---with perhaps one or 2 worthy nearby SB schools.

C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Latest USA Today if you have a better source lemme know.

I think the capacity to self-generate is an incredibly strong indicator of athletic department health. One state budget crisis, a change in university leadership, or someone in the university approving an institutional budget that presumes the school will hit 100% of its anticipated revenue and then doesn't, are all factors that can torpedo schools reliant on the transfer of university funds or student fees.

Self-generated measures the capacity to sell tickets, sell sponsorships, solicit and collect donations, and conference revenue.

So the numbers that that you are listing are a few years old and probably don't reflect the current financial situations in at least some of the programs in your groupings. In my book that makes them a worthless metric for creating groupings for programs. We need to know the current financial situations within our athletic departments, because since those numbers were posted by USA Today some of our programs are improving and some are declining.

(03-12-2019 08:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Latest USA Today if you have a better source lemme know.

I think the capacity to self-generate is an incredibly strong indicator of athletic department health. One state budget crisis, a change in university leadership, or someone in the university approving an institutional budget that presumes the school will hit 100% of its anticipated revenue and then doesn't, are all factors that can torpedo schools reliant on the transfer of university funds or student fees.

Self-generated measures the capacity to sell tickets, sell sponsorships, solicit and collect donations, and conference revenue.

So the numbers that that you are listing are a few years old and probably don't reflect the current financial situations in at least some of the programs in your groupings. In my book that makes them a worthless metric for creating groupings for programs. We need to know the current financial situations within our athletic departments, because since those numbers were posted by USA Today some of our programs are improving and some are declining.

there is no data base of current numbers for all schools. the best data will always be about 2 years in the past by the time everything is put together and made plublic

(03-11-2019 01:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question about the Alston case could knock some FBS schools down to FCS. La.-Monroe, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Eastern Michigan and some others could be effected because they have to spend more money on the athletic departments.

Why would it? Per Alston, the NCAA can no longer "cap" educational benefit. However, the decision does not require schools to provide to student athletes anything more than they are currently providing. The P5 will certainly offer more benefits to student athletes than the G5 once this shakes out. But--the P5 schools were already always the preferred choice by recruits over G5 schools---so really--its not going to make much difference for the G5 schools. Their athlete pool the G5 was fishing in remains largely the same. The biggest benefit the G5 could offer recruits to compete with P5 schools was more or quicker playing opportunities. That factor remains unchanged.

I doubt Alston, in and of itself, would force schools out of FBS.

But the players at the G5, FCS, D2 and D3 who are also a part of the NCAA would start demanding to be equals with the P5 schools.

Narrator: ...no they wouldn't...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(03-12-2019 08:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 08:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  C-USA is a conference full of programs with varying degrees of commitment. There are not enough with the right combination of funding and fan support to reform into something better. So I suspect over the next few season, you may see the same three or four teams competing for the C-USA title.

That's basically the case with every conference.

According to the latest USA Today numbers there are 11 CUSA/SBC schools that self-generated $12 million or more in athletics
CUSA: Charlotte, La Tech, Marshall, ODU, USM, UTEP, WKU. Seven total, 4 East, 3 West
SBC: App State, A-State, GaSt, UL (2 East 2 West)

Between $10 million and $12 million there are six more
CUSA: FAU, MTSU, UNT, UTEP (2 East 2 West)
SBC: TXST, USA (1 West, 1 West football, east other sports)

How recent are your numbers? The "latest" USA Today numbers I can find are a few years old. I think some of your assumptions might not be true at this date.

Last season, North Texas generated about $10 million from large private donations to our athletic department. In my book, that is "self generated" income. Once you add in the receipts from the gates, small donations from the bulk of our fan base, and money from licensing and media, UNT is well over your arbitrary $12 million in athletic revenue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the only measure of health when considering an athletic department's financial commitment and support. I think spending is equally important. It is good if a program is generating $12 million or better per season, but if they are not investing in their programs and facilities, they will soon be at a competitive disadvantages to peer G5 programs.

Look at which G5 programs are doing the best job of getting more fans in the stands, generating new revenue streams, building and remodeling facilities, and raising salaries for their quality coaches. Those should be the stronger G5 programs moving forward.

Latest USA Today if you have a better source lemme know.

I think the capacity to self-generate is an incredibly strong indicator of athletic department health. One state budget crisis, a change in university leadership, or someone in the university approving an institutional budget that presumes the school will hit 100% of its anticipated revenue and then doesn't, are all factors that can torpedo schools reliant on the transfer of university funds or student fees.

Self-generated measures the capacity to sell tickets, sell sponsorships, solicit and collect donations, and conference revenue.

So the numbers that that you are listing are a few years old and probably don't reflect the current financial situations in at least some of the programs in your groupings. In my book that makes them a worthless metric for creating groupings for programs. We need to know the current financial situations within our athletic departments, because since those numbers were posted by USA Today some of our programs are improving and some are declining.

Yeah that's like common knowledge, don't try to run out and patent that revelation.