Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
Author Message
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,827
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 370
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #81
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 10:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There's a lot of faulty math here because it is working in a vacuum and not accounting for the entire picture.

There is more to the picture than CFP money.

Let's say Conference A is at 14, B is at 12, and C is at 16

In CFP money A is worth $857,000 per team, B $1 million and C $750,000

But if A averages 2 NCAA units earned per year, B averages 1, and C averages 3 what does that do to the equation?

A is worth $1.09, B is worth $1.14, C is worth $1.07

That's before you inject TV dollars, CFP ranking dollars, and CFP appearance dollars.

But let's back up to that first line which was just CFP dollars the gap between the best per team and worst is equal to selling 600 more tickets in football and basketball per game a reachable number if the worst per team is regionalized and the best isn't. By the time you inject the other factors if you increase ticket sales and cut your travel cost your athletic department has more spendable money even if the amount in the check at the end of the year from the conference is smaller.

What you are saying is extremely misleading. The C conference, which only could be C-USA, isn't going to get 3 units any time in the near future. So they won't have that ability to make up the difference there at all. Right now, there is a difference of 6 units between CUSA and SBC the next 6 years- or 250k per year. 3 of those units are scheduled in 2015. There is little/no difference in SBC, MAC, and CUSA basketball units right now. So CUSA can't/won't make up the difference there at all. Sure, if CUSA was good in basketball that would be different, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't. Likely will be a 1 bid league going forward almost every single year, just like the MAC and the SBC.
04-10-2013 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,077
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #82
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 11:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There's a lot of faulty math here because it is working in a vacuum and not accounting for the entire picture.

There is more to the picture than CFP money.

Let's say Conference A is at 14, B is at 12, and C is at 16

In CFP money A is worth $857,000 per team, B $1 million and C $750,000

But if A averages 2 NCAA units earned per year, B averages 1, and C averages 3 what does that do to the equation?

A is worth $1.09, B is worth $1.14, C is worth $1.07

That's before you inject TV dollars, CFP ranking dollars, and CFP appearance dollars.

But let's back up to that first line which was just CFP dollars the gap between the best per team and worst is equal to selling 600 more tickets in football and basketball per game a reachable number if the worst per team is regionalized and the best isn't. By the time you inject the other factors if you increase ticket sales and cut your travel cost your athletic department has more spendable money even if the amount in the check at the end of the year from the conference is smaller.

What you are saying is extremely misleading. The C conference, which only could be C-USA, isn't going to get 3 units any time in the near future. So they won't have that ability to make up the difference there at all. Right now, there is a difference of 6 units between CUSA and SBC the next 6 years- or 250k per year. 3 of those units are scheduled in 2015. There is little/no difference in SBC, MAC, and CUSA basketball units right now. So CUSA can't/won't make up the difference there at all. Sure, if CUSA was good in basketball that would be different, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't. Likely will be a 1 bid league going forward almost every single year, just like the MAC and the SBC.

No.

What is misleading is everyone running around like chickens with their head cut-off over ONE revenue stream out of many streams (CFP equal share, CFP performance, CFP appearance, NCAA units, conference championship event profits, league TV, school TV, tickets sold, donations secured, sponsorships, merchandise sales, concession sales, merchandise licensing)

And there is a complete ignoring of expenses. If it costs School A $1 million a year to get $1.3 million in league revenue and School B $700,000 to get $1.2 million, who is better off?
04-10-2013 11:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,131
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 650
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #83
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 11:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 11:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There's a lot of faulty math here because it is working in a vacuum and not accounting for the entire picture.

There is more to the picture than CFP money.

Let's say Conference A is at 14, B is at 12, and C is at 16

In CFP money A is worth $857,000 per team, B $1 million and C $750,000

But if A averages 2 NCAA units earned per year, B averages 1, and C averages 3 what does that do to the equation?

A is worth $1.09, B is worth $1.14, C is worth $1.07

That's before you inject TV dollars, CFP ranking dollars, and CFP appearance dollars.

But let's back up to that first line which was just CFP dollars the gap between the best per team and worst is equal to selling 600 more tickets in football and basketball per game a reachable number if the worst per team is regionalized and the best isn't. By the time you inject the other factors if you increase ticket sales and cut your travel cost your athletic department has more spendable money even if the amount in the check at the end of the year from the conference is smaller.

What you are saying is extremely misleading. The C conference, which only could be C-USA, isn't going to get 3 units any time in the near future. So they won't have that ability to make up the difference there at all. Right now, there is a difference of 6 units between CUSA and SBC the next 6 years- or 250k per year. 3 of those units are scheduled in 2015. There is little/no difference in SBC, MAC, and CUSA basketball units right now. So CUSA can't/won't make up the difference there at all. Sure, if CUSA was good in basketball that would be different, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't. Likely will be a 1 bid league going forward almost every single year, just like the MAC and the SBC.

No.

What is misleading is everyone running around like chickens with their head cut-off over ONE revenue stream out of many streams (CFP equal share, CFP performance, CFP appearance, NCAA units, conference championship event profits, league TV, school TV, tickets sold, donations secured, sponsorships, merchandise sales, concession sales, merchandise licensing)

And there is a complete ignoring of expenses. If it costs School A $1 million a year to get $1.3 million in league revenue and School B $700,000 to get $1.2 million, who is better off?

1) If you are arguing that a school would save $300,000 every year in travel expenses by playing in a regionally-constricted conference, that's very optimistic. TCU claimed that their travel costs increased by less than that when they moved from CUSA to the MWC, which is a much larger difference in travel than anyone would get by consolidating, say, CUSA and the SBC, or by trying to have large divisions for the few sports where that's workable.

2) League revenue in the "non-contract conferences" is small compared to ticket sales and donations. (Or, if a school's league revenue is anywhere near the same as ticket revenue plus donations, then they are not doing enough to generate their ticket revenue and donations.) IMO, one reason that some schools are moving from CUSA to the AAC is that they hope to increase ticket sales and donations. (It might not work for them, but at least they are trying.) So, if the people making these decisions at the schools are thoughtful, they will give a lot of consideration to whether expanding or switching conferences is a net positive or negative for their own school's ticket sales and donations. If they don't give that a lot of thought, they're not doing right by their school.
04-10-2013 11:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,827
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 370
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #84
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
The problem with your logic is you are putting things like tickets etc in there which is a totally different ball of wax.

I mean- and I've proven it- it's almost going to be impossible for a 16 team CUSA to match a 12 team SBC in football playoff revenue. The ONLY way is if they are either the top conference or get the representative in the playoff. Both are extremely unlikely with MWC and AAC on the prowl. While football money isn't everything, it's a pretty big thing. The NCAA units are almost a total wash. The other things will be the ultimate differential- but a 16 team CUSA would likely be down about 225k per school. That's not chump change at all. NCAA units won't make that difference up. Likely FB money, NCAA units, plus league TV money would total be equal between 16 team CUSA and 12 team SBC. Travel between SBC and CUSA isn't going to be a 300k difference like you are trying to infer. It just won't.
04-10-2013 11:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,077
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #85
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with your logic is you are putting things like tickets etc in there which is a totally different ball of wax.

I mean- and I've proven it- it's almost going to be impossible for a 16 team CUSA to match a 12 team SBC in football playoff revenue. The ONLY way is if they are either the top conference or get the representative in the playoff. Both are extremely unlikely with MWC and AAC on the prowl. While football money isn't everything, it's a pretty big thing. The NCAA units are almost a total wash. The other things will be the ultimate differential- but a 16 team CUSA would likely be down about 225k per school. That's not chump change at all. NCAA units won't make that difference up. Likely FB money, NCAA units, plus league TV money would total be equal between 16 team CUSA and 12 team SBC. Travel between SBC and CUSA isn't going to be a 300k difference like you are trying to infer. It just won't.

First any business model that excludes consideration of the impact of a change on the two largest revenue streams of most schools is a bad model.

That's like telling Apple to ignore the profit from selling iPads and iPhones and let's just talk about iTunes and App store profits that aren't high enough and they should focus on increasing those profits with higher prices or a higher commission on sales even if it negatively impacts the sale of phones and tablets.

Conference revenue is generally less than one-third of revenue for college athletic programs. The exception being lower performing schools in the Rich 5 leagues.

Your first priority is to enhance the real money. Tickets sold and donations.

Everyone is lining up their conferences to maximize income that is ancillary to the business when the focus should be to maximize the income that is the core business.

I don't believe UCF or Temple or USF builds the eagerness of Tulane or Houston or Tulsa fans to purchase tickets or donate to compete against them (or make the ticket a valuable commodity that permits forcibly extracting donations from potential ticket buyers). That simply defies belief.
04-11-2013 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 36,827
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 370
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #86
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-11-2013 08:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with your logic is you are putting things like tickets etc in there which is a totally different ball of wax.

I mean- and I've proven it- it's almost going to be impossible for a 16 team CUSA to match a 12 team SBC in football playoff revenue. The ONLY way is if they are either the top conference or get the representative in the playoff. Both are extremely unlikely with MWC and AAC on the prowl. While football money isn't everything, it's a pretty big thing. The NCAA units are almost a total wash. The other things will be the ultimate differential- but a 16 team CUSA would likely be down about 225k per school. That's not chump change at all. NCAA units won't make that difference up. Likely FB money, NCAA units, plus league TV money would total be equal between 16 team CUSA and 12 team SBC. Travel between SBC and CUSA isn't going to be a 300k difference like you are trying to infer. It just won't.

First any business model that excludes consideration of the impact of a change on the two largest revenue streams of most schools is a bad model.

That's like telling Apple to ignore the profit from selling iPads and iPhones and let's just talk about iTunes and App store profits that aren't high enough and they should focus on increasing those profits with higher prices or a higher commission on sales even if it negatively impacts the sale of phones and tablets.

Conference revenue is generally less than one-third of revenue for college athletic programs. The exception being lower performing schools in the Rich 5 leagues.

Your first priority is to enhance the real money. Tickets sold and donations.

Everyone is lining up their conferences to maximize income that is ancillary to the business when the focus should be to maximize the income that is the core business.

I don't believe UCF or Temple or USF builds the eagerness of Tulane or Houston or Tulsa fans to purchase tickets or donate to compete against them (or make the ticket a valuable commodity that permits forcibly extracting donations from potential ticket buyers). That simply defies belief.
3 things-
1- the AAC will have FAR superior basketball than CUSA or SBC. PERIOD. So the hoops units will be definitely in play. AAC will likely (at least until Cincy and UConn are gone)- be in play for at least 5-10 units a year. Compare to CUSA who will be lucky most years to have even 2 units.
2- the league will have divisions. So Tulane, Houston, Tulsa, SMU will see a lot of each other in the conference. I'd guess with UCF/USF. The other division has a lot of the stronger teams like Cincy and ECU- so it will be a big deal when one of those come into town.
3- The AAC will be in play every year for the top G5 conference and the G5 spot in the BCS. If they get that- it's an extra 6 million for the spot and then extra for being the best G5 conference. If they're the top spot and the best g5 conference, while CUSA with their bunch is #4(very realistic)- it's goign to be a difference of 25 million for the AAC/12 teams vs 14.5 million/16 teams for CUSA. Over 1.175 million dollar difference per team. And this is before the TV revenue gap which is over a million dollars if CUSA goes to 16.

So a lot of what you were saying why it's so great for CUSA compared to SBC is totally opposite for CUSA compared to the AAC.

Oh and I do think like Tulane would rather see UCF and USF instead of La-Monroe or Arkansas St or any of the other SBC callups.
04-11-2013 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,077
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 767
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #87
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
Of course Tulane would prefer that. Before Arkansas State basketball collapsed under Nutt we were taking 1,000 and more to UNO for BASKETBALL when the league put that on a Saturday. Tulane might actually have a full "arena" if they played regional opponents, they'd never survive the culture shock.
04-11-2013 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,131
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 650
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #88
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-11-2013 08:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't believe UCF or Temple or USF builds the eagerness of Tulane or Houston or Tulsa fans to purchase tickets or donate to compete against them (or make the ticket a valuable commodity that permits forcibly extracting donations from potential ticket buyers). That simply defies belief.

But at least it's unproven. It is proven, with many years of data, that playing more local opponents does not help those teams to fill the seats at their stadiums. (Unless the "local opponents" are Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, or LSU. The point being that fans respond in large numbers to big-name opponents and not to non-name opponents, whether they are local or not.)

As I said above, the CUSA-to-AAC teams might well experience the same result in the AAC, but at least they are trying something different.
04-11-2013 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #89
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-11-2013 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 08:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't believe UCF or Temple or USF builds the eagerness of Tulane or Houston or Tulsa fans to purchase tickets or donate to compete against them (or make the ticket a valuable commodity that permits forcibly extracting donations from potential ticket buyers). That simply defies belief.

But at least it's unproven. It is proven, with many years of data, that playing more local opponents does not help those teams to fill the seats at their stadiums. (Unless the "local opponents" are Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, or LSU. The point being that fans respond in large numbers to big-name opponents and not to non-name opponents, whether they are local or not.)

As I said above, the CUSA-to-AAC teams might well experience the same result in the AAC, but at least they are trying something different.

That's where the regional conference (with low outside revenue) argument falls apart for me. The MAC, SBC and several of CUSA are lucky if they're drawing in the mid 20,000's for games. My theory is your school either draws fans / has a fanbase or it doesn't. It's much better to stand on your own than to rely on visitors for revenue.

No matter what ECU is in a much better situation b/c of geography & NCAA revenues. We were somewhat of an outlier any way you slice it but having Navy (+ hopefully a non-FB offset), Temple, UConn, UCF & USF in our time zone at least is a huge improvement over what we had before. Our closest conference mate was Marshall before. Now we have 3 within or roughly closer in Navy, Temple & Cincy. We severed trips UTEP and put Memphis in our new west division.

Playing UNCC & ODU in conference is completely unacceptable to myself and at least half of our fanbase, especially the bigger donors so a truly regional league like MAC or SBC is basically a non-starter.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 11:23 AM by blunderbuss.)
04-11-2013 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,214
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 49
I Root For: CollegeFootball
Location:
Post: #90
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
I agree with Arkstfan here that the conversation was too "specific" and mentioned as much earlier in the thread.

You can't just look at BCS money and assume that is the driving factor in re-alignment. The overall driving factor in re-alignment has been TV revenue, because that trumps the BCS money...as far down as CUSA, which expanded to 14 in order to keep its current contract (more programs equals more markets and most importantly more inventory)....it may have to go to 16 to keep its TV revenue now with more losses in the last 5 months ECU, Tulane and Tulsa. It is saying it can LOWER expenses with more programs, which is just as significant as adding revenue. If you can lower every programs expenses by 200K by adding 2 programs and you have a reduced revenue of 100K by adding the 2 programs, that's a net win for every program. The revenue is generated by TV, BCS and NCAA tourney units....and for the most part the SBC and MAC are mainly going to be getting money from the BCS and not the other two sources...whereas CUSA will get more from the other two sources. Granted ODU had a bad final year in the CAA, but they and Charlotte have legit basketball potential and we have seen UAB & UTEP grab at large spots in the last few years. Southern Miss was the last one out THIS year.
04-11-2013 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,214
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 49
I Root For: CollegeFootball
Location:
Post: #91
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-11-2013 11:21 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 10:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 08:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't believe UCF or Temple or USF builds the eagerness of Tulane or Houston or Tulsa fans to purchase tickets or donate to compete against them (or make the ticket a valuable commodity that permits forcibly extracting donations from potential ticket buyers). That simply defies belief.

But at least it's unproven. It is proven, with many years of data, that playing more local opponents does not help those teams to fill the seats at their stadiums. (Unless the "local opponents" are Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, or LSU. The point being that fans respond in large numbers to big-name opponents and not to non-name opponents, whether they are local or not.)

As I said above, the CUSA-to-AAC teams might well experience the same result in the AAC, but at least they are trying something different.

That's where the regional conference (with low outside revenue) argument falls apart for me. The MAC, SBC and several of CUSA are lucky if they're drawing in the mid 20,000's for games. My theory is your school either draws fans / has a fanbase or it doesn't. It's much better to stand on your own than to rely on visitors for revenue.

No matter what ECU is in a much better situation b/c of geography & NCAA revenues. We were somewhat of an outlier any way you slice it but having Navy (+ hopefully a non-FB offset), Temple, UConn, UCF & USF in our time zone at least is a huge improvement over what we had before. Our closest conference mate was Marshall before. Now we have 3 within or roughly closer in Navy, Temple & Cincy. We severed trips UTEP and put Memphis in our new west division.

Playing UNCC & ODU in conference is completely unacceptable to myself and at least half of our fanbase, especially the bigger donors so a truly regional league like MAC or SBC is basically a non-starter.

It is clearly playing out that at the G5 level, the regions just get bigger as you go up. The MWC has Colorado West and the American has the rest. Besides that you have 3 other leagues that are more regional in nature although CUSA kind of mimics The American with a Sun Belt flavor. I will not be surprised if in the long run there is one national conference and just 2 other regional conferences (CUSA and MAC). I think that is where this is all heading...consolidation with divisional regionalization....its the model that seems to be the most efficient use of revenues vs expenditures
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 11:31 AM by HP-TBDPITL.)
04-11-2013 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,066
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1432
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #92
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-11-2013 08:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with your logic is you are putting things like tickets etc in there which is a totally different ball of wax.

I mean- and I've proven it- it's almost going to be impossible for a 16 team CUSA to match a 12 team SBC in football playoff revenue. The ONLY way is if they are either the top conference or get the representative in the playoff. Both are extremely unlikely with MWC and AAC on the prowl. While football money isn't everything, it's a pretty big thing. The NCAA units are almost a total wash. The other things will be the ultimate differential- but a 16 team CUSA would likely be down about 225k per school. That's not chump change at all. NCAA units won't make that difference up. Likely FB money, NCAA units, plus league TV money would total be equal between 16 team CUSA and 12 team SBC. Travel between SBC and CUSA isn't going to be a 300k difference like you are trying to infer. It just won't.

First any business model that excludes consideration of the impact of a change on the two largest revenue streams of most schools is a bad model.

That's like telling Apple to ignore the profit from selling iPads and iPhones and let's just talk about iTunes and App store profits that aren't high enough and they should focus on increasing those profits with higher prices or a higher commission on sales even if it negatively impacts the sale of phones and tablets.

Conference revenue is generally less than one-third of revenue for college athletic programs. The exception being lower performing schools in the Rich 5 leagues.

Your first priority is to enhance the real money. Tickets sold and donations.

Everyone is lining up their conferences to maximize income that is ancillary to the business when the focus should be to maximize the income that is the core business.

I don't believe UCF or Temple or USF builds the eagerness of Tulane or Houston or Tulsa fans to purchase tickets or donate to compete against them (or make the ticket a valuable commodity that permits forcibly extracting donations from potential ticket buyers). That simply defies belief.

The assumption here is that the local small no-name schools will sell more tickets. Why would that be the case? Do local small no name bands sell more tickets than moderately well known bands from elsewhere?

The CUSA schools were not much of a draw in Houston and they represented the better more well known names in non-AQ football at the time. Just because Sam Houston State and Lamar are about an hours drive from Houston isnt going to mean an increase in ticket sales. Folks in Houston dont drive an hour to see thier games in Beaumont or Huntsville. Heck, attendance in Huntsville and Beaumont from local citizens is pretty underwelming.

Fact is, given non-name opponents, the casual fan in Houston might rather spend that dicretionary money on Astros tickets or Texasns tickets. Maybe they'd rather just stay home and watch Texas play on tv. There is a reason that the AAC schools are willing to travel farther to play a different level of competition.

Are UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, and Navy on the same level as Texas and Florida State? Nope. But they are more well known than most of the teams that currently make up the Sunbelt or CUSA. They have a similar commitment to athletics (read as atheletic budget) and they are peer universities. Will they result in large increases in local attendance--probably not. Maybe a little at best. However, the national TV contract that has us playing games on ESPN and ABC rather than CBS-Sports and CSS might help some.

Besides, I think many miss the entire point of modern college athletics--especially at the mid-major level. It has nothing to do with the athletic department making money. Hardly any athletic departments actually make money. Though they all would love love love to make money---they are mostly all money losers. So why do they exist?

The athletic departments have become a major PR and advertising arm of the university. Every year every high school senior and junior gets tons of mailers from universities hoping for thier tuition money in a future fall. Most of these mailers get immediately thown in the garbage. The ones that get a second look are the schools the kid has heard of.

When Houston plays football in Philly, the University of Houston will get print articles in the paper for a week. The game will be on national television (supposedly) and get a nice audience in Philly. Thousands will actually be at the game. The game scores and recap will be on the Philly news and in the Philly newspaper on Sunday. You cant buy that kind of exposure and increased name recognition any other way. People pay far more attention to this than they would any advertisement you could buy.

Thats what todays modern athletic departments do for todays universites---they increase school awareness and are a driver of enrollment. Looking at the athletic budget expenses and revenue figures doesnt tell the entire story. This is one of the big reasons the Houston administration prefers the east to the west--more money and people (read as potential students) in the east.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 12:49 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-11-2013 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,022
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #93
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-11-2013 11:31 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  It is clearly playing out that at the G5 level, the regions just get bigger as you go up. The MWC has Colorado West and the American has the rest. Besides that you have 3 other leagues that are more regional in nature although CUSA kind of mimics The American with a Sun Belt flavor. I will not be surprised if in the long run there is one national conference and just 2 other regional conferences (CUSA and MAC). I think that is where this is all heading...consolidation with divisional regionalization....its the model that seems to be the most efficient use of revenues vs expenditures
We do not have any evidence, though, whether a national "best of the rest" Mid-Major conference is where things are heading. One sitting on top of two or three east of the Rockies and one from the Rockies west might be what the population distribution / interest / football player development supports.
04-11-2013 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.