Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

(07-27-2014 08:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:25 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  We won't really know until the P5 announces what they will offer wether we can match all or just some. I am hoping that as a league we match them but too early to tell.

If the AAC doesn't, but individual schools within the AAC want to (and there will be more than one that do) then what? How does that work?

It will be up to each conference to decide how to allow the autonomous legislation to be followed. The conference could decide to allow it as a whole or they could leave it up to each school. That decision needs to be made by the AAC.

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

(07-27-2014 08:59 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:59 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

(07-25-2014 09:12 AM)3rdWardCoog Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 08:28 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  The part where the "transfer Rules", will only apply to the P5; Worries me. I know he said the rules would be reviewed every 2 years but still. A lot of damage can be done in that time.

He also backed off previous claims that we would spend on whatever the P5 decides to spend on.

Yes he did but to be fair he stated "We don't know exactly what that is. We will cover what is needed and something's might not be" (give or take some words). I think anyone was a little fooled if you thought we could do EVERYTHING they did. Now what things can we do? Can we afford to cover the families entire trip to games or maybe room and meal? The AAC has to be smart about the things that really matter and get the most bang for the buck.

That would be good for ucf if we were allowed to pay for families to come to football games. Good recruiting get for us if families can hang out in the #1 travel designation.

Let's be honest, some schools are already doing this...cough Bridgewater and Rodgers...cough.

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:59 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

(07-27-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:59 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

Stadium size was part of the old revenue model when TV wasn't a big source of revenue and premium was essentially a better view and quicker access to the restrooms and concessions. Under that model the easiest way to raise revenue was to have more people in the building.

Regarding the Aresco interview. As much I would like to see it happen, the American isn't going to become a power conference. Schools might get promoted but an entire conference will not. The best case scenario for the American would be stability and a TV deal from ESPN in the range of 6 million to 9 million per school. Couple that with legislation that allows the American to compete with the power five and you have yourself a conference that is clearly the best of the rest. I believe there is still a good chance of that happening if things remain stable. Actually I am expecting the American to get a raise in a couple of years when they sign an extension.

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

Start by cutting non revenue sports to free up money in the budget to be spent on the revenue generating sports like football and basketball. It’s the firestorm Temple had to go through back in the fall when they cut 7 programs, they never cut the athletic budget just the number of programs drawing from it.

(07-27-2014 10:09 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

Start by cutting non revenue sports to free up money in the budget to be spent on the revenue generating sports like football and basketball. It’s the firestorm Temple had to go through back in the fall when they cut 7 programs, they never cut the athletic budget just the number of programs drawing from it.

UC did this and it tanked our non revenue sports to the point our Director Cup standing where/are awful. We have since added the non revenue sports back on scholly but the damage has been done and we are behind the 8ball now. They will come back in time, but man did it tank those sports. I wouldn't recommend this unless it's total and last resort. I assume UC regrets doing it. At least they are back on payroll now.

edit: to be clear, UC didn't cut non revenue sports, we just made them no scholarship...which was like cutting them essentially.

(07-27-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:59 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:54 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Question where will the American schools get the money to close the revenue gap between the G5 and P5 schools? Revenue will determine the G5's ability to match the P5. Right now the revenue is not there for the majority of G5 schools.

good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

Agree and that was the plan Louisville used when we started olaying in Papa Johns Cardinal Stadium.

(07-27-2014 10:16 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:59 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  good question Wilkie....

I saw somewhere that UC and UCONN's athletic budgets were both north of 60 million last year. I assume these two could pull it off. The question is, how will schools who's budget is half this or even worse than that pull it off. I don't know. The desire may be there for them, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

Agree and that was the plan Louisville used when we started olaying in Papa Johns Cardinal Stadium.

You were playing in a minor league baseball stadium. The plan was to stop playing in a minor league baseball stadium.

(07-27-2014 10:25 AM)TRest3 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 10:16 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

Agree and that was the plan Louisville used when we started olaying in Papa Johns Cardinal Stadium.

You were playing in a minor league baseball stadium. The plan was to stop playing in a minor league baseball stadium.

(07-27-2014 10:25 AM)TRest3 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 10:16 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Agree and that was the plan Louisville used when we started olaying in Papa Johns Cardinal Stadium.

You were playing in a minor league baseball stadium. The plan was to stop playing in a minor league baseball stadium.

I'll dare you to use truth and or reality in any comment on this board.

(07-27-2014 10:32 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 10:25 AM)TRest3 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 10:16 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

Agree and that was the plan Louisville used when we started olaying in Papa Johns Cardinal Stadium.

You were playing in a minor league baseball stadium. The plan was to stop playing in a minor league baseball stadium.

Truth hurts. It's clear the ACC fans have no use for you, so you keep coming back here. I will see your coffee emoticon and raise you one.

(07-25-2014 09:12 AM)3rdWardCoog Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 08:28 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  The part where the "transfer Rules", will only apply to the P5; Worries me. I know he said the rules would be reviewed every 2 years but still. A lot of damage can be done in that time.

He also backed off previous claims that we would spend on whatever the P5 decides to spend on.

Yes he did but to be fair he stated "We don't know exactly what that is. We will cover what is needed and something's might not be" (give or take some words). I think anyone was a little fooled if you thought we could do EVERYTHING they did. Now what things can we do? Can we afford to cover the families entire trip to games or maybe room and meal? The AAC has to be smart about the things that really matter and get the most bang for the buck.

I don't think anybody actually thought we would be able to match everything the P5 will do. I've said repeatedly that we'll match the cost of attendance money but all the other perks they're gong to offer is where the G5 will get burnt.

(07-27-2014 10:25 AM)TRest3 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 10:16 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:22 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just about all AAC schools are WAY too reliant on students fees and/or general school money to fund our athletic programs. Until ticket sales and athletic contributions by alumni rise, we will struggle to keep up.

that's why the Nippert expansion is key for UC....we are adding revenue seats, not general seating. People asked why Cincy didn't go "big" and try and get the expanded Nippert to 50K, and we could have if we were just going to add general seating. But we are adding luxury boxes, suites, loge etc and these carry a big price tag. So far most of them have already been pre sold so this is going to be a huge bump in revenue. So the five to ten thousand seats we ARE adding (looks like final capacity will be 40-45K) are high dollar seats. This is doing it right. It shows UC's leadership understands whats important (revenue production vs what looks good on a piece of paper, i.e. capacity of stadium).

Exactly. Far better to have 20 suites that bring in $30k a year each and 1,000 club seats that bring in $1,500 a year each than 10,000 bleacher seats that are practically given away to students.

Sure, you need a certain critical mass of fans in the stands and raucous students, but the real need is for those high-dollar seats.

RJS has some benefits for USF but one of the big drawbacks is not being in control of high-revenue seating.

Agree and that was the plan Louisville used when we started olaying in Papa Johns Cardinal Stadium.

You were playing in a minor league baseball stadium. The plan was to stop playing in a minor league baseball stadium.

My hunch is that you will get a majority of American and MWC schools, but not all, that will match the P5 in critical spending increases, such as full cost scholarships (ie, player stipends), 4-year scholarships, meals (to at least a critical minimum). There will also likely be a couple of C-USA, MAC, and may be Sun Belt teams that step up. Rice? UTEP? Northern Illinois? Marshall?

That will create some competitive imbalances within the American and MWC, such that it could become plausible that some of the "lesser" teams might consider to leave to stay competitive. It will be interesting to see how it affects realignment at the G5-level.

(07-28-2014 01:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  My hunch is that you will get a majority of American and MWC schools, but not all, that will match the P5 in critical spending increases, such as full cost scholarships (ie, player stipends), 4-year scholarships, meals (to at least a critical minimum). There will also likely be a couple of C-USA, MAC, and may be Sun Belt teams that step up. Rice? UTEP? Northern Illinois? Marshall?

That will create some competitive imbalances within the American and MWC, such that it could become plausible that some of the "lesser" teams might consider to leave to stay competitive. It will be interesting to see how it affects realignment at the G5-level.

This could cause the merger that did not happen earlier. The survive teams:

Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Houston
Boise State
BYU
Colorado State
Fresno State
New Mexico
San Diego State

I think you'd see 14 schools, not the 12 above. You add Tulane and SMU, for TV markets, recruiting and some academic prestige (that conference would need it!).