(10-10-2021 04:11 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Some folks need to stop saying "School X" and "School Y" that because none of us have any real idea what these schools leaders think behind closed doors.

Most here can only speak to what you schools' FANBASES think and that's almost the very last factor any school administrators think about.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

BINGO

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

You still think the AAC will continue to get about 7m per school after defections? Ill believe it when it happens.

(10-10-2021 04:28 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

You still think the AAC will continue to get about 7m per school after defections? Ill believe it when it happens.

Im just using that number because its known. For this purpose---I dont think it much matters. The ratings still are higher than the Mountain West, so I doubt it falls below their deal. Even if you cut the AAC deal by half (which ESPN has never done in prior similar situations and didnt even do to the ravaged Big East)---its still a far better deal for ESPN to just buy the whole CUSA TV deal.

(10-10-2021 07:47 AM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:44 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I'm sure you're upset enough for everyone involved. LR/UTA will do what's best for LR/UTA. Both their admins have been checking out MVC, OVC, ASUN, and SLC on their own volition. UTA looking for a new conference has been rumored for 6 months.

They don't exactly have options. They can't stay even if they wanted to because the Belch will kick them out eventually just like they kicked out New Mexico State and Idaho.

FYI the SBC did not “kick out” Idaho and NMSU. There was a football only contract and the SBC decided to cut back on travel and were looking at teams from eastern states and therefore chose not to renew their contract. Both knew the likeliness of that deal being expanded was slim and when the NCAA changed the rule to where a conference only needed 10 teams to play a championship game it made their slim chance go away.

I don’t care if you don’t like us a conference, whatever. Just want to correct your understanding of history to what really happened.

(10-10-2021 04:28 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

You still think the AAC will continue to get about 7m per school after defections? Ill believe it when it happens.

Yeah I don't see it. The AAC didn't add schools before because no program enhanced the financial profile of the conference. Now we're suppose to think they can keep their current contract after losing three and possibly four marquee programs? Yeah right.

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

CUSA presidents would turn them down again. Playing on Tuesday and Wednesday while incurring all the cost associated with ESPN+ is not happening at 500 or 700k. I can guarantee you that

Been on the AAC board too long. Just one big echo chamber over there

(10-10-2021 03:39 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:16 AM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 06:05 PM)galojah Wrote:  I can’t help but think of all the SBC schools desire to move to the CUSA, just to realize the CUSA is now only the SBC we are essentially left, if not worse.

The AAC sounds great based on what it was. What will it really be in the future?

There are ZERO Sunbelt schools who have any interest in moving to CUSA with maybe the exception of Texas State if CUSA becomes a more westward league.

Well, Texas State is the only school in the Sun Belt capable of making money. They just need to improve their product.

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sunbelt

I'm shocked at some fo these athletic debt levels in the Sunbelt. WOW!

S Alabama - $82.9M
Appy St - $64.0M
Troy - $63.5M
TX State - $62.3M
Coastal - $31.3M
ULL - $30.8M
GA Southern - $22.6M
ULM - $5.9M

The Sunbelt schools not listed above did not have numbers in the report. (I don't know why.)

On G5 budgets, these SBC schools have to pedal pretty hard simply to service the amount of debt on their books. When I look at the Big XII, here are a few comparisons:

Texas Tech - $78.8M
Iowa St - $75.3M
Kansas St - $64.7M
Oklahoma St - $67.8M
Kansas - $32.8M
(The private schools didn't report numbers)

I just find it a little shocking that the University of South Alabama is carrying more athletic debt than every one of the Big XII schools mentioned above. It takes approximately $6.6 Million a year to service $83M financed for 20 years at a 5% interest rate. WOW! So when evaluating those "Athletic Budgets" for everybody, be sure and deduct the annual debt service from the applicable school's budget when calculating your comparisons. (And yes, some schools in CUSA are guilty too, but we looked at their numbers last week.)

(10-10-2021 04:28 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

You still think the AAC will continue to get about 7m per school after defections? Ill believe it when it happens.

Of course not. Nobody believes that. I think most guesstimates are between $2M and $3M per school.

(10-10-2021 05:21 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 03:39 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:16 AM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 06:05 PM)galojah Wrote:  I can’t help but think of all the SBC schools desire to move to the CUSA, just to realize the CUSA is now only the SBC we are essentially left, if not worse.

The AAC sounds great based on what it was. What will it really be in the future?

There are ZERO Sunbelt schools who have any interest in moving to CUSA with maybe the exception of Texas State if CUSA becomes a more westward league.

Well, Texas State is the only school in the Sun Belt capable of making money. They just need to improve their product.

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sunbelt

I'm shocked at some fo these athletic debt levels in the Sunbelt. WOW!

S Alabama - $82.9M
Appy St - $64.0M
Troy - $63.5M
TX State - $62.3M
Coastal - $31.3M
ULL - $30.8M
GA Southern - $22.6M
ULM - $5.9M

The Sunbelt schools not listed above did not have numbers in the report. (I don't know why.)

ON G5 budgets, these SBC schools have to pedal pretty hard simply to service the amount of debt on their books. When I look at the Big XII, here are a few comparisons:

Texas Tech - $78.8M
Iowa St - $75.3M
Kansas St - $64.7M
Oklahoma St - $67.8M
Kansas - $32.8M
(The private schools didn't report numbers)

I just find it a little shocking that the University of South Alabama is carrying more athletic debt than everyone of the Big XII schools mentioned above. WOW! (And yes, many schools in CUSA are guilty too, but we looked at their numbers last week.)

That’s incredible, at least ULM knows it’s place. That much debt has to be albatross to those top 4 Sunbelt program.

(10-10-2021 05:21 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

CUSA presidents would turn them down again. Playing on Tuesday and Wednesday while incurring all the cost associated with ESPN+ is not happening at 500 or 700k. I can guarantee you that

Been on the AAC board too long. Just one big echo chamber over there

lol---Another gem from the same guy that said the AAC deal would fall by 50% when UConn left and thought every Big12 school would be snapped up by the Big10, Pac12, and ACC because "they were so valuable". Frankly, I think CUSA would flourish under a ESPN tv deal. The current hodge-podge deal they have right now has not helped CUSA much financially or done much to increase its profile.

(10-10-2021 05:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 05:21 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 03:39 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:16 AM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(10-09-2021 06:05 PM)galojah Wrote:  I can’t help but think of all the SBC schools desire to move to the CUSA, just to realize the CUSA is now only the SBC we are essentially left, if not worse.

The AAC sounds great based on what it was. What will it really be in the future?

There are ZERO Sunbelt schools who have any interest in moving to CUSA with maybe the exception of Texas State if CUSA becomes a more westward league.

Well, Texas State is the only school in the Sun Belt capable of making money. They just need to improve their product.

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/sunbelt

I'm shocked at some fo these athletic debt levels in the Sunbelt. WOW!

S Alabama - $82.9M
Appy St - $64.0M
Troy - $63.5M
TX State - $62.3M
Coastal - $31.3M
ULL - $30.8M
GA Southern - $22.6M
ULM - $5.9M

The Sunbelt schools not listed above did not have numbers in the report. (I don't know why.)

ON G5 budgets, these SBC schools have to pedal pretty hard simply to service the amount of debt on their books. When I look at the Big XII, here are a few comparisons:

Texas Tech - $78.8M
Iowa St - $75.3M
Kansas St - $64.7M
Oklahoma St - $67.8M
Kansas - $32.8M
(The private schools didn't report numbers)

I just find it a little shocking that the University of South Alabama is carrying more athletic debt than everyone of the Big XII schools mentioned above. WOW! (And yes, many schools in CUSA are guilty too, but we looked at their numbers last week.)

That’s incredible, at least ULM knows it’s place. That much debt has to be albatross to those top 4 Sunbelt program.

No doubt. Everybody knows the Sunbelt schools (and CUSA schools for that matter) don't have near the same revenue sources as the Big XII schools mentioned above. It just seems silly to be carrying that much debt for athletics when your revenue sources are so suspect. As I noted above, on average, it takes approximately $6.6M a year to service $83M of debt financed over 20 years at 5%. Yes, we don't know the particulars of all their financing, but the annual $6.6M is still a good "rule of thumb" number to use for this amount.

(10-10-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 05:21 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 01:58 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 11:23 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  LMAO....you guys also think none of the SBC teams are interested in joining the AAC. It's hilarious to be honest.

It doesn't matter if they are "interested in joining the AAC" or not. It won't happen. The SBC schools are already under contract with ESPN for roughly 500K each, and the AAC schools are under contract with ESPN for $7M each (or whatever it is). Why would ESPN allow the SAME teams they have under contract for 500K to move to the AAC and have to pay them more $$$?? Won't happen.

CUSA schools are the best targets because they are not already under contract with ESPN. Moving them to the AAC is a net gain for ESPN.

I was leaning in that direction for a while---now I wonder if thats a factor at all. Given that the CUSA deal is up for grabs in a year---ESPN could have the whole thing--or certainly first tier position---for 10 million or so. Thats about what it would cost them just to move a team or two the AAC at 7 million a pop.

Since it would be another year at least before any team could actually move to the AAC---Im starting to question if the "dont raid any ESPN properties" factor really has any bearing at all in how this plays out.

CUSA presidents would turn them down again. Playing on Tuesday and Wednesday while incurring all the cost associated with ESPN+ is not happening at 500 or 700k. I can guarantee you that

Been on the AAC board too long. Just one big echo chamber over there

lol---Another gem from the same guy that said the AAC deal would fall by 50% when UConn left and thought every Big12 school would be snapped up by the Big10, Pac12, and ACC because "they were so valuable". Frankly, I think CUSA would flourish under a ESPN tv deal. The current hodge-podge deal they have right now has not helped CUSA much financially or done much to increase its profile.

I agree with the LAST part of your post above. I think CUSA would flourish if, 1) they FIRED their commissioner, Judy, and 2) got an ESPN TV deal. I, for one, am damn tired of searching for our football games each week on a different channel, usually behind some paywall, or a network that's hard to find.

As for Dawgxas, I think he brings a very interesting perspective to most everything we discuss here. Yeah, he's a bit acerbic, but for goodness sake, who's not? LOL! He does seem to be very well informed on the issues we encounter here. That's a lot more than I can say for some fans on this board.

I was speaking with a guy who is very much in the know. His boss is high up in the MU admin, and he said conversations happen every day between Marshall and “other conferences”. He also said that nobody really knows what is going to happen.

(10-10-2021 04:56 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:47 AM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:44 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I'm sure you're upset enough for everyone involved. LR/UTA will do what's best for LR/UTA. Both their admins have been checking out MVC, OVC, ASUN, and SLC on their own volition. UTA looking for a new conference has been rumored for 6 months.

They don't exactly have options. They can't stay even if they wanted to because the Belch will kick them out eventually just like they kicked out New Mexico State and Idaho.

FYI the SBC did not “kick out” Idaho and NMSU. There was a football only contract and the SBC decided to cut back on travel and were looking at teams from eastern states and therefore chose not to renew their contract. Both knew the likeliness of that deal being expanded was slim and when the NCAA changed the rule to where a conference only needed 10 teams to play a championship game it made their slim chance go away.

I don’t care if you don’t like us a conference, whatever. Just want to correct your understanding of history to what really happened.

FYI, there was a contract that was pieced together for New Mexico State and Idaho that basically said "take it or leave it." Translation? No other options.

I understood the NMSU and Idaho membership to be “temporary” and either party can terminate it. I may be wrong…

(10-10-2021 06:30 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  I understood the NMSU and Idaho membership to be “temporary” and either party can terminate it. I may be wrong…

It was. They still didn't have options. Two schools that saved the Sun Belt after 2004.

(10-10-2021 06:18 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 04:56 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:47 AM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:44 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I'm sure you're upset enough for everyone involved. LR/UTA will do what's best for LR/UTA. Both their admins have been checking out MVC, OVC, ASUN, and SLC on their own volition. UTA looking for a new conference has been rumored for 6 months.

They don't exactly have options. They can't stay even if they wanted to because the Belch will kick them out eventually just like they kicked out New Mexico State and Idaho.

FYI the SBC did not “kick out” Idaho and NMSU. There was a football only contract and the SBC decided to cut back on travel and were looking at teams from eastern states and therefore chose not to renew their contract. Both knew the likeliness of that deal being expanded was slim and when the NCAA changed the rule to where a conference only needed 10 teams to play a championship game it made their slim chance go away.

I don’t care if you don’t like us a conference, whatever. Just want to correct your understanding of history to what really happened.

FYI, there was a contract that was pieced together for New Mexico State and Idaho that basically said "take it or leave it." Translation? No other options.

Then they should have just said no from the start. They knew it most likely wouldn’t have been extended. Idaho made a move that was better for them anyway. They got a regional conference with rivals. Listen I hate it but they were geographic nightmares for the conference. Honestly I would not have hated NMSU being here but the other schools did what each school is doing now: looking out for their best interest.

(10-10-2021 08:07 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 06:18 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 04:56 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:47 AM)All4One Wrote:  

(10-10-2021 07:44 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I'm sure you're upset enough for everyone involved. LR/UTA will do what's best for LR/UTA. Both their admins have been checking out MVC, OVC, ASUN, and SLC on their own volition. UTA looking for a new conference has been rumored for 6 months.

They don't exactly have options. They can't stay even if they wanted to because the Belch will kick them out eventually just like they kicked out New Mexico State and Idaho.

FYI the SBC did not “kick out” Idaho and NMSU. There was a football only contract and the SBC decided to cut back on travel and were looking at teams from eastern states and therefore chose not to renew their contract. Both knew the likeliness of that deal being expanded was slim and when the NCAA changed the rule to where a conference only needed 10 teams to play a championship game it made their slim chance go away.

I don’t care if you don’t like us a conference, whatever. Just want to correct your understanding of history to what really happened.

FYI, there was a contract that was pieced together for New Mexico State and Idaho that basically said "take it or leave it." Translation? No other options.

Then they should have just said no from the start. They knew it most likely wouldn’t have been extended. Idaho made a move that was better for them anyway. They got a regional conference with rivals. Listen I hate it but they were geographic nightmares for the conference. Honestly I would not have hated NMSU being here but the other schools did what each school is doing now: looking out for their best interest.

Maybe the Sun Belt should've never offered to take them for a ride?

4 year deal that both parties knew weren’t likely to be renewed. This victim card and revisionist history is a reach even for you.

(10-10-2021 08:55 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  4 year deal that both parties knew weren’t likely to be renewed. This victim card and revisionist history is a reach even for you.

Revisionist? Like saying the Slum Belch is a more profitable conference despite five members losing money in the latest report? I notice you Belch folks don't want to address those issues while you troll this board.