(05-27-2015 01:26 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

Quote:Still, that pales in comparison to the roughly $21 million in conference revenue distribution that SEC members got a year ago.

Earned.

(05-27-2015 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:50 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:44 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I find it extraordinary that CUSA has members with budgets below $25 million. I can understand how the MAC gets away with it being a much tighter knit league but some CUSA team's budgets must be strapped given the travel costs. The budget numbers illuminate why some members of the conference can't put together a decent OOC basketball schedule and play multiple body-bag games in football every year.

Only a single Sun Belt school over $30 million. That should shed some light on a front runner if CUSA needs to add another team soon.

Eastern Michigan has a budget of $30 million. Of course 83% of it is in subsidy but they spend $30 million. They've not won a conference title in football since 1987 or been to the Dance since 1998 but they spend $30 million.

No doubt budget isn't the only factor involved in success. But it is naive to believe it isn't a significant factor in developing, sustaining and, perhaps most importantly, capitalizing on success.

Arkansas State hasn't been to the Dance since 1999 but I'm sure the peanuts you spend on basketball has no impact .

We prefer football. As they say in message board land, it drives the bus.

We also exercise fiscal restraint. Bumped our budget four million while reducing the percentage of budget from subsidy.

Which is fine but lets not pretend you can compete at a high level in multiple sports or even compete long-term in a sport like football without a significant budget. Arkansas State was pretty lucky Georgia Southern and App State were ineligible last season to extend your bowl streak. You guys have done a really great job staying successful despite the turnover.

Plenty in CUSA complain about difficulties in basketball (particularly in OOC scheduling) and I can't help but think budgetary constraints are a serious issue thus my observation regarding lower budgets.

(05-27-2015 10:44 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I find it extraordinary that CUSA has members with budgets below $25 million. I can understand how the MAC gets away with it being a much tighter knit league but some CUSA team's budgets must be strapped given the travel costs. The budget numbers illuminate why some members of the conference can't put together a decent OOC basketball schedule and play multiple body-bag games in football every year.

Only a single Sun Belt school over $30 million. That should shed some light on a front runner if CUSA needs to add another team soon.

ULL?

(05-27-2015 04:57 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:44 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I find it extraordinary that CUSA has members with budgets below $25 million. I can understand how the MAC gets away with it being a much tighter knit league but some CUSA team's budgets must be strapped given the travel costs. The budget numbers illuminate why some members of the conference can't put together a decent OOC basketball schedule and play multiple body-bag games in football every year.

Only a single Sun Belt school over $30 million. That should shed some light on a front runner if CUSA needs to add another team soon.

ULL?

Texas State.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The joke about P5 football schools is that they just simply got the luck of being thrown into the right conference at the right time. I promise Tech could be consistently better than the Iowa State/Kentucky/Vandy/Mississippi State/Kansas State/Rutgers/Indiana/Colorado/Washington/etc of the P5 if we had access to their guaranteed TV revenue money.

(05-27-2015 06:47 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  The joke about P5 football schools is that they just simply got the luck of being thrown into the right conference at the right time. I promise Tech could be consistently better than the Iowa State/Kentucky/Vandy/Mississippi State/Kansas State/Rutgers/Indiana/Colorado/Washington/etc of the P5 if we had access to their guaranteed TV revenue money.

So could just about "any" Non-Cartel University playing in FBS! Money does make a difference. All you have to do is track the Budgets of all of the Non-Cartel Conferences and their members. The folks with the bigger budgets generally enjoy the most success.

(05-27-2015 07:04 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:47 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  The joke about P5 football schools is that they just simply got the luck of being thrown into the right conference at the right time. I promise Tech could be consistently better than the Iowa State/Kentucky/Vandy/Mississippi State/Kansas State/Rutgers/Indiana/Colorado/Washington/etc of the P5 if we had access to their guaranteed TV revenue money.

So could just about "any" Non-Cartel University playing in FBS! Money does make a difference. All you have to do is track the Budgets of all of the Non-Cartel Conferences and their members. The folks with the bigger budgets generally enjoy the most success.

This is true of almost every business. And college football is big business.

(05-27-2015 07:12 PM)JPFIU Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:04 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:47 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  The joke about P5 football schools is that they just simply got the luck of being thrown into the right conference at the right time. I promise Tech could be consistently better than the Iowa State/Kentucky/Vandy/Mississippi State/Kansas State/Rutgers/Indiana/Colorado/Washington/etc of the P5 if we had access to their guaranteed TV revenue money.

So could just about "any" Non-Cartel University playing in FBS! Money does make a difference. All you have to do is track the Budgets of all of the Non-Cartel Conferences and their members. The folks with the bigger budgets generally enjoy the most success.

This is true of almost every business. And college football is big business.

USM football bucked the trend for a very long time. And we'll be back. Baseball, too. Basketball is in trouble.

(05-27-2015 07:21 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:12 PM)JPFIU Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:04 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:47 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  The joke about P5 football schools is that they just simply got the luck of being thrown into the right conference at the right time. I promise Tech could be consistently better than the Iowa State/Kentucky/Vandy/Mississippi State/Kansas State/Rutgers/Indiana/Colorado/Washington/etc of the P5 if we had access to their guaranteed TV revenue money.

So could just about "any" Non-Cartel University playing in FBS! Money does make a difference. All you have to do is track the Budgets of all of the Non-Cartel Conferences and their members. The folks with the bigger budgets generally enjoy the most success.

This is true of almost every business. And college football is big business.

USM football bucked the trend for a very long time. And we'll be back. Baseball, too. Basketball is in trouble.

No doubt its possible. USM, NIU, and Boise are recent examples. But hard to keep a program on top without money. The biggest problem with lacking funds is keeping talented coaches. Marshall has been lucky to have Doc. But La Tech just lost a heck of a basketball coach. I've also been impressed with WKU's ability to replace (reload) coaches.

(05-27-2015 05:15 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 04:57 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:44 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I find it extraordinary that CUSA has members with budgets below $25 million. I can understand how the MAC gets away with it being a much tighter knit league but some CUSA team's budgets must be strapped given the travel costs. The budget numbers illuminate why some members of the conference can't put together a decent OOC basketball schedule and play multiple body-bag games in football every year.

Only a single Sun Belt school over $30 million. That should shed some light on a front runner if CUSA needs to add another team soon.

ULL?

Texas State.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Hmmm. Noticed that GA State was right below them in budget at over $27 million in the article you quoted. (WKU already in CUSA now.) And Atlanta > San Marcos.

(05-27-2015 01:29 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 01:26 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

Quote:Still, that pales in comparison to the roughly $21 million in conference revenue distribution that SEC members got a year ago.

Earned.

2014 Average Home Attendance Records

SEC 77,694
C-USA 20,544
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2014.pdf

UNCC 13,272

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Charlo...tball_team

Ummm, yeah. They earned it.

Sorry guys. I didn't mean to start up another Sun Belt pee contest. Here we go again.

(05-27-2015 10:44 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Sorry guys. I didn't mean to start up another Sun Belt pee contest. Here we go again.

If your comment was aimed at me, my thoughts had absolutley nothing to do with conference affiliation. The SEC has clearly leveraged their position in college football into a money-making giant. Hence my original comment that they earn their money and aren't given it. Fan support is but one measure of their success at what they do.

(05-27-2015 10:44 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Sorry guys. I didn't mean to start up another Sun Belt pee contest. Here we go again.

You started a thread on the C-USA board, that inevitably results in a Sun Belt pee contest.

(05-27-2015 02:16 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:50 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:44 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I find it extraordinary that CUSA has members with budgets below $25 million. I can understand how the MAC gets away with it being a much tighter knit league but some CUSA team's budgets must be strapped given the travel costs. The budget numbers illuminate why some members of the conference can't put together a decent OOC basketball schedule and play multiple body-bag games in football every year.

Only a single Sun Belt school over $30 million. That should shed some light on a front runner if CUSA needs to add another team soon.

Eastern Michigan has a budget of $30 million. Of course 83% of it is in subsidy but they spend $30 million. They've not won a conference title in football since 1987 or been to the Dance since 1998 but they spend $30 million.

No doubt budget isn't the only factor involved in success. But it is naive to believe it isn't a significant factor in developing, sustaining and, perhaps most importantly, capitalizing on success.

Arkansas State hasn't been to the Dance since 1999 but I'm sure the peanuts you spend on basketball has no impact .

We prefer football. As they say in message board land, it drives the bus.

We also exercise fiscal restraint. Bumped our budget four million while reducing the percentage of budget from subsidy.

Which is fine but lets not pretend you can compete at a high level in multiple sports or even compete long-term in a sport like football without a significant budget. Arkansas State was pretty lucky Georgia Southern and App State were ineligible last season to extend your bowl streak. You guys have done a really great job staying successful despite the turnover.

Plenty in CUSA complain about difficulties in basketball (particularly in OOC scheduling) and I can't help but think budgetary constraints are a serious issue thus my observation regarding lower budgets.

I'm not terribly concerned about hoops.

The athletic economy has changed. Now you need to spend at least $70,000 to get a buy game and the number of power league games on the road continues to fall. TV ratings for college basketball are softening and more importantly while the NBA Finals and the NCAA Final Four draw similar audiences the demographics are wildly different. NCAA Final Four viewers are much older, much whiter and more male than the NBA Finals audience.

College basketball is on a fast track to becoming a regional and a niche sport.

As to the coaching turnover, it caught up last year depth was a worry and we lost all but one starting down lineman on defense to injuries (and he was a true freshman) and most of the back-ups. We played a linebacker at DE late in the season.

(05-27-2015 10:44 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Sorry guys. I didn't mean to start up another Sun Belt pee contest. Here we go again.

Every mention of Sun Belt came from CUSA fans or a reply to a mention by a CUSA fan. Go back and reread the thread. Only peeing is CUSA based.

(05-27-2015 11:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:16 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:50 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Eastern Michigan has a budget of $30 million. Of course 83% of it is in subsidy but they spend $30 million. They've not won a conference title in football since 1987 or been to the Dance since 1998 but they spend $30 million.

No doubt budget isn't the only factor involved in success. But it is naive to believe it isn't a significant factor in developing, sustaining and, perhaps most importantly, capitalizing on success.

Arkansas State hasn't been to the Dance since 1999 but I'm sure the peanuts you spend on basketball has no impact .

We prefer football. As they say in message board land, it drives the bus.

We also exercise fiscal restraint. Bumped our budget four million while reducing the percentage of budget from subsidy.

Which is fine but lets not pretend you can compete at a high level in multiple sports or even compete long-term in a sport like football without a significant budget. Arkansas State was pretty lucky Georgia Southern and App State were ineligible last season to extend your bowl streak. You guys have done a really great job staying successful despite the turnover.

Plenty in CUSA complain about difficulties in basketball (particularly in OOC scheduling) and I can't help but think budgetary constraints are a serious issue thus my observation regarding lower budgets.

I'm not terribly concerned about hoops.

The athletic economy has changed. Now you need to spend at least $70,000 to get a buy game and the number of power league games on the road continues to fall. TV ratings for college basketball are softening and more importantly while the NBA Finals and the NCAA Final Four draw similar audiences the demographics are wildly different. NCAA Final Four viewers are much older, much whiter and more male than the NBA Finals audience.

College basketball is on a fast track to becoming a regional and a niche sport.

As to the coaching turnover, it caught up last year depth was a worry and we lost all but one starting down lineman on defense to injuries (and he was a true freshman) and most of the back-ups. We played a linebacker at DE late in the season.

You've gone far afield from the topic. This isn't about the relative merits of college basketball it is about how budgets impact competitiveness in major sports and across multiple sports in a school's AD. I know attempting to explain basketball's value to a Sun Belt ran is like explaining cell phones to a caveman.

The point is that smaller budgets have a more difficult time creating, sustaining and capitalizing on success. And this is even more evident for schools in a conference, like CUSA, where competitiveness across multiple sports is the expectation.

When is some lawyer wanting to make a name for himself going to file an anti-trust suit? again?

(05-28-2015 09:50 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  When is some lawyer wanting to make a name for himself going to file an anti-trust suit? again?

I felt that way too for a long while but believe the P5's, with the new structure recently put in place (and greater money-sharing arrangement with the G5's), have all but emasculated any potential effort on the part of an anti-trust suit. I'm not saying the ultimate success of such a suit is out of the question, I'm just saying that I believe it'd be much more difficult to win today than just a few years ago.