http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ue-sharing

This is the Sunbelt's chance not to over expand to get the per school pay higher than the overcrowded CUSA.

(01-23-2013 09:11 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ue-sharing

This is the Sunbelt's chance not to over expand to get the per school pay higher than the overcrowded CUSA.

Does it say it is a per team or per conference payout?

(01-23-2013 09:11 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ue-sharing

This is the Sunbelt's chance not to over expand to get the per school pay higher than the overcrowded CUSA.

BOHICA

(01-23-2013 09:13 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 09:11 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ue-sharing

This is the Sunbelt's chance not to over expand to get the per school pay higher than the overcrowded CUSA.

Does it say it is a per team or per conference payout?

It'll be paid per conference just like it is currently. The article states that 1/2 of the amount is guaranteed base shares split equally per conference. Doesn't matter the amount of teams in the conference.

Split evenly among the conferences, difference in a 10 team league vs. 14 teams would be over $200,000 per year.

Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State University

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

Why is USA surprising? We have a well-respected medical research institution with a brand new $600 million dollar cancer research center. Also, a top nursing and PT program, a new pharmacology program, a very good business school, one of the few colleges in the southeast with a meteorology degree program and an excellent engineering program.
South has it going on, brother!
(Particularly with our $300 million endowment).

(01-23-2013 12:07 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

Why is USA surprising? We have a well-respected medical research institution with a brand new $600 million dollar cancer research center. Also, a top nursing and PT program, a new pharmacology program, a very good business school, one of the few colleges in the southeast with a meteorology degree program and and excellent engineering program.
South has it going on, brother!
(Particularly with our $300 million endowment).

Because I'm from the West and just heard about S. Alabama. Thought it was a regional schools. Not many directional schools are national universities. Glad to hear you got a good program going on down there since Univ. of Alabama seems to get all the attention.

So, if things remain the same with respect to performance, a ten team SBC may be looking at a little over $1M per team if things are not chopped up too much. How much per team do we get now?

This split also shows how the Group of 5 could receive even more money if it was reduced to the Group of 4.

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

I knew about USA, and I thought I had heard Georgia State. Texas State is close, I believe. I am not sure how close ASU is. That $300 million endowment for USA is sweet. UL's is at $145 million this year, and we feel pretty good about that amount.

(01-23-2013 01:20 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

I knew about USA, and I thought I had heard Georgia State. Texas State is close, I believe. I am not sure how close ASU is. That $300 million endowment for USA is sweet. UL's is at $145 million this year, and we feel pretty good about that amount.

You should feel good about that $145 million. That puts you above a large number of universities. USA's is unusually large because our founder and first president, Dr. Fred Whiddon, despite others missteps he may have made, was a hell of a businessman and knew he needed sound financial footing for the university to thrive.

(01-23-2013 01:58 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 01:20 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

I knew about USA, and I thought I had heard Georgia State. Texas State is close, I believe. I am not sure how close ASU is. That $300 million endowment for USA is sweet. UL's is at $145 million this year, and we feel pretty good about that amount.

You should feel good about that $145 million. That puts you above a large number of universities. USA's is unusually large because our founder and first president, Dr. Fred Whiddon, despite others missteps he may have made, was a hell of a businessman and knew he needed sound financial footing for the university to thrive.

There is a strange, but true, story about why ours is as big as it is. Our former president, Dr. Ray Authemont, was a VERY conservative thinker, not a risk taker at all and a noted tightwad. He decided he wanted to increase our endowment, so he called local businessman Alfred Lamson to ask him to spearhead a drive to get the endowment up to $10 million. Mr. Lamson was decidedly NOT a conservative thinker and is reply is now a part of UL lore. "No, Ray, I won't help you raise $10 million; but I WILL help you raise $100 million." Which he promptly did. Now if we could just find just another few Lamsons floating around Lafayette, we could get up to the $300 million you guys have.

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

I think you forgot uta..probably ahead of all those mentioned.

(01-23-2013 04:21 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

I think you forgot uta..probably ahead of all those mentioned.

What was UTA's research $ last year?

(01-23-2013 04:21 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 12:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:31 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Thus the reason I have been saying the Sun Belt is better off staying small and only meeting the NCAA's minimum requirements to retain conference status.

1. Higher revenue on equal shares.
2. Potentially a substantial amount of higher revenue if you outperform
3. Limit cutting into your own pie (as well as everyone elses) by not bringing up more I-AA schools.

And you help stablize the Group of Five. (Of course that all goes out the window if the Big 12 expands) but for now this will serve you guys better. The only element of this that puts you in a Catch 22 is the probability of having a higher rated conference (and thus higher portion of the performance-based revenues) goes up the larger your conference membership is, but the larger the conference is the more it cuts your base revenue structure.

IMO, the larger conference makes more sense for C-USA and smaller conference makes more sense for the Sun Belt.

Perhaps when all this get ironed out, CUSA won't feel the need to expand to 14 again if they lose 2 to the Big East. Perhaps the remaining Sunbelt teams will re-evaluate whether the CUSA is a better conference to move to. If that is the case, then the Sunbelt can be stable and have a great 9/10 setup adding NMSU for football only to provide 4 home and away conference games and a nice round robin schedule for basketball.
I'm pulling for you guys to get this setup. Not to mention getting more National research universities helps the perception of the Sunbelt.

Who, besides UL, are current SBC members who are National Research Universities?

Georgia State, South Alabama (surprisingly). NMSU, if added.

In addition, Texas State and Arkansas State will get there. Texas state is really making in-roads being a research national univ. It'll take a bit more time but they are getting there.

I think you forgot uta..probably ahead of all those mentioned.

Yep, I did miss them...only because I was thinking of football schools. So yes add UTA to the group.