(04-29-2024 06:36 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Believe Albany, being in the capital district, has the best chance for necessary funds for another stadium project.

Sent from my SM-G990U using CSNbbs mobile app

Stopping in Albany on the way to Boston a couple weeks ago had a chance to check out a bit of the downtown campus (very impressive with an Ivy League look), and the beautiful main campus with some nice facilities recently upgraded… Also, The University at Albany is SUNY, with I believe R-1 distinction …
The football stadium by MAC standards is undersized but can expand to 25,000 plus, is what I heard !!
Basketball arena is also small, with recent upgrades, but in the event of larger OOC games , they can be played in the 15,000 seat downtown old Knickerbocker Arena…
Overall, Albany is a good sized market which could translate into a positive for future tv contracts with ESPN , and cannot beat the proximity to Amherst, Mass…

(04-29-2024 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-29-2024 03:06 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-29-2024 02:06 PM)AllBronco Wrote:  I think WKU is going to stay in CUSA. So, it would be nice if we could get a school that would benefit UMASS and Buffalo geographically.

BruceMcF has speculated that Western Kentucky might have good financial reasons to stay around for another year or two given that Conference USA revenue is fat with fees from departing members that Western Kentucky has a large claim on.

To be clear, I am referring to the CUSA Grant of Rights, which has a buyout of $800,000 per year for each year of the GOR that a school is buying out. So in addition to the exit fees, leaving three years before the end of the current contract adds $2.4m to the cost of the exit. But, yes, not receiving a share of the exit fees from already departed members is an additional opportunity cost.

Also note that WKU would be the second lowest athletic department revenue in the MAC according to the recently released 2022/23 numbers, at $25.4m.

Quote: Western Kentucky would be a good addition for us, but if the choice were between Western Kentucky and Stony Brook or Albany, I'd lean toward adding a SUNY. These are very good schools that would offer nice synergy with UMass and Buffalo.

I've long noted Stony Brook as a good add if they were interested in moving up, but I haven't heard any indication that they are. Illinois State would also be a good add if they were interested, but I have also not heard any indication of interest from them.

https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/c-usa...he_money-1

https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/mac

Not sure where your data came from, but according to the Knight-Newhouse database we would be near the top of the MAC in Athletic spending/revenues.

(04-29-2024 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I've long noted Stony Brook as a good add if they were interested in moving up, but I haven't heard any indication that they are.

I'm just throwing that out there as a possible example of a school out East that would be a good add and build some synergy with UMass.

My understanding is that, at the UMass announcement, Dr. Steinbrecher said something to the effect of: We had a chance to get UMass, a very good school, so we took it. I think that's the right mindset for the right addition, and I think UMass is such an addition.

Once UMass was announced, my hunch was that the conference wouldn't want to stand pat at 13 given its history of trying to avoid that number, and that we'd soon be hearing something very soon about a 14th. Plus, obviously, there were some immediate credible reports of mutual interest involving Western Kentucky. But it could be that the commissioner and presidents saw UMass as such a good addition that getting to an even number of schools could be worried about later, and things were less far along than I suspected.

What's interesting is that we haven't heard much of anything out of Western Kentucky either way on this. If they truly weren't interested, I think they would have knocked down the idea through a spokesperson, and they haven't really.

However this goes, the MAC will be fine.

(04-30-2024 09:00 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-29-2024 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I've long noted Stony Brook as a good add if they were interested in moving up, but I haven't heard any indication that they are.

I'm just throwing that out there as a possible example of a school out East that would be a good add and build some synergy with UMass.

My understanding is that, at the UMass announcement, Dr. Steinbrecher said something to the effect of: We had a chance to get UMass, a very good school, so we took it. I think that's the right mindset for the right addition, and I think UMass is such an addition.

Once UMass was announced, my hunch was that the conference wouldn't want to stand pat at 13 given its history of trying to avoid that number, and that we'd soon be hearing something very soon about a 14th. Plus, obviously, there were some immediate credible reports of mutual interest involving Western Kentucky. But it could be that the commissioner and presidents saw UMass as such a good addition that getting to an even number of schools could be worried about later, and things were less far along than I suspected.

What's interesting is that we haven't heard much of anything out of Western Kentucky either way on this. If they truly weren't interested, I think they would have knocked down the idea through a spokesperson, and they haven't really.

However this goes, the MAC will be fine.

I had been a fan of adding SUNY-SB maybe 5 - 10 years ago.

Now the MAC would need to do a full assessment of whether there is enough support among students, alums, and community.

Yes the academics are excellent and would bring academic prestige.

(04-30-2024 09:00 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-29-2024 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I've long noted Stony Brook as a good add if they were interested in moving up, but I haven't heard any indication that they are.

I'm just throwing that out there as a possible example of a school out East that would be a good add and build some synergy with UMass.

My understanding is that, at the UMass announcement, Dr. Steinbrecher said something to the effect of: We had a chance to get UMass, a very good school, so we took it. I think that's the right mindset for the right addition, and I think UMass is such an addition.

Once UMass was announced, my hunch was that the conference wouldn't want to stand pat at 13 given its history of trying to avoid that number, and that we'd soon be hearing something very soon about a 14th. Plus, obviously, there were some immediate credible reports of mutual interest involving Western Kentucky. But it could be that the commissioner and presidents saw UMass as such a good addition that getting to an even number of schools could be worried about later, and things were less far along than I suspected.

What's interesting is that we haven't heard much of anything out of Western Kentucky either way on this. If they truly weren't interested, I think they would have knocked down the idea through a spokesperson, and they haven't really.

However this goes, the MAC will be fine.

Perhaps WKU could make the move for 2026 with a new contract. Much better to have a proven FBS team than a FCS team, which would have the same time frame. Albany has less than a year to prepare if it's their move. My feeling the MAC is fine for a year or 2 with 13, but we all feel, the MAC would prefer to be at 14.

(04-30-2024 10:06 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-30-2024 09:00 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-29-2024 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I've long noted Stony Brook as a good add if they were interested in moving up, but I haven't heard any indication that they are.

I'm just throwing that out there as a possible example of a school out East that would be a good add and build some synergy with UMass.

My understanding is that, at the UMass announcement, Dr. Steinbrecher said something to the effect of: We had a chance to get UMass, a very good school, so we took it. I think that's the right mindset for the right addition, and I think UMass is such an addition.

Once UMass was announced, my hunch was that the conference wouldn't want to stand pat at 13 given its history of trying to avoid that number, and that we'd soon be hearing something very soon about a 14th. Plus, obviously, there were some immediate credible reports of mutual interest involving Western Kentucky. But it could be that the commissioner and presidents saw UMass as such a good addition that getting to an even number of schools could be worried about later, and things were less far along than I suspected.

What's interesting is that we haven't heard much of anything out of Western Kentucky either way on this. If they truly weren't interested, I think they would have knocked down the idea through a spokesperson, and they haven't really.

However this goes, the MAC will be fine.

Perhaps WKU could make the move for 2026 with a new contract. Much better to have a proven FBS team than a FCS team, which would have the same time frame. Albany has less than a year to prepare if it's their move. My feeling the MAC is fine for a year or 2 with 13, but we all feel, the MAC would prefer to be at 14.

2 years (2027/28) brings the GOR buyout down from $2.4m to $0.8m, and I would not be surprised if it also garners most of the distribution of the exit fee pool.

By 2026 we'll also have a much better idea if there is going to be an ACC raid in this decade or whether it waits until the 2030's, and the House revenue sharing lawsuit should be settled by that time as well, bringing a lot more clarity on the semi-pro model going ahead.

____________

(04-30-2024 08:26 AM)freshtop Wrote:  Not sure where your data came from, but according to the Knight-Newhouse database we would be near the top of the MAC in Athletic spending/revenues.

As stated, the current Total Revenues 2022-23 thread on the main board: https://csnbbs.com/thread-989603.html

(04-30-2024 10:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-30-2024 10:06 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-30-2024 09:00 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-29-2024 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I've long noted Stony Brook as a good add if they were interested in moving up, but I haven't heard any indication that they are.

I'm just throwing that out there as a possible example of a school out East that would be a good add and build some synergy with UMass.

My understanding is that, at the UMass announcement, Dr. Steinbrecher said something to the effect of: We had a chance to get UMass, a very good school, so we took it. I think that's the right mindset for the right addition, and I think UMass is such an addition.

Once UMass was announced, my hunch was that the conference wouldn't want to stand pat at 13 given its history of trying to avoid that number, and that we'd soon be hearing something very soon about a 14th. Plus, obviously, there were some immediate credible reports of mutual interest involving Western Kentucky. But it could be that the commissioner and presidents saw UMass as such a good addition that getting to an even number of schools could be worried about later, and things were less far along than I suspected.

What's interesting is that we haven't heard much of anything out of Western Kentucky either way on this. If they truly weren't interested, I think they would have knocked down the idea through a spokesperson, and they haven't really.

However this goes, the MAC will be fine.

Perhaps WKU could make the move for 2026 with a new contract. Much better to have a proven FBS team than a FCS team, which would have the same time frame. Albany has less than a year to prepare if it's their move. My feeling the MAC is fine for a year or 2 with 13, but we all feel, the MAC would prefer to be at 14.

2 years (2027/28) brings the GOR buyout down from $2.4m to $0.8m, and I would not be surprised if it also garners most of the distribution of the exit fee pool.

By 2026 we'll also have a much better idea if there is going to be an ACC raid in this decade or whether it waits until the 2030's, and the House revenue sharing lawsuit should be settled by that time as well, bringing a lot more clarity on the semi-pro model going ahead.

____________

(04-30-2024 08:26 AM)freshtop Wrote:  Not sure where your data came from, but according to the Knight-Newhouse database we would be near the top of the MAC in Athletic spending/revenues.

As stated, the current Total Revenues 2022-23 thread on the main board: https://csnbbs.com/thread-989603.html

It seems the Title IX numbers are missing some pieces of the pie that the NCAA numbers include. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

(04-30-2024 02:16 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(04-30-2024 10:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-30-2024 08:26 AM)freshtop Wrote:  Not sure where your data came from, but according to the Knight-Newhouse database we would be near the top of the MAC in Athletic spending/revenues.

As stated, the current Total Revenues 2022-23 thread on the main board: https://csnbbs.com/thread-989603.html

It seems the Title IX numbers are missing some pieces of the pie that the NCAA numbers include. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

It might be different accounting for capital spending. Since the Fieldhouse and new press box project broke ground in November, 2023, the financing was probably finalized in FY23. If the TitleIX numbers capitalized capital spending that the Knight-Newhouse numbers put up front, or omits capital spending that Knight-Newhouse includes, that would add to the institutional support numbers that Knight-Newhouse would report -- especially since the growth in debt that the Knight Newhouse site reports is substantially greater than the discrepancy between the two figures, so that gives plenty of leeway for Knight Newhouse to be tallying part of that increase in FY2023.

Nice use of those CUSA exit windfalls

Sent from my SM-G990U using CSNbbs mobile app