(05-06-2016 08:07 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 07:50 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 06:26 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

Well yes, we know that. We also know that you guys dividue your revenue between 4 more teams than we do, meaning if your TV revenue takes a significant cut, the likelihood is that the total revenues for the two leagues become about even.

If that happens or even if there is still a couple hundred thousand difference between the 2 conferences, it may be enough to motivate the 2 to map out a plan to swap schools in some orderly fashion. One more eastern and one more western. Could be a good solution coming out of this. With 10 SBC schools and 14 in C-USA, that could end of being a 12/12 situation.

One problem I see with that is that there could be some irreconcilable disputes where universities don't want to be associated with one another. La Tech probably doesn't want to be associated with ULM/ULL. UAB could have a problem being in the same conference as USA/Troy. C-USA east might not like potentially being conference mates with Coastal.

IF this conference switch'em up happens, it'll involve a lot of politics and a bunch of deals made on the side.

If the Texas schools and USM moved CUSA would pick apart the eastern part of the Sun Belt and La.Tech would be in a conference where UAB, MTSU, WKU are the closest members and I'm sure do just fine while the southwestern oriented National Athletic Conference, or American South, or South Star or whatever name the consultants come up with carries on with or without them.

(05-06-2016 09:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, No one is going to leave CUSA for the Sun Belt over this. No one is going to leave the Sun Belt for CUSA over this.

Should there be some sorting out? Probably. Will it happen? No.

---

First of all, the Belt has a much more compact footprint, bowls that make sense, and a cost structure not predicated on huge payments for TV. We also have a right sized conference structure for football.

CUSA still holds some advantages, but the advantages are much less now.

There is only one obstacle to it.
A president of a CUSA school who cares about athletics and understands athletics who is tired of the crap and is willing to do something about it.

(05-06-2016 12:07 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:55 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:13 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Our deal may be less because the presidents and networks know something we don't yet. It is possible CUSA may lose schools to the AAC or MWC in another round of realignment. There are just too many variables to speculate at this point.

The deal is less because the tv execs know two teams will be leaving for the AAC, that is good stuff.

It's less because CUSA's brand is worth less than the last time it was negotiated, I know that's a tough pill to swallow for the remaining members.

I look forward to the disparaging SBC remarks, but remember blowing someone's candle out doesn't make yours any brighter.

No, my feelings aren't hurt at all. I do agree that losing members hurt us badly, but I am also not sure realignment is finished. I am certainly no expert; however, there is a possibility it came in SO low because we are losing even more members.

I wont disparage the SBC. We both know what this will mean on your next negotiations. Honestly, it isn't good news for any G5. I didn't comment to cause animosity. I just am not sure we have all the details of everything at this time. It's too early to speculate.

Actually we DON'T know what it means for the next Sun Belt deal.
Sun Belt will play Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Sun Belt has some decent TV ratings (the real source of money when you aren't P5) that CUSA couldn't get on FS1.

As I pointed out elsewhere, if you take the pro-rata share of revenue each team had of TV money before the Big East/American raided CUSA and add it together the CUSA value was $5.6 million, right in line with what CUSA got. The schools that left plus 3 Big East, a MAC, and an indy produced $18 million.

The ratings the CUSA defectors have produced suggests that the $14 million value was mostly the defectors. If you look at it from that viewpoint, CUSA 3.x value if it comes in at $6 million is an increase not a decrease.

(05-06-2016 12:29 PM)panama Wrote:  Most are missing the point of the OP which is how can we be 56 days away and not know who will be showing CUSA games THIS FALL!?!?

EXACTLY!!! This is uncharted country.

(05-07-2016 09:07 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC definitely needs abetted deal for the home P5 games. Last year the ArkSt-Mizzou game wasn't even televised. Also been the same for South when we played MsSt at home, at least I don't remember that game being on tv.

Does anyone know the plans for the Miami-App St game????

I think Mohajir refused to move it from 6 pm start and thus it wasn't televised. It was the grand opening of our new press box/suites and deserved to be an all day tailgate with a 6 pm kick.

Incorrect answer.

ESPN bought the rights to the US Open tennis tournament. They have minimum carry requirements as a condition of that contract. They also have minimum carry requirements as a result of the various P5 and AAC contracts.

ESPN simply lacked room for all the games, they hold 100% of the ACC and they sold Houston at Louisville that day to Fox Regional. Tulane at GT was sold off as well. Boston College, Duke, UNC, and Virginia Tech games against FCS were pushed to ESPN3.

ESPN was having to use the second, third, and fourth weeks of the season to make up for required carries the opening weekend when the US Open contract does not permit ESPN2 to carry any college football games.

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

(05-07-2016 11:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 09:07 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC definitely needs abetted deal for the home P5 games. Last year the ArkSt-Mizzou game wasn't even televised. Also been the same for South when we played MsSt at home, at least I don't remember that game being on tv.

Does anyone know the plans for the Miami-App St game????

I think Mohajir refused to move it from 6 pm start and thus it wasn't televised. It was the grand opening of our new press box/suites and deserved to be an all day tailgate with a 6 pm kick.

Incorrect answer.

ESPN bought the rights to the US Open tennis tournament. They have minimum carry requirements as a condition of that contract. They also have minimum carry requirements as a result of the various P5 and AAC contracts.

ESPN simply lacked room for all the games, they hold 100% of the ACC and they sold Houston at Louisville that day to Fox Regional. Tulane at GT was sold off as well. Boston College, Duke, UNC, and Virginia Tech games against FCS were pushed to ESPN3.

ESPN was having to use the second, third, and fourth weeks of the season to make up for required carries the opening weekend when the US Open contract does not permit ESPN2 to carry any college football games.

If lack of a place to show it was the reason, and ESPN owns SEC Network, why wasn't the A-State Mizzou game shown on SEC or SEC Alternate?

(05-08-2016 06:37 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 09:07 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC definitely needs abetted deal for the home P5 games. Last year the ArkSt-Mizzou game wasn't even televised. Also been the same for South when we played MsSt at home, at least I don't remember that game being on tv.

Does anyone know the plans for the Miami-App St game????

I think Mohajir refused to move it from 6 pm start and thus it wasn't televised. It was the grand opening of our new press box/suites and deserved to be an all day tailgate with a 6 pm kick.

Incorrect answer.

ESPN bought the rights to the US Open tennis tournament. They have minimum carry requirements as a condition of that contract. They also have minimum carry requirements as a result of the various P5 and AAC contracts.

ESPN simply lacked room for all the games, they hold 100% of the ACC and they sold Houston at Louisville that day to Fox Regional. Tulane at GT was sold off as well. Boston College, Duke, UNC, and Virginia Tech games against FCS were pushed to ESPN3.

ESPN was having to use the second, third, and fourth weeks of the season to make up for required carries the opening weekend when the US Open contract does not permit ESPN2 to carry any college football games.

If lack of a place to show it was the reason, and ESPN owns SEC Network, why wasn't the A-State Mizzou game shown on SEC or SEC Alternate?

SEC probably didn't want to showcase the defending east champs @ a Sun Belt school.

(05-08-2016 07:35 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 06:37 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 09:07 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC definitely needs abetted deal for the home P5 games. Last year the ArkSt-Mizzou game wasn't even televised. Also been the same for South when we played MsSt at home, at least I don't remember that game being on tv.

Does anyone know the plans for the Miami-App St game????

I think Mohajir refused to move it from 6 pm start and thus it wasn't televised. It was the grand opening of our new press box/suites and deserved to be an all day tailgate with a 6 pm kick.

Incorrect answer.

ESPN bought the rights to the US Open tennis tournament. They have minimum carry requirements as a condition of that contract. They also have minimum carry requirements as a result of the various P5 and AAC contracts.

ESPN simply lacked room for all the games, they hold 100% of the ACC and they sold Houston at Louisville that day to Fox Regional. Tulane at GT was sold off as well. Boston College, Duke, UNC, and Virginia Tech games against FCS were pushed to ESPN3.

ESPN was having to use the second, third, and fourth weeks of the season to make up for required carries the opening weekend when the US Open contract does not permit ESPN2 to carry any college football games.

If lack of a place to show it was the reason, and ESPN owns SEC Network, why wasn't the A-State Mizzou game shown on SEC or SEC Alternate?

SEC probably didn't want to showcase the defending east champs @ a Sun Belt school.

If espn owns the SBC rights..100% of them and the sec channel is also owned by espn. I would think espn owns the right to say to Ark St ...change the damn time of the game. At first I thought espn wouldn't pay what Ark St wanted...it is a ASU home game. A game ASU owns. But if the SBC gave espn 100% of the tv rights. They really already paid for it.

I keep seeing talk about TV ratings...I know little about them. So I have a couple questions if someone can save me the time from researching it.

For the most part a game on espn will have higher ratings than a game on Fox. Of course there will be times when say a PAC 12 school plays and they live in a state with a ton of fans.

So is a game rated on the number of overall TVs or a % of the TVs that gets espn? Another thing I assume espn will have a base rating on anything...even a blank screen shown on espn would get a rating. So how much over that base rating does the MAC and SBC draw?

Since the number of eyes that gets espn over Fox is larger the overall number of a game shown on espn will most always be higher than Fox. I'm talking comparable content. Not MAC/SBC/CUSA vs P5 games. I assume no matter what the channel those numbers are about 90 to 95% always P5. So are the ratings going by total number of eyes.. 1 million = 1% type of rating on 100 million eyes. Or are they going by the number of TV that gets that channel....Fox is in 750,000 homes so 750,000 fans = 1% ? Just using those as examples...don't know the actual numbers

Not sure about all that, but I do know that when CUSA went to the CBSports network, I never saw a CUSA game. Now over the last couple years, that has gotten better since I know to look for it. But that channel still isn't as visible as ESPN. With NASCAR on FS1, it is bringing people's attention to that network. They will need content, and more eyes will start to see those networks as they manage to break some things away from ESPN's tight hold. It is just going to take time.

(05-06-2016 11:55 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:13 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Our deal may be less because the presidents and networks know something we don't yet. It is possible CUSA may lose schools to the AAC or MWC in another round of realignment. There are just too many variables to speculate at this point.

The deal is less because the tv execs know two teams will be leaving for the AAC, that is good stuff.

It's less because CUSA's brand is worth less than the last time it was negotiated, I know that's a tough pill to swallow for the remaining members.

I look forward to the disparaging SBC remarks, but remember blowing someone's candle out doesn't make yours any brighter.

Then why do you keep blowing at CUSA's candle?

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

(05-07-2016 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

You are a moron.

Shove your stupid assumptions back in your stupid pie hole and quit creating moron fantasy about what my motives are mouth breather.

I guess I'd still be pissed too if it were my team that had forgotten that the N.O. Bowl has a first, AND a second half. Anyway, every sports fan is competitive. It's why we like sports. I completely understand why any fan of a SBC team would take pleasure in anything that is negative for CUSA. It makes the SBC's competitive position better. I get that. That's all I'm saying. I hope every team in the AAC and the MWC lose every OOC game they play. It isn't personal, it's business.

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

(05-08-2016 03:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

And I'm saying that isn't likely to happen because, unlike CUSA, the rest of G5's contracts won't be based on programs no longer in the conference. BTW, SA, less than nothing might very well be more per school than what CUSA schools get.

(05-08-2016 04:40 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 03:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

And I'm saying that isn't likely to happen because, unlike CUSA, the rest of G5's contracts won't be based on programs no longer in the conference. BTW, SA, less than nothing might very well be more per school than what CUSA schools get.

Good points and post, Appman. And you did it in one, concise post. Not 4-5.



LOL

(05-08-2016 04:40 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 03:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

And I'm saying that isn't likely to happen because, unlike CUSA, the rest of G5's contracts won't be based on programs no longer in the conference. BTW, SA, less than nothing might very well be more per school than what CUSA schools get.

No, I believe $450,000 per CUSA member is the number I've heard. A pretty big haircut for sure, but more than nothing.

(05-08-2016 07:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 04:40 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 03:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 05:23 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that CUSA will be getting a sizable cut in TV revenue with our new contract. The drop in revenue won't be enough to affect the SBC's position in the G5 pecking order though, if that's what you're hoping for.
CUSA's new TV deal will still be worth more than that of the Sun Belt Conference.

This whole development will be negative for every G5 conference member, but especially for those of us in the MAC, SBC, and CUSA. I do understand your taking pleasure in watching CUSA take a hit, however, as our conferences compete for some of the same resources. TV revenue is one of them.

This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

And I'm saying that isn't likely to happen because, unlike CUSA, the rest of G5's contracts won't be based on programs no longer in the conference. BTW, SA, less than nothing might very well be more per school than what CUSA schools get.

No, I believe $450,000 per CUSA member is the number I've heard. A pretty big haircut for sure, but more than nothing.

Hopefully a bit humbling as well. The Belt bashing from (especially) our former members gets ollllllllllllld.

(05-08-2016 08:58 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 07:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 04:40 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 03:36 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  This whole development will not be bad for the rest of the G5. No other G5 conference has been gutted of their marquee programs. I could not believe CUSA fans and administrators were gullible enough to buy Banowsky's "market" philosophy. The current makeup of CUSA isn't in the same universe as the former group. The SB is known as a start up league, so the hit of replacing those type programs isn't nearly as significant.

What I'm saying is that CUSA getting less for its TV contract will in all likelihood mean that every other G5 conference will be getting less the next time they renegotiate their TV deal. Of course, you cant get much less than nothing, which is about what the SBC gets today, even with those so called "marquee" members.

And I'm saying that isn't likely to happen because, unlike CUSA, the rest of G5's contracts won't be based on programs no longer in the conference. BTW, SA, less than nothing might very well be more per school than what CUSA schools get.

No, I believe $450,000 per CUSA member is the number I've heard. A pretty big haircut for sure, but more than nothing.

Hopefully a bit humbling as well. The Belt bashing from (especially) our former members gets ollllllllllllld.

That won't stop. They'll just come on here and tell us how we make nothing in comparison.