Found these tables on a thread in the CUSA board





A few questions, comments, and musings on this...

1 With the NCAA no longer requiring 12 teams for a championship game, is there really any benefit to adding a team that won't help our conference rating in football?

2. I'm now more convinced that CUSA has no benefit for Georgia Southern.

We all know CUSA's TV deal is going to tank next year but on top of that the per-school payout from the CFP system per school just doesn't look much more attractive even after we finished behind CUSA in the rankings, and I don't think that will become routine.

Sooner or later Idaho and NMSU are probably out the door, Troy is very much down and will recover, Georgia State won't be terrible forever, and App State isn't going to wait until they are in conference play to play up to what they are capable of every year. I feel very good about the football of this league with the current membership going forward.

3. Does this mean an expansion of the college football playoff beyond 4 teams is inevitable even before the contract locking it in at 4 expires? I feel like there may be too much money to be made to keep it at 4 for long.

4. I noticed the Sun Belt payout was divided 11 ways. So which two schools don't get a cut, Idaho and NMSU or UALR and UTA?

(05-05-2015 03:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Found these tables on a thread in the CUSA board





A few questions, comments, and musings on this...

1 With the NCAA no longer requiring 12 teams for a championship game, is there really any benefit to adding a team that won't help our conference rating in football?

2. I'm now more convinced that CUSA has no benefit for Georgia Southern.

We all know CUSA's TV deal is going to tank next year but on top of that the per-school payout from the CFP system per school just doesn't look much more attractive even after we finished behind CUSA in the rankings, and I don't think that will become routine.

Sooner or later Idaho and NMSU are probably out the door, Troy is very much down and will recover, Georgia State won't be terrible forever, and App State isn't going to wait until they are in conference play to play up to what they are capable of every year. I feel very good about the football of this league with the current membership going forward.

3. Does this mean an expansion of the college football playoff beyond 4 teams is inevitable even before the contract locking it in at 4 expires? I feel like there may be too much money to be made to keep it at 4 for long.

4. I noticed the Sun Belt payout was divided 11 ways. So which two schools don't get a cut, Idaho and NMSU or UALR and UTA?

I don't think the NCAA has ruled on needing 12 teams for a CCG yet.

(05-05-2015 03:56 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 03:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Found these tables on a thread in the CUSA board





A few questions, comments, and musings on this...

1 With the NCAA no longer requiring 12 teams for a championship game, is there really any benefit to adding a team that won't help our conference rating in football?

2. I'm now more convinced that CUSA has no benefit for Georgia Southern.

We all know CUSA's TV deal is going to tank next year but on top of that the per-school payout from the CFP system per school just doesn't look much more attractive even after we finished behind CUSA in the rankings, and I don't think that will become routine.

Sooner or later Idaho and NMSU are probably out the door, Troy is very much down and will recover, Georgia State won't be terrible forever, and App State isn't going to wait until they are in conference play to play up to what they are capable of every year. I feel very good about the football of this league with the current membership going forward.

3. Does this mean an expansion of the college football playoff beyond 4 teams is inevitable even before the contract locking it in at 4 expires? I feel like there may be too much money to be made to keep it at 4 for long.

4. I noticed the Sun Belt payout was divided 11 ways. So which two schools don't get a cut, Idaho and NMSU or UALR and UTA?

I don't think the NCAA has ruled on needing 12 teams for a CCG yet.

Correct hey haven't. And it might appears lately that it may not pass even though some commissioners state it seems it'll pass. The AD's and coaches have quite a bit of say in it.

1 With the NCAA no longer requiring 12 teams for a championship game, is there really any benefit to adding a team that won't help our conference rating in football? No longer requiring 12 teams is hardly a done deal and if it does not pass we will have to add at least one (maybe two if CUSA raids) to get a championship game.

2. I'm now more convinced that CUSA has no benefit for Georgia Southern. I completely agree with this!!!

We all know CUSA's TV deal is going to tank next year but on top of that the per-school payout from the CFP system per school just doesn't look much more attractive even after we finished behind CUSA in the rankings, and I don't think that will become routine. Again you are spot on with this as well.

Sooner or later Idaho and NMSU are probably out the door, Troy is very much down and will recover, Georgia State won't be terrible forever, and App State isn't going to wait until they are in conference play to play up to what they are capable of every year. I feel very good about the football of this league with the current membership going forward. I'm not so sure NMSU will be out the door but you're probably correct about Idaho. I personally believe we should add NMSU for all sports but even if we don't they are worth keeping around just for name recognition.

3. Does this mean an expansion of the college football playoff beyond 4 teams is inevitable even before the contract locking it in at 4 expires? I feel like there may be too much money to be made to keep it at 4 for long. I agree a lot of money is on the table but I still think it will take several years for expansion of the playoffs. Is it inevitable? Maybe but I think the P5 will keep the same format for a few years to see how it all shakes out. If one of them has a drought and does not place a team for a few years in a row I'll bet the house change will occur.

4. I noticed the Sun Belt payout was divided 11 ways. So which two schools don't get a cut, Idaho and NMSU or UALR and UTA? Was wondering about that myself...

(05-05-2015 04:06 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  1 With the NCAA no longer requiring 12 teams for a championship game, is there really any benefit to adding a team that won't help our conference rating in football? No longer requiring 12 teams is hardly a done deal and if it does not pass we will have to add at least one (maybe two if CUSA raids) to get a championship game.

2. I'm now more convinced that CUSA has no benefit for Georgia Southern. I completely agree with this!!!

We all know CUSA's TV deal is going to tank next year but on top of that the per-school payout from the CFP system per school just doesn't look much more attractive even after we finished behind CUSA in the rankings, and I don't think that will become routine. Again you are spot on with this as well.

Sooner or later Idaho and NMSU are probably out the door, Troy is very much down and will recover, Georgia State won't be terrible forever, and App State isn't going to wait until they are in conference play to play up to what they are capable of every year. I feel very good about the football of this league with the current membership going forward. I'm not so sure NMSU will be out the door but you're probably correct about Idaho. I personally believe we should NMSU for all sports but even if we don't they are worth keeping around just for name recognition.

3. Does this mean an expansion of the college football playoff beyond 4 teams is inevitable even before the contract locking it in at 4 expires? I feel like there may be too much money to be made to keep it at 4 for long. I agree a lot of money is on the table but I still think it will take several years for expansion of the playoffs. Is it inevitable? Maybe but I think the P5 will keep the same format for a few years to see how it all shakes out. If one of them has a drought and does not place a team for a few years in a row I'll bet the house change will occur.

4. I noticed the Sun Belt payout was divided 11 ways. So which two schools don't get a cut, Idaho and NMSU or UALR and UTA? Was wondering about that myself...

UTA and UALR because CFP is only from football. The NCAA credits gets distributed to UTA and UALR but not NMSU and Idaho.
But that is up to the Sunbelt with any CFP $$ will be given to UTA or UALR.

UTA and UALR do not get CFP money from the SBC. They also get a reduced share of the TV revenue as non football members.

(05-05-2015 09:55 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  UTA and UALR do not get CFP money from the SBC. They also get a reduced share of the TV revenue as non football members.

I'm curious just how much revenue from the conference do uta and ualr receive..

(05-05-2015 09:55 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  UTA and UALR do not get CFP money from the SBC. They also get a reduced share of the TV revenue as non football members.

In case anyone was wondering "why in the world would anyone think UTA and UALR get football money" I thought it was so that UTA and UALR would be willing to vote to invite schools like Georgia Southern and App State.

Look at the MWC compared to the rest of the G5. Getting to the access bowl gives the conference a payout similar to what the P5 schools were receiving under BCS. That's some serious $$$.

It's hard to believe JMU doesn't want in on this... smh

(05-06-2015 02:11 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 09:55 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  UTA and UALR do not get CFP money from the SBC. They also get a reduced share of the TV revenue as non football members.

In case anyone was wondering "why in the world would anyone think UTA and UALR get football money" I thought it was so that UTA and UALR would be willing to vote to invite schools like Georgia Southern and App State.

So we let non-football schools vote on schools that play football? I think that would be a bit counterproductive.

(05-07-2015 06:39 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 02:11 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 09:55 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  UTA and UALR do not get CFP money from the SBC. They also get a reduced share of the TV revenue as non football members.

In case anyone was wondering "why in the world would anyone think UTA and UALR get football money" I thought it was so that UTA and UALR would be willing to vote to invite schools like Georgia Southern and App State.

So we let non-football schools vote on schools that play football? I think that would be a bit counterproductive.

I would think that uta and ualr dont vote on any football issues but would have a full vote on anything else. It was just for my own curiosity that I wondered how much money uta derives from sbc membership.

(05-07-2015 07:25 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 06:39 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 02:11 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 09:55 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  UTA and UALR do not get CFP money from the SBC. They also get a reduced share of the TV revenue as non football members.

In case anyone was wondering "why in the world would anyone think UTA and UALR get football money" I thought it was so that UTA and UALR would be willing to vote to invite schools like Georgia Southern and App State.

So we let non-football schools vote on schools that play football? I think that would be a bit counterproductive.

I would think that uta and ualr dont vote on any football issues but would have a full vote on anything else. It was just for my own curiosity that I wondered how much money uta derives from sbc membership.

That I would agree with.