Our new AD has realized the situation he has inherited in terms of our financial health in the athletic budget. He has his work cut out for him. He has hit the fund raising trail hard to date. I have hope he can succeed in improving our situation.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/story...100653148/

This is the REAL issue. The schools that went to the AAC are growing revenue at 4 time the rate of the current C-USA schools. About 12 years ago, UCF, ECU, Southern Miss, and Marshall were all comparable in generated revenue.

Realignment to save $200k in travel costs a year is definitely not the answer to keeping up with the rest of FBS football.

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

THIS.

Unfortunately, we all have elected to play in the high stakes portion of collegiate athletics and right now if we want to stay at this level then survival is priority over feelings . As much as I like being conference mates with some schools that is not enough.

It's time those core schools split. As callous as it may sound the others will have to fend for themselves. It's just the nature of this beast that we find ourselves in.

(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.

(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.

LMAO

(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.

I like the thinking but I don't see Marshall/ODU wanting anything to do with UTEP/UTSA and vice-versa due to the distance but I could be wrong.

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.

(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.

(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.

% don't mean jack...

well it does mean you probably have a larger student base. A few of the schools on that list at the lowest level in CUSA (Marshall) are taking a larger % of student fees than some others.

The student fee is probably safest form of revenue a school has. It only changes when enrollment drops. Of course there are limits on how high of a fee you can put on students. And as I said....

some schools are at that limit right now. I don't think Marshall or Western can go much higher in student fees. Where a FIU could double their revenue off student just by getting to the level Western and Marshall is today

So which school has more upside for revenue...a school maxed out on student fees with 12k enrollment or one at a low rate and 55k in enrollment?

TV dollars can go away. Tickets sold is depended on winning and a max out of ever how many seats your arena and stadium holds. NCAA Tourney money depends on a strong conference. Student fees depend on enrollment...

To me it looks like the strong program, at least in paying for their sports programs Is the school with the 55k student with 50% of the student fees of a Marshall or Western.

WKU 928
Marshall 917
FIU 429
FAU 622
Middle 856
ODU 1140
UNCC 806
UAB 1141
UNT 578
UTEP 681
UTSA 492
USM 396
Tech 780

(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

(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

Don't put words in my mouth. I've got a decade plus AState revenue data.
$5.5 million in booster club revenue in the fiscal year covering 2013 football isn't much different from $6 million in 2014.

(04-21-2017 03:12 PM)usm99 Wrote:  I like the thinking but I don't see Marshall/ODU wanting anything to do with UTEP/UTSA and vice-versa due to the distance but I could be wrong.

a.) We're already in a league with UTEP and UTSA.
b.) My contention is our league has a REVENUE problem, not an EXPENDITURE problem.

If schools only want to address the expenditure problem, there's an FCS division for that.

(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).

(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.

(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.

I have no problem with Rice. I just have a difference opinion about your sports programs than some people. You're right about Rice's attendance but it's going to be close on Rice and FIU. But one thing is for sure....

FIU is closer to their listed 16k than Rice is to their 21k. Yet most fans believe Rice's numbers are real. I've seen both in person and pictures so it wasn't just a fluke on the day I was at a Rice football game.
\

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