(04-21-2017 04:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Conference revenue that moves the needle is a thing of the past.
In a ten team league, earning one more NCAA unit a year gives you $150,000 or so per member.
After the base payment, the performance CFP money is shuffling around small six digit numbers after splitting.
TV revenue is going to be small six digit numbers for G5.
MWC with their talk of more digital content and changing how they split TV money looks like they are preparing for a haircut in TV money.

I don't agree with this. I believe basketball is the one place a league with the right group of schools will make much more than that. There are a number of core schools that either a) have an extensive history of basketball success, b) developing a stronger basketball culture in this decade (and success that goes with it) or c) both of those.

It's schools in the conference that show absolutely no impetus to improve their basketball that is dragging down this league. Dropping that lower third of the conference this year and we have three, four or maybe even five in the top 100 - and that was in a bad year for several of the better basketball schools. In a more centralized conference structure with schools that are fully committed to basketball (and football) as the potential to produce a multi-bid league with additional opportunities to make Sweet 16 appearances or even a deeper run. Getting two bids annually with just one or two Sweet 16 appearances would double the per team take home over what we are getting now in NCAA units, so the change I want to see would be to do the following to drive down expenses and increase opportunities for revenue:

1. A core group of schools (9 or 10) that are fully committed to funding and competing at higher levels in basketball and football. Potentially higher revenues via performance and less expenses due to few members.

2. Somewhat more geographically centered alliance (i.e. these core schools would largely be from east of the Mississippi sans perhaps La Tech).

Math is math.
NCAA is going to give you six units every year just for having had a team earn the auto bid.

Earn an extra unit per year that is $1.5 million. Cut 10 ways that's not much money.

So if a conference gets two in per year, and wins one game per year on average (3 units) in a 10 team league that's $300,000 a year.

That's less than 1% of the average CUSA school's budget.

It's a good thing, it's better than not having it but it isn't much money.

(04-21-2017 03:10 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 02:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 01:54 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 01:51 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 01:49 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  Realignment to save $200k in travel costs a year is definitely not the answer to keeping up with the rest of FBS football.

Why can't you do both?

If we have to split the pot 12 ways after realignment by adding schools that generate next to no organic revenue like Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, and FIU then you can't do both.

The top 9 largest revenue-generating schools that can be assembled need to get together and move on together.

You're "splitting the pot" 14 ways with the same sorts of schools now. I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Most of the programs in CUSA are highly subsidized, relatively low revenue programs.

We are low revenue, because too much dead weight at the bottom of the league can't be compensated for by the top. If a select group of nine or 10 schools depart dropping the programs that don't pull weight there are greater chances to increased NCAA tournament teams and thus revenue generating basketball units and college football payout revenue. Just as important due to being in an improved league with more attention (instead of less) creates better rivlaries, more ad revenue and higher community participation which is a cycle that replicates itself year after year. We are currently doing the opposite. We are moving in a negative direction and a lot of that can be attributed to terrible basketball in the lower half of the league though football is problematic too.

That's kinda what I think. Nobody is really using the "perfect" G5 model right now. If you were starting from scratch---you'd have a small league of 8-10 teams. You go for quality football with good attendance, but at least half of those teams need to also have good basketball. You keep the league small so you don't split the CFP and NCAA credit income so much. You'd ideally want a fairly tight footprint to save on travel---though its worth stretching a bit to get a good football school that also has good basketball. The key here is good football/basketball schools are worth a ton. You want as many that that excel at both as possible.

Once you get your 8-10 "core schools"---you would add 2 or 3 non-football schools to supercharge the basketball strength of the conference. Again, the tighter the footprint, the better. But these teams must be schools that will compete for a NCAA bid every year.

That's the perfect league. It is small. It has a tight footprint. It has good attendance and fans that will travel to opponents games. It also has strong basketball to maximize that revenue stream. It is a hybrid---so it can make moves to improve basketball without weakening football and vice versa. That's the G5 league of the future.

(04-21-2017 02:56 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 02:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  You're "splitting the pot" 14 ways with the same sorts of schools now. I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

Discussed in another thread...

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-815461.html

The answer isn't realignment for geographic sake. The answer is that the 8 or 9 of schools that generate a comparable general level of organic revenue as the MWC or AAC should go it and try to maximize revenue. Realigning for geographic purposes does not solve the problem - and realigning back into 12 team conferences makes no sense.

ODU
Louisiana
Southern Miss
Arkansas State
Marshall
UTEP
La Tech
UTSA
Rice

That group of schools almost all average about 20k+ in football. That group of schools almost all average 4k+ in basketball. That group of schools average about $13 million of non-subsidized revenue - which is more than all other schools in the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt, and is comparable to the bottom half of the AAC and MWC. Splitting any deal 9 ways is better than splitting it 14 or 12. This group of schools have baseball, men's basketball, women's basketball, and track national champions. This group can get a respectable media deal, and this is the group that can generate the most conference revenue moving forward.

Yeah that's brilliant. Realign into an even more far flung league with less teams creating more travel for everyone.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-21-2017 05:05 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I'm a big proponent of Rice. I support a regional-based, 12 team league, only thing is I don't know if Rice (as an elite private school) wants to be associated with a bunch of directional state schools. Of course, they kinda already are now.

East: Marshall, WKU, App, Georgia Southern, UAB, MTSU
West: USA, USM, Tech, ULL, Rice, Arky State

I love this myself. I don't really about for appy or Georgia southern but they bring good football so I'd welcome them. But USA, ulala and arky st are the schools I miss playing from the sunbelt days. I feel like this would be the best from both conferences.

(04-21-2017 06:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 04:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Conference revenue that moves the needle is a thing of the past.
In a ten team league, earning one more NCAA unit a year gives you $150,000 or so per member.
After the base payment, the performance CFP money is shuffling around small six digit numbers after splitting.
TV revenue is going to be small six digit numbers for G5.
MWC with their talk of more digital content and changing how they split TV money looks like they are preparing for a haircut in TV money.

I don't agree with this. I believe basketball is the one place a league with the right group of schools will make much more than that. There are a number of core schools that either a) have an extensive history of basketball success, b) developing a stronger basketball culture in this decade (and success that goes with it) or c) both of those.

It's schools in the conference that show absolutely no impetus to improve their basketball that is dragging down this league. Dropping that lower third of the conference this year and we have three, four or maybe even five in the top 100 - and that was in a bad year for several of the better basketball schools. In a more centralized conference structure with schools that are fully committed to basketball (and football) as the potential to produce a multi-bid league with additional opportunities to make Sweet 16 appearances or even a deeper run. Getting two bids annually with just one or two Sweet 16 appearances would double the per team take home over what we are getting now in NCAA units, so the change I want to see would be to do the following to drive down expenses and increase opportunities for revenue:

1. A core group of schools (9 or 10) that are fully committed to funding and competing at higher levels in basketball and football. Potentially higher revenues via performance and less expenses due to few members.

2. Somewhat more geographically centered alliance (i.e. these core schools would largely be from east of the Mississippi sans perhaps La Tech).

Math is math.
NCAA is going to give you six units every year just for having had a team earn the auto bid.

Earn an extra unit per year that is $1.5 million. Cut 10 ways that's not much money.

So if a conference gets two in per year, and wins one game per year on average (3 units) in a 10 team league that's $300,000 a year.

That's less than 1% of the average CUSA school's budget.

It's a good thing, it's better than not having it but it isn't much money.

Again, you are missing the point. I believe there is an opportunity to earn more than one unit or a couple of extra units. The MWC showed the way for how to do this when it was established. Though they had to wait a few years to get the auto the long term benefit was worth dropping the dead weight.

If you are in a league that is constantly going to produce just one unit a year with the occasional second unit then your payout is going to be pretty stagnant.

But if you produce a league that earns at least two bids annually with let's say two sweet 16's and six round of 32's over a six year period the numbers look drastically different. We are talking about the difference between 6 to 8 units over a six year period vs a 18 to 20 units. $5.2 million split nine ways is a lot more than the $2 million we are going to get this year split 14 ways. And that doesn't take into account the annual 3% increase in the worth of tourney units, which obviously compounds with the more you have.

There is absolutely no way we are going to do anything like that in the current conference alignment. But if we have a core group of schools that are fully dedicated to basketball like ODU, wkcc, MT, Charlotte, UAB, La Tech with a couple of others who share that same commitment the outcome is very much possible. And even if the amount is a little less than that you again ignore the impact of fundraising and ad revenue by being in a league that produces competitive football and basketball programs. That is something that we've never had in a league. We hoped it to be so in C-USA but there are too many schools that either aren't equipped or don't share the same commitment.

The "S.E.A. The South Eastern Atlantic

"Charlotte (Final 4), Appalachian (3x nation football champion), Liberty (TV), ODU, JMU, Coastal Carolina (CWS champion), Georgia St., Georgia Southern (6x national football champions), FAU, FAI, (Basketball: UNC-Wilmington, College of Charleston).

Who cares about the central, eastern, mountain & pacific time zones.

The S.E.A. has champions, the coast, the metros, the mountains, and fertile recruiting. And the opportunity to create some rivalries

(04-21-2017 03:39 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 02:56 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 02:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  You're "splitting the pot" 14 ways with the same sorts of schools now. I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

Discussed in another thread...

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-815461.html

The answer isn't realignment for geographic sake. The answer is that the 8 or 9 of schools that generate a comparable general level of organic revenue as the MWC or AAC should go it and try to maximize revenue. Realigning for geographic purposes does not solve the problem - and realigning back into 12 team conferences makes no sense.

ODU
Louisiana-Lafayette​
Southern Miss
Arkansas State
Marshall
UTEP
La Tech
UTSA
Rice

That group of schools almost all average about 20k+ in football. That group of schools almost all average 4k+ in basketball. That group of schools average about $13 million of non-subsidized revenue - which is more than all other schools in the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt, and is comparable to the bottom half of the AAC and MWC. Splitting any deal 9 ways is better than splitting it 14 or 12. This group of schools have baseball, men's basketball, women's basketball, and track national champions. This group can get a respectable media deal, and this is the group that can generate the most conference revenue moving forward.

I follow, but at the same time I feel like it would need to also include WKU and MTSU based on their on the field/court performance.

Leave the thugrunners off that list, put wku and mtsu in and call it a day.

(04-21-2017 09:37 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 06:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 04:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Conference revenue that moves the needle is a thing of the past.
In a ten team league, earning one more NCAA unit a year gives you $150,000 or so per member.
After the base payment, the performance CFP money is shuffling around small six digit numbers after splitting.
TV revenue is going to be small six digit numbers for G5.
MWC with their talk of more digital content and changing how they split TV money looks like they are preparing for a haircut in TV money.

I don't agree with this. I believe basketball is the one place a league with the right group of schools will make much more than that. There are a number of core schools that either a) have an extensive history of basketball success, b) developing a stronger basketball culture in this decade (and success that goes with it) or c) both of those.

It's schools in the conference that show absolutely no impetus to improve their basketball that is dragging down this league. Dropping that lower third of the conference this year and we have three, four or maybe even five in the top 100 - and that was in a bad year for several of the better basketball schools. In a more centralized conference structure with schools that are fully committed to basketball (and football) as the potential to produce a multi-bid league with additional opportunities to make Sweet 16 appearances or even a deeper run. Getting two bids annually with just one or two Sweet 16 appearances would double the per team take home over what we are getting now in NCAA units, so the change I want to see would be to do the following to drive down expenses and increase opportunities for revenue:

1. A core group of schools (9 or 10) that are fully committed to funding and competing at higher levels in basketball and football. Potentially higher revenues via performance and less expenses due to few members.

2. Somewhat more geographically centered alliance (i.e. these core schools would largely be from east of the Mississippi sans perhaps La Tech).

Math is math.
NCAA is going to give you six units every year just for having had a team earn the auto bid.

Earn an extra unit per year that is $1.5 million. Cut 10 ways that's not much money.

So if a conference gets two in per year, and wins one game per year on average (3 units) in a 10 team league that's $300,000 a year.

That's less than 1% of the average CUSA school's budget.

It's a good thing, it's better than not having it but it isn't much money.

Again, you are missing the point. I believe there is an opportunity to earn more than one unit or a couple of extra units. The MWC showed the way for how to do this when it was established. Though they had to wait a few years to get the auto the long term benefit was worth dropping the dead weight.

If you are in a league that is constantly going to produce just one unit a year with the occasional second unit then your payout is going to be pretty stagnant.

But if you produce a league that earns at least two bids annually with let's say two sweet 16's and six round of 32's over a six year period the numbers look drastically different. We are talking about the difference between 6 to 8 units over a six year period vs a 18 to 20 units. $5.2 million split nine ways is a lot more than the $2 million we are going to get this year split 14 ways. And that doesn't take into account the annual 3% increase in the worth of tourney units, which obviously compounds with the more you have.

There is absolutely no way we are going to do anything like that in the current conference alignment. But if we have a core group of schools that are fully dedicated to basketball like ODU, wkcc, MT, Charlotte, UAB, La Tech with a couple of others who share that same commitment the outcome is very much possible. And even if the amount is a little less than that you again ignore the impact of fundraising and ad revenue by being in a league that produces competitive football and basketball programs. That is something that we've never had in a league. We hoped it to be so in C-USA but there are too many schools that either aren't equipped or don't share the same commitment.

The Valley last decade is averaging almost 3 units.
Peak MWC averaged 5.5 good for just under $800,000 per school which has gone in the toilet since the raids.

Maybe someone can create a fantasy conference league where you can pick and choose conference mates on a whim. That is pretty much this thread.

(04-21-2017 09:59 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The "S.E.A. The South Eastern Atlantic

"Charlotte (Final 4), Appalachian (3x nation football champion), Liberty (TV), ODU, JMU, Coastal Carolina (CWS champion), Georgia St., Georgia Southern (6x national football champions), FAU, FAI, (Basketball: UNC-Wilmington, College of Charleston).

Who cares about the central, eastern, mountain & pacific time zones.

The S.E.A. has champions, the coast, the metros, the mountains, and fertile recruiting. And the opportunity to create some rivalries

The Southwest Conference, which was concentrated in Texas, broke up because Texas (and others) thought (correctly) that they could get more money (especially from TV) from a more geographically diverse conference ... that didn't have the smallish, private schools they left behind (SMU, TCU & Rice; Baylor had a political advantage). The more TV households in your conference's markets, the more $$ your got.

The SWC left-outs and other G5-type schools eventually followed essentially the same template at a lower-level, cobbling together far-flung conferences that could boast presence in many high-population markets desired by ESPN and other TV execs.

Now that the big-TV-$$ bubble is bursting, it may make more economic sense to get back to more regionally focused conferences, along the lines what Rabonchild suggests above. It would reduce expenses and, I'd suspect, eventually build rivalries and increase attendance and gate revenues, since fans from both teams could drive to most games much more easily than in today's CUSA, AAC etc. With little TV money coming in now anyway, the initial revenue hit from the loss of TV contracts might not be too bad, especially if alternative online broadcasts are professionally produced and affordable.

Such a scenario is, for sure, a step off the escalator to a P5 conference that many of us dream about. But unless the P5 presidents and ADs agree to share their wealth with the rest of us -- dream on! -- the regional conference route might be the only sustainable option for majorish college sports to be contested at our non-P5 alma maters and local universities.

(04-21-2017 05:05 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I'm a big proponent of Rice. I support a regional-based, 12 team league, only thing is I don't know if Rice (as an elite private school) wants to be associated with a bunch of directional state schools. Of course, they kinda already are now.

East: Marshall, WKU, App, Georgia Southern, UAB, MTSU
West: USA, USM, Tech, ULL, Rice, Arky State

That'd be a kick-ass conference that would compete with the AAC and MWC for best in show among the G5 conferences.

financially you should have no more than ten teams in a conference.

(04-21-2017 10:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:37 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 06:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 04:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Conference revenue that moves the needle is a thing of the past.
In a ten team league, earning one more NCAA unit a year gives you $150,000 or so per member.
After the base payment, the performance CFP money is shuffling around small six digit numbers after splitting.
TV revenue is going to be small six digit numbers for G5.
MWC with their talk of more digital content and changing how they split TV money looks like they are preparing for a haircut in TV money.

I don't agree with this. I believe basketball is the one place a league with the right group of schools will make much more than that. There are a number of core schools that either a) have an extensive history of basketball success, b) developing a stronger basketball culture in this decade (and success that goes with it) or c) both of those.

It's schools in the conference that show absolutely no impetus to improve their basketball that is dragging down this league. Dropping that lower third of the conference this year and we have three, four or maybe even five in the top 100 - and that was in a bad year for several of the better basketball schools. In a more centralized conference structure with schools that are fully committed to basketball (and football) as the potential to produce a multi-bid league with additional opportunities to make Sweet 16 appearances or even a deeper run. Getting two bids annually with just one or two Sweet 16 appearances would double the per team take home over what we are getting now in NCAA units, so the change I want to see would be to do the following to drive down expenses and increase opportunities for revenue:

1. A core group of schools (9 or 10) that are fully committed to funding and competing at higher levels in basketball and football. Potentially higher revenues via performance and less expenses due to few members.

2. Somewhat more geographically centered alliance (i.e. these core schools would largely be from east of the Mississippi sans perhaps La Tech).

Math is math.
NCAA is going to give you six units every year just for having had a team earn the auto bid.

Earn an extra unit per year that is $1.5 million. Cut 10 ways that's not much money.

So if a conference gets two in per year, and wins one game per year on average (3 units) in a 10 team league that's $300,000 a year.

That's less than 1% of the average CUSA school's budget.

It's a good thing, it's better than not having it but it isn't much money.

Again, you are missing the point. I believe there is an opportunity to earn more than one unit or a couple of extra units. The MWC showed the way for how to do this when it was established. Though they had to wait a few years to get the auto the long term benefit was worth dropping the dead weight.

If you are in a league that is constantly going to produce just one unit a year with the occasional second unit then your payout is going to be pretty stagnant.

But if you produce a league that earns at least two bids annually with let's say two sweet 16's and six round of 32's over a six year period the numbers look drastically different. We are talking about the difference between 6 to 8 units over a six year period vs a 18 to 20 units. $5.2 million split nine ways is a lot more than the $2 million we are going to get this year split 14 ways. And that doesn't take into account the annual 3% increase in the worth of tourney units, which obviously compounds with the more you have.

There is absolutely no way we are going to do anything like that in the current conference alignment. But if we have a core group of schools that are fully dedicated to basketball like ODU, wkcc, MT, Charlotte, UAB, La Tech with a couple of others who share that same commitment the outcome is very much possible. And even if the amount is a little less than that you again ignore the impact of fundraising and ad revenue by being in a league that produces competitive football and basketball programs. That is something that we've never had in a league. We hoped it to be so in C-USA but there are too many schools that either aren't equipped or don't share the same commitment.

The Valley last decade is averaging almost 3 units.
Peak MWC averaged 5.5 good for just under $800,000 per school which has gone in the toilet since the raids.

Additional raids are always possible but a lot of that is over. Taking the best of the rest could produce a league that consistently does what the MWC did in the early years.

(04-22-2017 04:46 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 05:05 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I'm a big proponent of Rice. I support a regional-based, 12 team league, only thing is I don't know if Rice (as an elite private school) wants to be associated with a bunch of directional state schools. Of course, they kinda already are now.

East: Marshall, WKU, App, Georgia Southern, UAB, MTSU
West: USA, USM, Tech, ULL, Rice, Arky State

That'd be a kick-ass conference that would compete with the AAC and MWC for best in show among the G5 conferences.

It wouldn't compete at all. God help us, why does our leadership suck?

(04-22-2017 05:22 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  financially you should have no more than ten teams in a conference.

(04-21-2017 05:05 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I'm a big proponent of Rice. I support a regional-based, 12 team league, only thing is I don't know if Rice (as an elite private school) wants to be associated with a bunch of directional state schools. Of course, they kinda already are now.

East: Marshall, WKU, App, Georgia Southern, UAB, MTSU
West: USA, USM, Tech, ULL, Rice, Arky State

If CUSA had pursued programs instead of markets then you would have had something very similar to this to start with. I also think we wouldn't be having this conversation because this conference would have achieved some separation.

That said any realignment that happens today will be out of the need to fight for every dollar you can get and will result in smaller, geographically tighter conferences.

(04-22-2017 09:27 AM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 05:05 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I'm a big proponent of Rice. I support a regional-based, 12 team league, only thing is I don't know if Rice (as an elite private school) wants to be associated with a bunch of directional state schools. Of course, they kinda already are now.

East: Marshall, WKU, App, Georgia Southern, UAB, MTSU
West: USA, USM, Tech, ULL, Rice, Arky State

If CUSA had pursued programs instead of markets then you would have had something very similar to this to start with. I also think we wouldn't be having this conversation because this conference would have achieved some separation.

That said any realignment that happens today will be out of the need to fight for every dollar you can get and will result in smaller, geographically tighter conferences.

Does it really cost any less to travel to App & Georgia Southern than FIU (Miami) and FAU (Ft Lauderdale). TV deal is going to be the same...less? Bowls will not change. Maybe basketball units goes up but probably not.

App & Georgia Southern don't add anything to basketball...bout like replacing Fla schools. Ark St has two 20 win seasons in their last 20 years. They also stuck with the same coach for 8 & 10 year of avg to below avg basketball. Only team you add that even cares about basketball is ULL.

And you still have a awful Rice basketball program that is worse than Ark St about keeping bad coaches...win 15 games your job is safe

Right now S. Miss has shown no life since probation..maybe that changes but till it does they are awful. USA has some history but it's fading fast and long ago.

No need to go to 12 teams...stay at 9 and play everyone in football and a 16 game conference schedule. Leave out 3 SBC schools and move on. Or leave out all 4 and add ODU.

For Charlotte The "S.E.A." would eliminate five teams that are further away than the two Florida twins. For Charlotte those five far west teams would be replaced by five teams that the combined travel would equal one trip to UTEP.

If the TV money was still there I would love the CUSA as it is. If the TV exposurer was there I would love the CUSA as it is. The Golden Goose (TV) revenue is dead.

(04-21-2017 05:05 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I'm a big proponent of Rice.

Me too... I love me some Jambalaya and Etouffee...and fried chicken and gravy...oh,and inside by Boudin sausage, of course!

(04-21-2017 04:55 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:39 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 02:56 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 02:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  You're "splitting the pot" 14 ways with the same sorts of schools now. I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

Discussed in another thread...

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-815461.html

The answer isn't realignment for geographic sake. The answer is that the 8 or 9 of schools that generate a comparable general level of organic revenue as the MWC or AAC should go it and try to maximize revenue. Realigning for geographic purposes does not solve the problem - and realigning back into 12 team conferences makes no sense.

ODU
Louisiana-Lafayette​
Southern Miss
Arkansas State
Marshall
UTEP
La Tech
UTSA
Rice

That group of schools almost all average about 20k+ in football. That group of schools almost all average 4k+ in basketball. That group of schools average about $13 million of non-subsidized revenue - which is more than all other schools in the MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt, and is comparable to the bottom half of the AAC and MWC. Splitting any deal 9 ways is better than splitting it 14 or 12. This group of schools have baseball, men's basketball, women's basketball, and track national champions. This group can get a respectable media deal, and this is the group that can generate the most conference revenue moving forward.

I follow, but at the same time I feel like it would need to also include WKU and MTSU based on their on the field/court performance.

The thing about using a one year period to look at something like this...

you get anomalies, like Ark St..he used 2015 as the base, so what changed for Ark St from 2005 to 2015 ? No school makes that kind of jump unless it's fuzzy math. Also Rice is a private school and I did not see their revenue. Come on they are worse than FIU when it comes to inflating attendance numbers. That 21k a year is more like 3k, tops

I'm not sure what your beef with Rice is... We unquestionably have better attendance than FIU.

It's ironic that a WKU fan is talking attendance smack. I watched the CUSA championship game on television and saw several thousand empty seats, and WKU's stadium is very small.Truth be told, attendance figures in the g5 aren't a count of actual butts in seats, it's a count of the number of tickets sold. Everyone does it. And it's also easy for a very large stadium like Rice's to look empty, even if there's 30k in attendance.