(06-10-2015 08:57 AM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  Here's the problem - it doesn't matter if it tanks. It just needs to be better than the other options (SBC/MAC/Whatever). And it likely will be.

What makes you say that?

No one is particularly fond of Conference USA save Conference USA fans, just like the rest of the non-AAC G5. The new CUSA deal will be virtually the same as the MAC and SBC, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.

(06-10-2015 10:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:09 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  1. Cusa money increases. I don't see this happening. Unless ESPN comes in at near current numbers and forces FOX/CBS to increase spending if they don't want ESPN to basically monopolize CFB. IF ESPN does beat out FOX/CBS for cusa then it'll just do the same thing to them as it does with the SBC.

2. Money stays the same. Very possible. Maybe the viewership and potential viewership changed little after the shuffle and the networks see it as money well spent.

3. Money decreases. Also very possible. Viewership has gone down, tv execs haven't seen enough ad revenue, no competition for these games, etc...


What I think will happen is that CUSA will see a decrease in their new deal (not to the MAC/SBC level). But in the future the new SBC deal will increase (it'll all depend how teams are performing) and close the gap to virtually nothing. Then you will see if teams leave or stay put. I don't see basketball being that big of a draw for CUSA teams to push the tv deal over the top (I know some in Cusa land think so).
In the end the AAC remains on top with MWC 2nd and then everyone else. Until the next round tv deals.

MAC picked up $10 million in their deal. I don't think $14 million (status quo) is implausible

You can structure a deal that looks like any amount you want in the headline. The devil is in the details.

If CUSA deal does drop I expect the headline to say it went up/stayed the same and for everyone to be all smiles with bands playing.

(06-10-2015 10:32 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 10:09 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  1. Cusa money increases. I don't see this happening. Unless ESPN comes in at near current numbers and forces FOX/CBS to increase spending if they don't want ESPN to basically monopolize CFB. IF ESPN does beat out FOX/CBS for cusa then it'll just do the same thing to them as it does with the SBC.

2. Money stays the same. Very possible. Maybe the viewership and potential viewership changed little after the shuffle and the networks see it as money well spent.

3. Money decreases. Also very possible. Viewership has gone down, tv execs haven't seen enough ad revenue, no competition for these games, etc...


What I think will happen is that CUSA will see a decrease in their new deal (not to the MAC/SBC level). But in the future the new SBC deal will increase (it'll all depend how teams are performing) and close the gap to virtually nothing. Then you will see if teams leave or stay put. I don't see basketball being that big of a draw for CUSA teams to push the tv deal over the top (I know some in Cusa land think so).
In the end the AAC remains on top with MWC 2nd and then everyone else. Until the next round tv deals.

MAC picked up $10 million in their deal. I don't think $14 million (status quo) is implausible

You can structure a deal that looks like any amount you want in the headline. The devil is in the details.

If CUSA deal does drop I expect the headline to say it went up/stayed the same and for everyone to be all smiles with bands playing.

You mean like...
Fox increased it's rights fee 50%




(and CBS didn't bid)

(06-10-2015 09:59 AM)JTApps1 Wrote:  Even split for each team.

And when CUSA fails and the Sun Belt becomes THE conference in G5... How well will that be received by Sun Belt teams?

When the TV contract gets to the point that they are only showing Sun Belt games, with the occasional MAC game (only game that really gets televised for CUSA is the championship game), why are we getting paid the same as CUSA?

Where's the benefit for the Sun Belt teams?

(06-10-2015 10:09 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  1. Cusa money increases. I don't see this happening. Unless ESPN comes in at near current numbers and forces FOX/CBS to increase spending if they don't want ESPN to basically monopolize CFB. IF ESPN does beat out FOX/CBS for cusa then it'll just do the same thing to them as it does with the SBC.

2. Money stays the same. Very possible. Maybe the viewership and potential viewership changed little after the shuffle and the networks see it as money well spent.

3. Money decreases. Also very possible. Viewership has gone down, tv execs haven't seen enough ad revenue, no competition for these games, etc...


What I think will happen is that CUSA will see a decrease in their new deal (not to the MAC/SBC level). But in the future the new SBC deal will increase (it'll all depend how teams are performing) and close the gap to virtually nothing. Then you will see if teams leave or stay put. I don't see basketball being that big of a draw for CUSA teams to push the tv deal over the top (I know some in Cusa land think so).
In the end the AAC remains on top with MWC 2nd and then everyone else. Until the next round tv deals.

If my memory serves me, the posters over there were recently trying to put lipstick on what was formerly a pig...........midweek games.

I'd like for someone to explain to me why playing Tuesday or Thursday is worse than playing on Friday.

Sure Friday may be easier for most fans but isn't one of the main reasons you want to be on TV recruiting. The kids you are recruiting play on Friday night.

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:37 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  There should be an alliance between all G5 conferences, at this point.

There will be when it makes financial sense.

If you don't see that it would now, it's already too late for you.

(06-09-2015 09:11 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Why on Earth would the value of the CUSA TV deal not tank? Didn't Fox just this past year buy AAC games from ESPN and opt not to show all of the CUSA games that they could?

I could see a drop, but tank I am not sure about. It depends on how much Fox values CUSA football and basketball and if they see any upside there. Right now Fox pays about $7 million per season to CUSA and CBS about the same.

CBS has apparently figured out that sub-licensing AAC and MAC games will cost less money for a similar quality of football. I think they are done with CUSA. ESPN has too much content and NBC is not going to get involved. I could see Fox paying $10 million per year for the whole package. They need content and CUSA needs exposure. That is still a lot more than the Sun Belt is getting. A drop, but not a tank.

8-10 million seems about right, just cant imagine Fox would give much more considering 1. there probably isn't going to be competition for USA to drive up the price, and 2. most of the teams, FAU, Charlotte, FIU, Old Dominion etc, are going to be terrible atleast for the next 3 or 4 years, and only one team, Marshall has any kind of national exposure, and really has a shot at being a consistent top 25 program. If your Fox do you really want to match or increase their present contract just so you can have the exclusive rights to the big game of the week, 2-10 FAU vs. 3-9 FIU, played in from of a 7 thousand fans?

(06-10-2015 11:38 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 09:11 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Why on Earth would the value of the CUSA TV deal not tank? Didn't Fox just this past year buy AAC games from ESPN and opt not to show all of the CUSA games that they could?

I could see a drop, but tank I am not sure about. It depends on how much Fox values CUSA football and basketball and if they see any upside there. Right now Fox pays about $7 million per season to CUSA and CBS about the same.

CBS has apparently figured out that sub-licensing AAC and MAC games will cost less money for a similar quality of football. I think they are done with CUSA. ESPN has too much content and NBC is not going to get involved. I could see Fox paying $10 million per year for the whole package. They need content and CUSA needs exposure. That is still a lot more than the Sun Belt is getting. A drop, but not a tank.

That scenario is exactly why it would tank. If no one else wants them, FOX can offer the same or less then they are offering now and that would mean a 50% or more drop in tv revenue. That is what I would consider tanking.

The SBC makes virtually nothing so we basically have only one way to go or we could stay the same. Any increase would do wonders for our conference. I think each SBC team gets about ~150k/year, could you imagine a new deal that gave ~$1M/year to each team. The product is as good as any other G5. It will come down to viewership to attract ad money. That's why it is important for all SBC fans to watch other SBC games even if it is a rival.

I would be OK with our contract going down or staying the same, as long as it resulted in better exposure.

Lets say we could take $14 million and keep the current situation OR we could take $10-12 million with Fox investing into us on FS2. Well I would take less money and more FS2.

With the MAC getting $10 million/ year. I see us at least getting $14 million/year. Which, when you consider inflation, staying the same is still a drop in value.

Marshall, So Miss, UTEP, and RICE will all be guaranteed our current payout. Those who left CUSA would have to make up the difference if it were to go down.

(06-10-2015 12:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would be OK with our contract going down or staying the same, as long as it resulted in better exposure.

Lets say we could take $14 million and keep the current situation OR we could take $10-12 million with Fox investing into us on FS2. Well I would take less money and more FS2.

With the MAC getting $10 million/ year. I see us at least getting $14 million/year. Which, when you consider inflation, staying the same is still a drop in value.

Marshall, So Miss, UTEP, and RICE will all be guaranteed our current payout. Those who left CUSA would have to make up the difference if it were to go down.

FS2 is a wash vs. CBSSN in exposure but the integration is superior for the product promotion.

(06-10-2015 10:26 AM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:57 AM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  Here's the problem - it doesn't matter if it tanks. It just needs to be better than the other options (SBC/MAC/Whatever). And it likely will be.

What makes you say that?

No one is particularly fond of Conference USA save Conference USA fans, just like the rest of the non-AAC G5. The new CUSA deal will be virtually the same as the MAC and SBC, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.

The odds of CUSA ending up with a TV deal similar to the SBC is slim. Very slim.

We'll see though.

(06-10-2015 12:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 12:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would be OK with our contract going down or staying the same, as long as it resulted in better exposure.

Lets say we could take $14 million and keep the current situation OR we could take $10-12 million with Fox investing into us on FS2. Well I would take less money and more FS2.

With the MAC getting $10 million/ year. I see us at least getting $14 million/year. Which, when you consider inflation, staying the same is still a drop in value.

Marshall, So Miss, UTEP, and RICE will all be guaranteed our current payout. Those who left CUSA would have to make up the difference if it were to go down.

FS2 is a wash vs. CBSSN in exposure but the integration is superior for the product promotion.

I think there is a slight difference. CBSSN is a part of Comcast's basic package while FS2 is not available amongst 90% of their subscribers. Comcast accounts for over 30% of cable/sat subscribers. Don't worry about writing a letter, I already have.

(06-10-2015 11:01 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:46 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 08:37 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  There should be an alliance between all G5 conferences, at this point.

There will be when it makes financial sense.

If you don't see that it would now, it's already too late for you.

Alliance: a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations: an alliance between church and state.


Okay, I'll bite. What's in it financially for the AAC, or the MWC for that matter, to form an alliance with the Belt? And what leverage would such an alliance possess that they don't already possess themsevles?

I'm not disputing your belief, I'd just like a real-world explanation of why and how.

(06-09-2015 01:02 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 12:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Why don't we build the conference we have instead of relying on a) a magical golden ticket to be with FIU, b) FIU magically deciding to come back to our conference.

Don't think anyone wants anything to do with F_U. But USM, now that is something I can work with.

I think what he is saying is build the brand as we currently sit, don't add more now. Wait, if the CCG rules change, we don't need 12, if they do change the rules then the Big 12 will be in raiding mode and CUSA will take a hit. When that happens, we attack as well.

Ultimately it comes down to no reason for adding anyone right now, I don't care how many threads we start about expansion.

USAJags, I like your thinking.

(06-10-2015 12:46 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 12:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 12:09 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I would be OK with our contract going down or staying the same, as long as it resulted in better exposure.

Lets say we could take $14 million and keep the current situation OR we could take $10-12 million with Fox investing into us on FS2. Well I would take less money and more FS2.

With the MAC getting $10 million/ year. I see us at least getting $14 million/year. Which, when you consider inflation, staying the same is still a drop in value.

Marshall, So Miss, UTEP, and RICE will all be guaranteed our current payout. Those who left CUSA would have to make up the difference if it were to go down.

FS2 is a wash vs. CBSSN in exposure but the integration is superior for the product promotion.

I think there is a slight difference. CBSSN is a part of Comcast's basic package while FS2 is not available amongst 90% of their subscribers. Comcast accounts for over 30% of cable/sat subscribers. Don't worry about writing a letter, I already have.

Depends on the provider but both are in roughly the same number of homes.

BASKETBALL BASKETBALL BASKETBALL.....

yes football drives the bus but the key to larger increases in revenue for a conference not in the P5 is basketball

In CUSA you have a lot more schools that see themselves with a dual role as football and basketball programs. Only a few of the schools see themselves as "football" schools.

you sent 1 team to the NCAA tournament last year, and Charlotte a team you count on to be one of the better programs in basketball, just lost their best remaining player, transferring to NC State, I believe that's 5 kids leaving in the last 2 months, including all of their best players, its going to take yrs for the new coach to turn things around, correct me if Im wrong, but I don't see USA being much better than SBC going forward in basketball.

(06-10-2015 01:29 PM)moehler Wrote:  you sent 1 team to the NCAA tournament last year, and Charlotte a team you count on to be one of the better programs in basketball, just lost their best remaining player, transferring to NC State, I believe that's 5 kids leaving in the last 2 months, including all of their best players, its going to take yrs for the new coach to turn things around, correct me if Im wrong, but I don't see USA being much better than SBC going forward in basketball.

Cusa has teams that actually care about basketball. They have a much better shot than we do at sending 2 teams to the tournament. That's why we want NMSU....basketball matters.