One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

So CUSA gets $1,000,000 per school. A new contract comes around and...let's say it is terrible....only half. So for $500,000 per year you are going to go through conference realignment again, pay exit and entrance fees again, change all the logos again? Just to get together with some schools you didn't vote to be with just a couple of years ago?

So lets say you want to get together with stAte, Cajuns, Southern Miss, NIU, Ohio, but leave behind ULM, Kent State, and UAB. You can't kick those out of their leagues so you have to form a new one. Forming an entirely new conference has issues with basketball.

Forming a new conference, or a new batch of G5 raiding also probably forces yet another round of FCS move-ups which NOBODY needs.

All of this in the HOPE of a few more fairly meaningless drops out of a tv contract?

(05-26-2014 09:27 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

So CUSA gets $1,000,000 per school. A new contract comes around and...let's say it is terrible....only half. So for $500,000 per year you are going to go through conference realignment again, pay exit and entrance fees again, change all the logos again? Just to get together with some schools you didn't vote to be with just a couple of years ago?

So lets say you want to get together with stAte, Cajuns, Southern Miss, NIU, Ohio, but leave behind ULM, Kent State, and UAB. You can't kick those out of their leagues so you have to form a new one. Forming an entirely new conference has issues with basketball.

Forming a new conference, or a new batch of G5 raiding also probably forces yet another round of FCS move-ups which NOBODY needs.

All of this in the HOPE of a few more fairly meaningless drops out of a tv contract?

I'm with you. The price of changing leagues is high and the issues with forming a new conference are daunting. I don't see TV contracts being the impetus for realignment at the G5 level.

(05-26-2014 09:27 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

So CUSA gets $1,000,000 per school. A new contract comes around and...let's say it is terrible....only half. So for $500,000 per year you are going to go through conference realignment again, pay exit and entrance fees again, change all the logos again? Just to get together with some schools you didn't vote to be with just a couple of years ago?

So lets say you want to get together with stAte, Cajuns, Southern Miss, NIU, Ohio, but leave behind ULM, Kent State, and UAB. You can't kick those out of their leagues so you have to form a new one. Forming an entirely new conference has issues with basketball.

Forming a new conference, or a new batch of G5 raiding also probably forces yet another round of FCS move-ups which NOBODY needs.

All of this in the HOPE of a few more fairly meaningless drops out of a tv contract?

Interesting points. I read it however, that if the money is not there for Conf USA then the teams who left for that Conference have no perceived advantage to being there any longer. If the money is not an issue, then why not form a super conference made up of the best of the three?

There certainly would be headaches with doing so. Not doing anything might not be an option either. I think that there could be a darn good conference with the best of Conf USA, MAC and SunBelt.

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

No one from CUSA will be moving to the SBC or at least not unless it gets so bad money dries up and schools need to cut their budgets by 30%...

that's the ONLY WAY you might see more regional conferences. But doesn't that go against what most of our schools fought to get away from and how we ended up where we are today?

It's not the "TV dollars" that's making schools like muts, WKU, UNT switch conferences. In WKU's case it's the names on the jerseys of our opponents that attracted Western to CUSA. Old basketball rivals

The potential for more NCAA Units is greater in CUSA and could easily be worth more than any TV money that might be lost

Realigning to a purely geographic conference will not happen. It makes no sense.

Why would all the Texas schools want to be in a conference with each other? There's limited to no exposure outside the state. It makes sure the schools will be irrelevant outside the state. Same for the Cajuns, Tech, ULM, Tulane in Louisiana.

The best bet would truly be for 2-3 conferences that all have the same basic footprint. You'd have 2, at most 3 Texas teams in each conference, 2 from Louisiana (etc). Then perhaps one giant G5 television contract that fills all the slots. The best ranked teams (or whatever metric) gets the prime television slot, and then it works down. Basically, the G5 is a giant flex schedule.

(05-26-2014 10:48 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  No one from CUSA will be moving to the SBC or at least not unless it gets so bad money dries up and schools need to cut their budgets by 30%...

that's the ONLY WAY you might see more regional conferences. But doesn't that go against what most of our schools fought to get away from and how we ended up where we are today?

It's not the "TV dollars" that's making schools like muts, WKU, UNT switch conferences. In WKU's case it's the names on the jerseys of our opponents that attracted Western to CUSA. Old basketball rivals

The potential for more NCAA Units is greater in CUSA and could easily be worth more than any TV money that might be lost

College sports fans want to feel superior to someone else. This is why you see two schools that belong together holding up their noses at each other and refusing to even play.....or people suddenly thinking that being with FIU is where they MUST be even though they were recently complaining about being "stuck with them".

College football fans are fickle and have incredible inferiority complexes that make them completely change their thinking based on that day's perceptions or who "used to be" in what conference.

AD's and Presidents, if they want to keep their jobs, pay attention to the fickle desires of their fans. Even if the tv money would be better or the travel would be better or the rivalries would be better.

None of the defectors from the SBC or CUSA members are ever switching to the SBC unless the SBC is clearly demonstrated over a number of years TO THEIR FANS as the more prestigious conference. So better to just go ahead and get on with working on that with the current lineup instead of pondering a miraculous reversal of conference realignment.

Said it before and will repeat it for emphasis.

All signs point to CUSA being disappointed with the next TV deal, but that doesn't mean other events won't cause them to hold serve or improve, its just those aren't as probable outcomes as they once were.

If you talk to a rational fan of most of the CUSA newcomers who you will hear a constant theme, the chance to play regional opponents. If MTSU and WKU wanted to play UNT and UNT wanted to play them, the three of them could have stayed where they were. WKU and MTSU wanted to play UAB, UNCC, ODU and UNT wanted to play Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, and to a lesser degree UTSA and Tulane (yes I know Tulsa and Tulane left thereafter).

The flaw inherent in CUSA is it is a collection of 14 schools who want to be together with SOME of the 14. You have a group of 8 schools who mostly want to be together, CUSA East + UAB. You have a group of 4 that mostly want to be together (the four Texans), you have USM that seems to just be unhappy and you have LaTech who seems to be unsure whether to join the majority voting bloc in the east because it contains southeastern schools they more identify with or the western block of Texans.

When the idea of teams migrating between Sun Belt and CUSA is broached some people vapor lock and think traditionally. In a traditional sense, nope, won't happen because of perception, but it can certainly happen in a non-traditional sense.

If it were to happen it would be a disaffected bloc making an outlaw move working with a group of schools in the Sun Belt creating new branding and a new name and announcing the creation of a new conference.

Let's call it the National for purposes of our hypothetical.

So UTEP, UTSA, Rice, UNT gather in DFW or Houston and for the initial meeting invite UL, TXST, and AState. (ULM doesn't get to come play, you can't invite the league president without triggering a lot of fiduciary duty issues).

The four disaffected Texas schools want out of the eastern oriented CUSA where there is less chance of hosting championship events and the TV is disappointing. They want regional games and better regional television. The schools at this meeting mean critical mass within the old Fox SW footprint.

They iron out the details of who they want and how they want the deal to go to down and probably make a few secret handshake deals on what the long-term composition will look like.

Shortly thereafter, the four Texans announce they are departing C-USA to form a new conference called (surprise) the National Athletic Conference and will begin negotiating with new members to join the league and they drop names like TXST, UL, and AState liberally to the press (all off the record of course). Meanwhile, the three Sun Belt schools tip off USA, Troy, and ULM about what is going down.

Conference USA down to ten members begins looking at getting back to 12. First on the list thanks to geography and a dogged belief in TV markets is Georgia State (who presumably is still looking pretty good in hoops). Then they start figuring out #12 and the question becomes Georgia Southern to fill in the middle and bridge, App to pair with UNCC, Troy to bolster football reputation, or USA because its a modest sized market. They snag one of them.

CUSA is now at 12 and the Sun Belt moves to invite the four Texas schools, change the name of the league to the National, for purposes of stats and league history has no record book, everyone is a new member with the same entry date (see Big 8 becoming Big XII).

In the meantime, La.Tech and USM have decisions to make, Conference USA or the National? They make their decisions and memberships adjust accordingly.

Smoke clears and there is no longer a Sun Belt, instead there is a league called the National centered around the Southwestern United States with a few stragglers here and there and a league called CUSA centered around the Southeastern United States with maybe a straggler here and there.

The whole thing is marketed as creating a new league and no one joined the Sun Belt.

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

(05-26-2014 10:48 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  No one from CUSA will be moving to the SBC or at least not unless it gets so bad money dries up and schools need to cut their budgets by 30%...

that's the ONLY WAY you might see more regional conferences. But doesn't that go against what most of our schools fought to get away from and how we ended up where we are today?

It's not the "TV dollars" that's making schools like muts, WKU, UNT switch conferences. In WKU's case it's the names on the jerseys of our opponents that attracted Western to CUSA. Old basketball rivals

The potential for more NCAA Units is greater in CUSA and could easily be worth more than any TV money that might be lost

To be fair though. WKU fought to get away to play in a better basketball league with more Geographic schools in UAB, etc. WKU doesn't care one way or the other about whether or not UTSA is in the league, and if the Road Runners left, it would not bother them in the least.

Likewise, UTSA joined CUSA to join with three other Texas programs, and create their own Geographic rivalries. WKU is of no importance to the UTSA administration in the grand scheme.

As arkstfan said above, if it happens, the SBC Would be no more, and a new league would be formed and renamed with the local SBC schools and the Western half of CUSA, while the Eastern half takes what it wants of the Eastern SBC and forms.

.

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

Good post.

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

(05-27-2014 06:11 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

HAHA!! Go home fool. you're drunk.

Have your pubescent AD keep an eye on whats happening at UL, maybe one day you can be successful too.

Z

I'm not reading all this.

I just want to question whether it's possible for the S-BC conference TV contract to be even less than it is now.

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

It is business.

Unfortunately, most the leadership in the G5 leagues don't realize it, but they are in the buggy whip business competing with Henry Ford.

If you look closely and carefully at what has happened with the AAC and CUSA (Sun Belt while making similar ill-advised actions, did so for different reasons) they are responding to the the lessons of the SWC, Big 8 and Big XII.

Those lessons being you have to increase geographic reach, gain large TV markets, and stop being hyper-regional.

It isn't 1994 any more. The Big XII formed when ESPN2 was 5 months old and the people in Bristol thought there was a large market for cool youth oriented niche sports. Fox had just signed the NFL to their fledgling network. CSTV (later CBS Sports) was nearly a decade away.

In 1994 the bulk of ESPN's revenue came from advertising. Two decades later, advertising is 25% of their revenue.

Remember the Big XII combined to get on ABC. How did ABC distribute the Big XII at that time? Regionally. Affiliates received one of multiple feeds based on location. The Big 8 feed went to places like Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, Ames, Topeka, Tulsa, Oklahoma City. The SWC feed went to Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Tyler, etc. Combined into the Big XII there was one feed serving all those cities instead of two feeds.

Why did AAC's TV contract come in at one-third of the estimate? Their TV consultants badly misunderstood the state of the TV economy. The value in Nebraska or Texas or Clemson is more in having a product that consumers will not do without. I have satellite TV for two reasons. My wife wants HBO and I want sports. If HBO produces some loser programs when her vampire and sword fight shows play out, she won't want HBO. If I had an alternative for sports (legal) I'd dump my package with ESPN/ESPN2/FS1/CBSS/NBCS/FoxSW.

In a TV market economy AAC is worth a lot more than they are getting. In a TV ratings (ie. ad supported) economy AAC is easily worth the $6 million per they were looking for. But we are in a carriage fee economy and the number of people who no longer care if they get ESPN if AAC isn't on isn't that significant of a number.

We are already moving beyond the now traditional carriage fee economy to a digital rights model. Major League Soccer will get a 5X bump in rights next year and per my conversations with a league official, the majority of that increase is from ESPN buying the league's digital rights which they will move from the subscription based MLS Live platform to the carriage fee based ESPN3 platform.

The G5 leadership fails to understand that mimicking the P5 model they are going to lose out even more in trying to keep up with the P5.

You aren't going to beat Wal-Mart by carrying a broad inventory and trying to match them in volume. Instead whole new groups of retailers are emerging who have learned to find a niche and beat Wal-Mart on service or selection or by creating smaller stores with small selections of many products and having a store you can easily walk across and park near the front door.

Pick your niche(s) and win them.
See next post.

Right now there are three niches the G5 can exploit.

1. Syndicated over-the-air broadcast. Anyone who grew up in SWC or SEC country remembers this (especially SEC country since it lasted until 2013 there). The P5 abandoned this model because it is purely ad driven. Local TV stations do generally get a carriage fee but in the big picture it's not serious money and has more to do with the leverage they have in offering network programming. The issue for syndicated OTA is you need some geographic compactness. An El Dorado/Monroe station obviously wants north Louisiana content, if they can get it, then Arkansas or even Texas or Mississippi based content will work to fill some of the gaps. What they don't want is a lot of Georgia, North Carolina, Viriginia, etc. content. Likewise the broadcaster in Birmingham will take Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia content but start throwing a lot of Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and they lose interest. The key to OTA is giving them something that will have at least some modest interest when the regional team(s) aren't playing.
2. Regional Sports Network. The RSN's have a real dearth of content unless they are located in an area with a lot of pro concentration. Currently the Fox affiliated networks are getting some spill over Big XII and P12 content but they have lost their ability to purchase SEC over-supply starting this year and lost the Big 10 when BTN launched. Comcast Sports SE held no pro content and they are shutting down because they can no longer purchase excess SEC inventory. Again going back to the lessons of 1994. The RSN's were not quite the staple of the cable subscription of that day. Today most every cable or satellite subscription includes your local RSN. Since the lines for distribution get a bit fuzzy it is hard to state it definitively but my best estimate based on the data I can find is that no G5 conference has more than five teams in any distribution footprint. In other words, there is no critical mass, any RSN taking a contract with an existing G5 is going to be stuck with a majority of games featuring at least one out-of-market team and a minority but significant number of games featuring no in-market teams. What if CUSA-Texas + La. Tech had a package with the Sun Belt west of the Mississippi? That's ten football and 12 basketball schools located in the Fox SW distribution area (nine football, 11 basketball if I'm wrong about Las Cruces). That's critical mass.
3. Digital distribution. This is a rapidly growing field. Next half of all TV's in service are expected to be able to connect to the internet. The market for boxes to connect to the internet is growing with Amazon joining Apple and Roku in the market. This is an intriguing marketplace. First it's a bigger deal in recruiting than many realize. Among African-Americans under age 24, far and away their biggest access point to the internet is mobile devices. While its big with white youth, they are more likely to have access to a desktop or laptop. Connected TV's demographics look like a doughnut right now with poorer and richer households adopting at higher rates than the middle incomes. It is a low cost TV access point for the poor home and it is popular in higher income homes because of the variety of programming and the ability to be free from a program schedule. In the higher income home, it is a programming supplement. So this is a growing arena. What makes it even more interesting is that ESPN is busy locking up as much as it can in digital rights. There really isn't enough P5 content to go around and MLB, NBA and NHL are currently resisting ESPN, Fox, and NBC attempts to get those rights because the subscription model is working for them and they expect it to really boom in the future. Since ESPN is unable to obtain much premium content (currently has to hold back ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU from the digital platform unless you have a validated cable subscription to keep cable and satellite happy), they are going heavy into niche sports, and more regional content. Right now the model is volume and it is apparent that anyone capable of drawing any sort of audience is of value because they want to make the ESPN3 platform too important for internet providers to not offer. As a revenue stream, they've not scratched the surface yet. They carry virtually no advertising even though there is potential there, especially in targeted advertising as they gather demographic information. Right now ESPN is solely focused on gathering are much content as possible and they are generally not paying any production costs. The production cost shifts to the school or to the RSN or syndicated TV network producing locally. The money there is still a few years off but the G5 should be amping up the number of games made available in order to develop a loyal and engaged audience because a loyal and engaged audience will make it a valuable property just as happened with MLS.

As long as G5 leagues try to replicate the P5 model of reaching across several regions instead of one or two the ability to effectively monetize the first two options is severely limited.

The only way the G5 leagues can follow the P5 model is by creating a joint venture placing their TV rights under one LLC owned by the leagues and then distributing revenue based on the games telecast adjusted for network and broadcast window, which is how the NCAA did it until the Supreme Court struck down their deal, and is how the CFA did it until the Big East and SEC pulled out to cut their own deals.