Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
rokamortis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,981
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 160
I Root For: Coastal
Location:
Post: #61
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 04:17 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  If I had my way, I want the Sun Belt to become a league that we may poach a CUSA team or two. The only way that will happen, is for all to stick together. The problem is that if one in the SBC says no, someone else will say yes.

Its the classic 'prisoners dilemma'. Don't act and someone else will.

Unless the teams that would be the most likely poaching candidates (Ark State, App State, USA, ULL, Texas State, Ga Southern) all got together and said "20 million dollar exit fee to leave Sun Belt for the MAC or CUSA unless all 6 agree", then any discussion of raiding CUSA is kind of moot. ULM, Troy, Ga State, or Coastal are free to sign on to the agreement, but no one is raiding them at this time.

Isn't the regular buyout $2 million as it is? At this point that might be enough. There may be other reasons like wanting to align with other schools but from a fiscal standpoint I don't see it. Maybe the basketball money is better but the TV money doesn't look like it will move the needle much - especially if the SBC can do better than they have now, which should be doable.
04-29-2016 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #62
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
Follow the Money
-Deep Throat, All The President's Men

Conference realignment isn't about making cool little conference maps that look good.

It is about maximizing net income while aligning with like minded schools and gaining competitive advantage over those you compete with regionally for media and fan attention.

The largest television deal within the G5 is $18 million per year.
The now expired CUSA deal was $14 million and media reports tab the next deal at roughly $9 million.
The MAC deal reportedly $10 million.

The combined value of the five G5 television deals is roughly $56 million, call it $57 to assume CUSA matches the MAC deal, $61 million if they can match the old CUSA deal. This assumes that none of those deals shift any production costs to the schools and I don't believe that is true, I believe ESPN requires at least some assumption of costs for at least some of the ESPN3 productions.

The bowl profits for the G5 (which is almost exclusively CFP money because of the bowls being mostly breakevenish for the conferences) is $75 million.

Which pile of money is most significant? The CFP pile.

So now consider putting pen to paper analyzing whether to expand from the current or soon to be current alignments of 12, 12, 12, 14, and 10 in the G5.

The size of the CFP pool will not rise nor fall based on expansion past 10, everyone gets $10 million off the bat. The remainder of the roughly $25 million goes at as $6 million for making the Access bowl and $19 million based on performance. The total size of the performance pool should rise annually as it is a contract with escalating amounts but the pool is not impacted by adding new teams it is insulated from expansion.

Every school added beyond 10 reduces the share of the CFP pool. Now that can be offset if the school added improves the standing in the performance pool but the reduction can be magnified if it hurts the standing in the performance pool.

So any school added has to enhance the television deal.

Let's take a hypothetical involving the MAC. Last year revenue from CFP was $15 million and TV was $10 million. Divided 12 ways (ignoring UMass) $2,083,333 per team was earned by the MAC (again assuming there are no production costs deducted).

If the MAC were to lose EMU the share would be $2,272,727 if the TV rights don't fall. EMU the past three years had one MAC contract game that was on a national channel. This year there are four.

Odds are ESPN and CBS won't reduce the television rights payment if EMU is gone. Odds are EMU isn't helping their standing in the performance pool.

So it is a given that no one you could add increases the television revenue and in the CFP pool anyone you add is cutting into the $12.6 guaranteed ($10 million direct payment + last spot performance money) with no guarantee that they improve the performance pool revenue.

The reality of the current situation once you add in the ability to have a title game without having 12 is that no G5 conference has any incentive to expand unless BYU suddenly wants to join because they have real TV value and the only incentive to replace is if they fall below 10 or believe such a fall imminent or they believe the few hundred thousand per team is worth giving up in order to have easier scheduling.

If EMU were to quit, are there 9 MAC schools willing to concede roughly $200,000 in potential revenue gain just to make the schedule work out nicer?

The CFP money couple with championship game reform means 10 not 12 and certainly not 14 is the sweet spot.
04-29-2016 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppinVA Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,750
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location:
Post: #63
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 11:03 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 04:17 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  If I had my way, I want the Sun Belt to become a league that we may poach a CUSA team or two. The only way that will happen is for all to stick together. The problem is that if one in the SBC says no, someone else will say yes.

It's the classic 'prisoners dilemma'. Don't act and someone else will.

Unless the teams that would be the most likely poaching candidates (Ark State, App State, USA, ULL, Texas State, Ga Southern) all got together and said "20 million dollar exit fee to leave Sun Belt for the MAC or CUSA unless all 6 agree", then any discussion of raiding CUSA is kind of moot. ULM, Troy, Ga State, or Coastal are free to sign on to the agreement, but no one is raiding them at this time.

Isn't the regular buyout $2 million as it is? At this point, that might be enough. There may be other reasons like wanting to align with other schools but from a fiscal standpoint, I don't see it. Maybe the basketball money is better but the TV money doesn't look like it will move the needle much - especially if the SBC can do better than they have now, which should be doable.

The basketball money shouldn't be that much different. Consecutive years of having teams make the round of 32 should even that out, if not give us an edge.

The reasons today are prestige (false) and travel (real).
04-29-2016 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #64
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 04:17 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  If I had my way, I want the Sun Belt to become a league that we may poach a CUSA team or two. The only way that will happen, is for all to stick together. The problem is that if one in the SBC says no, someone else will say yes.

Its the classic 'prisoners dilemma'. Don't act and someone else will.

Unless the teams that would be the most likely poaching candidates (Ark State, App State, USA, ULL, Texas State, Ga Southern) all got together and said "20 million dollar exit fee to leave Sun Belt for the MAC or CUSA unless all 6 agree", then any discussion of raiding CUSA is kind of moot. ULM, Troy, Ga State, or Coastal are free to sign on to the agreement, but no one is raiding them at this time.

There is no prisoner's dilemma that we once knew. In the old days of a couple years ago, if you didn't jump you were at risk of getting screwed. Happened to Utah State but they ended up getting in MWC in the end.

Today there is essentially zero risk that another G5 conference calls and offers you an invite and if you decline you are hosed. The sweet spot for conferences is now 10. MWC, AAC, MAC are two over and CUSA is 4 over once UAB returns.

The only "risk" is that a P5 conference calls and takes a team but odds are you are better off financially not replacing the raided team. The CFP revenue share makes it better to stand pat at 11 or 10 if raided. The AAC and MWC have the only TV deals of consequence and replacing is only going to happen if TV insists but if the replacement comes from CUSA or MAC, the disincentive to replace is present.

The only positive financial moves left are aligning with leagues that can get you closer to 10 and can reduce travel costs and in the case of the MAC, their travel is as good as you could hope for already.
04-29-2016 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #65
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 11:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-29-2016 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 04:17 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  If I had my way, I want the Sun Belt to become a league that we may poach a CUSA team or two. The only way that will happen, is for all to stick together. The problem is that if one in the SBC says no, someone else will say yes.

Its the classic 'prisoners dilemma'. Don't act and someone else will.

Unless the teams that would be the most likely poaching candidates (Ark State, App State, USA, ULL, Texas State, Ga Southern) all got together and said "20 million dollar exit fee to leave Sun Belt for the MAC or CUSA unless all 6 agree", then any discussion of raiding CUSA is kind of moot. ULM, Troy, Ga State, or Coastal are free to sign on to the agreement, but no one is raiding them at this time.

There is no prisoner's dilemma that we once knew. In the old days of a couple years ago, if you didn't jump you were at risk of getting screwed. Happened to Utah State but they ended up getting in MWC in the end.

Today there is essentially zero risk that another G5 conference calls and offers you an invite and if you decline you are hosed. The sweet spot for conferences is now 10. MWC, AAC, MAC are two over and CUSA is 4 over once UAB returns.

The only "risk" is that a P5 conference calls and takes a team but odds are you are better off financially not replacing the raided team. The CFP revenue share makes it better to stand pat at 11 or 10 if raided. The AAC and MWC have the only TV deals of consequence and replacing is only going to happen if TV insists but if the replacement comes from CUSA or MAC, the disincentive to replace is present.

The only positive financial moves left are aligning with leagues that can get you closer to 10 and can reduce travel costs and in the case of the MAC, their travel is as good as you could hope for already.

In a perfect world. But in a perfect world Texas State's AD would have consulted with his own coach about satellite camps before casting votes on it.

School admins may do any damn thing.
04-29-2016 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FoUTASportscaster Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,155
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 115
I Root For: UTA
Location:
Post: #66
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 04:17 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  If I had my way, I want the Sun Belt to become a league that we may poach a CUSA team or two. The only way that will happen, is for all to stick together. The problem is that if one in the SBC says no, someone else will say yes.

Its the classic 'prisoners dilemma'. Don't act and someone else will.

Unless the teams that would be the most likely poaching candidates (Ark State, App State, USA, ULL, Texas State, Ga Southern) all got together and said "20 million dollar exit fee to leave Sun Belt for the MAC or CUSA unless all 6 agree", then any discussion of raiding CUSA is kind of moot. ULM, Troy, Ga State, or Coastal are free to sign on to the agreement, but no one is raiding them at this time.

The circular pattern of realignment as we know it are fundamentally changed. Money has been the primary reason and it no longer makes financial sense to move from the SBC to CUSA. It makes sense to go to a P5 league from a "lower" classification. It makes sense to go from the SBC, CUSA or MAC to the AAC and maybe even the MWC. But a school would lose millions, repeat millions going swapping within the SBC, CUSA and MAC.

Every conference has a hefty exit fee and entrance fee. That was offset by predicted revenues from a TV contract that existed when Louisville, Cincinatti, TCU, SMU, Houston, etc. played in the CUSA. CUSA is going to take a hit in revenue in the hundreds of thousands yearly. They will now be slightly ahead in TV money than the SBC, with the SBC yet to negotiate the next contract.

As this thread, http://csnbbs.com/thread-778667.html, has shown, and many in here suspected, CUSA diluted the member payout by going to 14. There's no guarantee they'll even want to expand. In fact, it is almost a certainty they won't.

In fact, it seems the SBC is pioneering the less is more mantra. Now that 12 is no longer the magic number, the SBC is going to get all the benefits of a G5 conference with the least split among the members. They may not have the highest revenue as a whole, but it isn't hard to imagine where they'll have one of the higher revenues per team.

The only things CUSA has is a subjective idea, prestige. How long will the F-U's, UNT, UTSA be able to ride the coattails of Rice, USM and UTEP, not to mention the exploits of former members, which is where most of that prestige came from.

I wouldn't judge the future based on the past.
04-29-2016 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #67
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 12:58 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I wouldn't judge the future based on the past.

Realignment has come in waves with each wave driven by something else.

We've seen the travel situations change as teams stopped moving by train and could move effectively on better roads using more reliable busses. We've seen air charter become financially viable.

Those changes changed the way conferences looked.

When the NCAA controlled TV, there was a cap on national TV appearances and pay was mostly based on appearances. It suddenly made sense for a Houston to join SWC and Arizona and Arizona State to join Pac-12 (and we were seeing population shifts, that collided with Houston and Phoenix becoming large cities).

Then when the NCAA and CFA deals broke up we had realignment driven by the new invention of the championship game as well as driven by "market share" and ratings.

Then we had a round of realignment based on whether fans would change TV providers if their provider didn't carry ESPN, teams value was there.

Then it became how many people will insist on seeing the new conference TV channel and forcing their TV provider to fork over a carriage fee.

The G5 got caught in the fallout of the latter two movements but seemed to think we were still playing the market and ratings game.

MWC formed playing the market and ratings game. They tried to play the carriage fee game but their network never reached critical mass to be profitable. AAC is playing the ratings game (the only game left for the G5 currently) and aligned a group of schools that do produce good viewership.

The rest of the rabble (G5) don't move the ratings needle enough to play the ratings game, so we play the alternate content game filling programming needs mid-week.

What I'm not sure much of anyone other than the Sun Belt has caught on to is the value of the CFP distribution. Choosing to drop NMSU and Idaho as members was a recognition that sharing fewer ways makes sense.

The question left is does this lead to eventual shifting of conference affiliations or does it put us in a holding pattern until the next change in how revenue is generated.
04-29-2016 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JTApps1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,957
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 144
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #68
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
The SBC is following the example set by the Big 12(-2). Just like them the SBC realizes there aren't any schools that will add enough value to justify splitting the profits up more. The Big 12 had the highest per school payout last year, and we now see that even with 11 schools our payout is 2nd best. The only way to get to #1 is to get in the NY6, but it would be nice to know we'll be #2 at worst.
04-30-2016 08:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #69
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-29-2016 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Follow the Money
-Deep Throat, All The President's Men

The size of the CFP pool will not rise nor fall based on expansion past 10, everyone gets $10 million off the bat. The remainder of the roughly $25 million goes at as $6 million for making the Access bowl and $19 million based on performance. The total size of the performance pool should rise annually as it is a contract with escalating amounts but the pool is not impacted by adding new teams it is insulated from expansion.

I believe the CFP money is $75 million plus $6 million for the Access bowl. So $50 million is the base for five G5 Conferences ($10 million for each conference) and $25 million divided based on conference performance. Then the $6 million for the Access Bowl, which is $4 million to the conference and $2 million to cover expenses for the participant.

I agree that any team added to a conference needs to enhance the TV deal and that 10 football schools is probably the sweet spot for CFP money, although 12 can still work and I think eventually the Sun Belt will eventually explore expansion to 12 football schools.
04-30-2016 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OsageJ Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 7,934
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 417
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #70
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
I agree that any team added to a conference needs to enhance the TV deal and that 10 football schools is probably the sweet spot for CFP money, although 12 can still work and I think eventually the Sun Belt will eventually explore expansion to 12 football schools.
[/quote]

Other than the fear of losing members I can't see any reason to expand.
04-30-2016 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,551
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 486
I Root For: Jawjuh Suthen
Location: Enemy Turf
Post: #71
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-30-2016 08:10 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  I agree that any team added to a conference needs to enhance the TV deal and that 10 football schools is probably the sweet spot for CFP money, although 12 can still work and I think eventually the Sun Belt will eventually explore expansion to 12 football schools.

Other than the fear of losing members I can't see any reason to expand.
[/quote]

Agreed. The only negative to having the conference set up like this is that if a team does leave, we'll be left with 9 teams and be right back to square one. However, I think the benefits to a 10/12 conference set up far outweighs the cons. I expect to see more conferences follow the SunBelt method of shedding deadweight teams in order to increase payout per school.
04-30-2016 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BRtransplant Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,270
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 53
I Root For: La Tech
Location:
Post: #72
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-28-2016 04:01 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 03:43 PM)Lakebound Wrote:  
(04-26-2016 10:48 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The SunBelt: UTSA, North Texas, TXST, Rice, Arkansas St, ULL, ULM, LaTech, Southern Miss, Missouri State, UAB, South Alabama

All leagues have 12 teams, all teams with old rivals and close to each other, NMST gets an FBS home, just makes too much sense.

Please show me where Rice's old rivals are. I see none in that group.

LaTech and ULM are old rivals, but LaTech never will be part of a conference with ULM again.

Sounds like LaTech fans are going to have to get over themselves or become independent, and if Rice doesn't want to be in a conference with a majority of the schools in their own back yard and save hundreds of thousands in travel costs, that's their own fault same as LaTech.

It wasn't a La Tech fan that said that La Tech will "never" be in a conference with ULM again, it was Lakebound. And even though most of us hope he is correct, we're smart enough to know that if a geographic realignment of the MWC, SBC, and CUSA ever took place, we'd most likely end up in a conference that included ULM. Independence is what will "never" be an option for us unless there is no way we can avoid it.
04-30-2016 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dragonz Lair Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 603
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 7
I Root For: UAB BLAZERS
Location: Bartow Arena
Post: #73
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-26-2016 10:48 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Eventually I think the SunBelt, CUSA, and the MWC are all going to reorganize into better geographically sound conferences. It just makes too much sense especially in an inevitable G5/P5 split. The AAC doesn't need to reshuffle teams and the MAC is already geographically sound for the most part. The other three would reshuffle into this:

The MWC: Air Force, Boise State, Cal State, UNM, NMST, UNLV, UN Reno, SDSU, Colorado State, Utah State, Wyoming, UTEP

The SunBelt: UTSA, North Texas, TXST, Rice, Arkansas St, ULL, ULM, LaTech, Southern Miss, Missouri State, UAB, South Alabama

CUSA: Marshall, ODU, WKU, MTSU, App, UNCC, Coastal, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Troy, FIU, FAU

All leagues have 12 teams, all teams with old rivals and close to each other, NMST gets an FBS home, just makes too much sense.

UAB would want to stay aligned with old foes from the Gene Bartow era Old Dominion, Charlotte and Western Kentucky...not to mention Middle Tenn and Southern Miss are both close geographically
04-30-2016 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #74
OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-30-2016 09:08 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 04:01 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(04-28-2016 03:43 PM)Lakebound Wrote:  
(04-26-2016 10:48 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  The SunBelt: UTSA, North Texas, TXST, Rice, Arkansas St, ULL, ULM, LaTech, Southern Miss, Missouri State, UAB, South Alabama

All leagues have 12 teams, all teams with old rivals and close to each other, NMST gets an FBS home, just makes too much sense.

Please show me where Rice's old rivals are. I see none in that group.

LaTech and ULM are old rivals, but LaTech never will be part of a conference with ULM again.

Sounds like LaTech fans are going to have to get over themselves or become independent, and if Rice doesn't want to be in a conference with a majority of the schools in their own back yard and save hundreds of thousands in travel costs, that's their own fault same as LaTech.

It wasn't a La Tech fan that said that La Tech will "never" be in a conference with ULM again, it was Lakebound. And even though most of us hope he is correct, we're smart enough to know that if a geographic realignment of the MWC, SBC, and CUSA ever took place, we'd most likely end up in a conference that included ULM. Independence is what will "never" be an option for us unless there is no way we can avoid it.

The thing that gets lost is that the amount of money involved for SBC, CUSA, MAC is piddly. It runs at the best around 15% of an athletic budget. It just isn't and shouldn't drive decisions the way it does in P5 where it can be 35% to 50%.
The mantra of close but not too close is significant. Having a geographically compact league makes sense but not if you are competing with another league member for the attention of the local tv station.
04-30-2016 11:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #75
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(04-30-2016 08:44 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 08:10 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  I agree that any team added to a conference needs to enhance the TV deal and that 10 football schools is probably the sweet spot for CFP money, although 12 can still work and I think eventually the Sun Belt will eventually explore expansion to 12 football schools.

Other than the fear of losing members I can't see any reason to expand.

Agreed. The only negative to having the conference set up like this is that if a team does leave, we'll be left with 9 teams and be right back to square one. However, I think the benefits to a 10/12 conference set up far outweighs the cons. I expect to see more conferences follow the SunBelt method of shedding deadweight teams in order to increase payout per school.
[/quote]

No, that was a unique situation where Idaho and New Mexico State were under a "football only" agreement that needed to be renewed. You will not see conferences shedding dead weight. Idaho and NMSU being let go is more about the playoff revenue formula change. If each conference were still receiving a base of $1 million for each school up to 12 schools, then there is really no reason to send Idaho and NMSU packing.

Expansion could happen in the Sun Belt if the members think there is money to be made from expanding. Any school that can add money to a new TV contract in the future would be considered. Right now, the TV contract is worth nothing because of the "dead weight" in the current SBC. So if some of these schools can produce some positive results and if there are two really good additions available, then maybe the SBC expands.

If the playoffs are expanded, that could change things. There would be more revenue available. If the playoff revenue formula changed again, that could open expansion back up. The current SBC entry fee of $2 million each is also appealing to expansion. I would not think of a ten team Sun Belt football conference being permanent.
05-01-2016 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,551
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 486
I Root For: Jawjuh Suthen
Location: Enemy Turf
Post: #76
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(05-01-2016 12:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 08:44 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(04-30-2016 08:10 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  I agree that any team added to a conference needs to enhance the TV deal and that 10 football schools is probably the sweet spot for CFP money, although 12 can still work and I think eventually the Sun Belt will eventually explore expansion to 12 football schools.

Other than the fear of losing members I can't see any reason to expand.

Agreed. The only negative to having the conference set up like this is that if a team does leave, we'll be left with 9 teams and be right back to square one. However, I think the benefits to a 10/12 conference set up far outweighs the cons. I expect to see more conferences follow the SunBelt method of shedding deadweight teams in order to increase payout per school.

No, that was a unique situation where Idaho and New Mexico State were under a "football only" agreement that needed to be renewed. You will not see conferences shedding dead weight. Idaho and NMSU being let go is more about the playoff revenue formula change. If each conference were still receiving a base of $1 million for each school up to 12 schools, then there is really no reason to send Idaho and NMSU packing.

Expansion could happen in the Sun Belt if the members think there is money to be made from expanding. Any school that can add money to a new TV contract in the future would be considered. Right now, the TV contract is worth nothing because of the "dead weight" in the current SBC. So if some of these schools can produce some positive results and if there are two really good additions available, then maybe the SBC expands.

If the playoffs are expanded, that could change things. There would be more revenue available. If the playoff revenue formula changed again, that could open expansion back up. The current SBC entry fee of $2 million each is also appealing to expansion. I would not think of a ten team Sun Belt football conference being permanent.
[/quote]

Okay but you just reiterated what I said. And you're right, if the CFP is expanded or teams present themselves that could increase conference revenue, there is definitely room to expand. Luckily we have room to take advantage of that because of our current set up. The way things are right now and the way college sports are at least at this moment, the 10/12 set up that we have is optimal. That's all I was trying to say. And in the future, I do expect conferences to let teams go that don't generate that revenue that another potential member could.
05-01-2016 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The4thOption Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,071
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 39
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location:
Post: #77
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(05-01-2016 12:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No, that was a unique situation where Idaho and New Mexico State were under a "football only" agreement that needed to be renewed. You will not see conferences shedding dead weight. Idaho and NMSU being let go is more about the playoff revenue formula change. If each conference were still receiving a base of $1 million for each school up to 12 schools, then there is really no reason to send Idaho and NMSU packing.

I didn't know that changed. What changed about it?
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2016 10:02 PM by The4thOption.)
05-02-2016 10:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rokamortis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,981
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 160
I Root For: Coastal
Location:
Post: #78
RE: OT: UTEP to MWC Rumors Stirring Up Again
(05-02-2016 10:00 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 12:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No, that was a unique situation where Idaho and New Mexico State were under a "football only" agreement that needed to be renewed. You will not see conferences shedding dead weight. Idaho and NMSU being let go is more about the playoff revenue formula change. If each conference were still receiving a base of $1 million for each school up to 12 schools, then there is really no reason to send Idaho and NMSU packing.

I didn't know that changed. What changed about it?

It came out at the same time when it was announced that Idaho's and NMSU's contracts would not be extended. What was once $1 million per school for up to 12 schools was reduced down to 10 schools.

"Benson said a 2013 financial decision by the Group of Five schools drove the move. That year, the Group of Five conferences decided each of the leagues would receive up to $12 million in College Football Playoff distribution based on a maximum of $1 million per school.

That maximum was later changed to $10 million which made it easier for the Sun Belt to shrink its membership. With Idaho and New Mexico State, the Sun Belt has been ranked last among the Group of Five conferences in recent years, Benson said."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...017-season
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2016 02:25 AM by rokamortis.)
05-03-2016 02:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.