Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
A big plus for UMASS
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
GE and MTS Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 1,948
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #21
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-14-2014 08:41 AM)Rik Flair Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 07:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='Rik Flair' pid='10665255' dateline='1397431909'] The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k.
You mean, $500,000 out of the extra $1m CFP money they bring from raising the Sunbelt to 12 from 11?





If it the SBC gets 1 million dollars simply by going from 11 to 12 then it WILL happen this year. Is that 1 million exclusively tied to UMASS?

Call the 500k a rent/lease fee. I chose 500k because I doubt they would pay 1 million to join and I want something for the trouble of bringing in another outlier school that nobody in the SBC cares about playing.

So that would be an extra 500k on top of whatever any other school would have to provide that is: 1. an all sports member; 2. within the SBC footprint; 3. plans on staying for a while instead of looking for a temporary home.

I think the Sun Belt currently gets $1 million per school for the college football playoff payout. No matter who is added as football member #12, that adds an additional $1 million so each school gets $1MM. However, if the conference ever goes above 12, the pool of $12MM doesn't increase so the pie gets split into smaller pieces. Now you could argue that the conference could save money by having a tighter geographic footprint and that would make up the difference that you'd lose on splitting the payout with more schools, or the new schools could add more revenue that also makes up the difference.
04-14-2014 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,923
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 421
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #22
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 07:22 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 06:54 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 06:31 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I think the Sun Belt should give NMSU and ultimatum and boot Idaho. Moscow is just too far. Our league is not as desperate as Benson acts. To NMSU, I would offer all sports, move on or pay about $500k to be a football only member. The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k. If they don't like it, no hard feelings and good luck.

Why would NMSU need an ultimatum? They WANT to be in all sports. It was the Sun Belt that said no to that.

If that it is true, I wasn't aware. First time I have heard that. I would hope the SBC would change their minds and offer them a chance for all sports.

NMSU would move all of its sports to the Sun Belt, willingly. They play in a dumpster fire of a conference with just as much travel as they'd have to perform in the Sun Belt. They play in a conference with a for profit 'college'. And UTPA, which was tossed from the Sun Belt (for real, they were expelled for sucking really badly).

I have no problem having our womens basketball, mens basketball, baseball, and softball teams traveling to the El Paso area once (at most) each year.

Quite frankly, I'd rather have NMSU's basketball than their football.
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2014 04:40 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
04-14-2014 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GaStPanthers Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,313
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Georgia State
Location: West Metro Atlanta
Post: #23
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 11:33 AM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 10:16 AM)MJG Wrote:  They host two BCS schools this year one that is local.
Expanding their on campus stadium and only playing these types of games at Gillette would be huge. How many non BCS schools can host a local BCS school or two in one year.

Boston College and Colorado

WKU will host Louisville this year (very local and recent ncaa champs)and hosted Ole Miss this season.

They're talking about football, not basketball.
04-14-2014 04:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,006
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #24
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-14-2014 08:41 AM)Rik Flair Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 07:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 06:31 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k.
You mean, $500,000 out of the extra $1m CFP money they bring from raising the Sunbelt to 12 from 11?

If it the SBC gets 1 million dollars simply by going from 11 to 12 then it WILL happen this year. Is that 1 million exclusively tied to UMASS?

Its $1m per school up to a maximum $12m, so the next school increases the CFP by $1m. I guess most conferences are planning to pass that $1m ($920K/school for the MAC until UMass leaves, $860K/school for CUSA) through to the individual schools as part of the conference distribution.

Under the CFP, a conference at 12 or fewer FB members "charging" a school an amount up to $1m to play FB-only is not actually a payment from the school to the conference, its a hold-back of part of the CFP payment which would normally be passed through to the school.

"Charging" $500,000 and distributing it to the schools traveling to UMass that year would actually be splitting the extra $1m from the CFP in half, half for UMass, half for travel subsidy.

But the extra $1m comes no matter how the Sunbelt expands to 12.

(04-14-2014 04:45 PM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 11:33 AM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  WKU will host Louisville this year (very local and recent ncaa champs)and hosted Ole Miss this season.

They're talking about football, not basketball.
Part of the FB-only deal the MAC had with UMass (and Temple before UMass) was UMass scheduling four BBall games with MAC teams. No reason that Benson would not want to the same for the Sunbelt.
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2014 05:31 PM by BruceMcF.)
04-14-2014 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NuMexAg Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 410
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: NMSU
Location: DFW
Post: #25
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-14-2014 09:41 AM)Niner National Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 10:16 AM)MJG Wrote:  They host two BCS schools this year one that is local.
Expanding their on campus stadium and only playing these types of games at Gillette would be huge. How many non BCS schools can host a local BCS school or two in one year.

Boston College and Colorado
I haven't read through the thread, but UTSA is doing a great job scheduling home games against BCS schools.

This year they host Arizona and New Mexico. Last year they hosted OK St.

In 2014 they host Kansas State and Colorado State.

In 2016 they host Arizona State.

In 2018 they host Baylor and Colorado State.

I'd gladly take a Big XII/PAC 12 and a MWC team at home every year.

Having the dome is doing wonders for UTSA's scheduling.

Actually I think it is mostly the Texas, and specifically San Antonio, recruiting opportunities that is doing wonders for UTSA's scheduling. Not that the Alamodome hurts.
04-14-2014 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,269
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #26
RE: A big plus for UMASS
Getting Texas State from the WAC vs straight From FCS helps perception of the SBC .NMSU and Idaho even more so as far as how many FCS call ups at one time.

UMASS also benefits from that coming from the MAC.
Three WAC and one MAC school along with four FCS call ups.
That sounds better than eight FCS to FBS schools added.
The truth is more like six and two but perception is a funny thing. Four to six years from now the four recently transitioned teams will be established. So promoting three new schools to FBS will not look as bad. I think that is part of the reason both NMSU and Idaho were added and gives UMASS a chance.

Long term its less damaging to the conference image to be patient. Giving the right Southeastern schools time to get ready is also a benefit.
04-14-2014 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,778
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #27
A big plus for UMASS
Would UMass get $400K as an independent from the CFP like Army and BYU? It might cut down on the SBC's leverage a little, but it would still be possible to impose a travel subsidy.
04-14-2014 06:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheRevSWT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,213
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Bobcats!
Location:
Post: #28
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-14-2014 09:41 AM)Niner National Wrote:  I haven't read through the thread, but UTSA is doing a great job scheduling home games against BCS schools.

This year they host Arizona and New Mexico. Last year they hosted OK St.

In 2014 they host Kansas State and Colorado State.

In 2016 they host Arizona State.

In 2018 they host Baylor and Colorado State.

I'd gladly take a Big XII/PAC 12 and a MWC team at home every year.

Having the dome is doing wonders for UTSA's scheduling.

Signing away your future also helps. Plenty of 2-1's on their schedule, which will hurt in future years, when they are always on the road for OOC.

Hickey is a PHENOM down there, no doubt, but I think she messed up on the scheduling. Of course, that is just an opinion, and UTSA could show me wrong.
04-14-2014 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,006
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #29
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-14-2014 06:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Would UMass get $400K as an independent from the CFP like Army and BYU? It might cut down on the SBC's leverage a little, but it would still be possible to impose a travel subsidy.
That, I don't know., whether its any FBS independent or the agreement was just specific schools when the arrangement was arrived at.
04-14-2014 08:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
perimeterpost Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,978
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 130
I Root For: OHIO
Location:
Post: #30
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-14-2014 05:59 PM)MJG Wrote:  Getting Texas State from the WAC vs straight From FCS helps perception of the SBC .NMSU and Idaho even more so as far as how many FCS call ups at one time.

UMASS also benefits from that coming from the MAC.
Three WAC and one MAC school along with four FCS call ups.
That sounds better than eight FCS to FBS schools added.
The truth is more like six and two but perception is a funny thing. Four to six years from now the four recently transitioned teams will be established. So promoting three new schools to FBS will not look as bad. I think that is part of the reason both NMSU and Idaho were added and gives UMASS a chance.

Long term its less damaging to the conference image to be patient. Giving the right Southeastern schools time to get ready is also a benefit.

that's a technicality that very people outside of this inner circle would ever recognize. The casual observer will view Southern Alabama, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, App State, Texas State and UMass(if added) as recent FCS call ups and won't draw any distinction from coming up in 2012 or 2014.

Half of the Sun Belt is made up of new FCS call ups. It is what it is, might as well embrace it.
04-15-2014 07:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.