Huan
1st String
Posts: 1,437
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 72
I Root For: TTU, USA,
Location: Texas |
RE: Who to Add?
(11-11-2021 11:34 PM)UNT15 Wrote: (11-11-2021 06:13 PM)Huan Wrote: (11-11-2021 04:42 PM)UNT15 Wrote: (11-11-2021 11:19 AM)Huan Wrote: What fbs conference has been satisfied with staying at 9? Even 10?
Sure CUSA can stay as is and if future losses occur can add then. But why suffer existential crisis again and if CUSA will dip down to FCS again and get another grace period as these programs transition why not do it now and get these programs to speed? Otherwise CUSA will always be rebuilding and catching up. My bet is CUSA will go to 12 full members, possibly 14.
Umm...the Big 12 was happy with 10 from 2011-2023. If Texas and OU weren't hightailing it out of there, it seemed like they were satisfied to stay at 10 for longer.
There used to be two conferences called the Pacific 10 and Big Ten that were quite happy at ten for decades (although I digress from them since for this arguments sake they have both moved past that number)
Lastly, the Sun Belt has been pretty salty as a ten team football conference for the last decade
Your "bet" based on the evidence would have worse odds of paying out than "wheel of fortune" at a casino
1. lets keep it to recent history rather than decades ago though i still remember the big 8 and the swc! I agree; I even alluded to keeping it to recent history in my previous postHere and now there are no fbs conference with 8 members. Why?
Currently, the Big 12 and Sun Belt are both at 10. Yes, they are both going up in 2023. Starting very soon, only CUSA will be under a dozen.
You ask why? Originally, conferences started adding members to get to 12 so they could stage conference championship games and enjoy the additional revenue that those games provided. Over the next few cycles, conferences were adding markets and teams so they could provide additional inventory for their broadcasting partners. None of these reasons apply to their current 9-team CUSA 4.0. 1) teams no longer need 12 for a championship game. 2) markets are no longer a driving force in expansion, and 3) I don't think the FCS call-ups will assist in earning additional revenue (this is Judy's job though to find out the answer to that via negotiations with broadcasters. If they say yes, then by all means add teams. However, I don't think that's the case. The numbers just don't support that any team out there will increase the $$ for CUSA)
Let me close this by saying that all of those other examples over the last 20+ years were conferences largely poaching existing FBS (1-A) teams - a type of consolidation if you will. I don't think growing larger for the sake of growing larger is productive. Expansion should make more money. The SEC didn't go out and add Kansas State and Louisiana-Monroe.
2. there is only one fbs conference with less than 12 members: CUSA. Will it remain at 9?
I think it depends on a number of factors. Right now, I think it will remain at 9. My guess is based on this: I think the B1G and SEC are done expanding for at least 12 years. I think the ACC is done (unless ND joins and they want to add a 16th member). I think the Big 12 will stay at 12. The Pac-12 is probably done too; they view all the viable options out west as below them. Thus, AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, MWC are all done. CUSA will stay at 9 for at least two years - they will work on transitioning SHSU/JSU; since no other conference will be adding FCS, CUSA can step back and be deliberate about any expansion.
3. this round of realignment was initiated by OU and UT leaving a 10 members conference for a 14 members conference. Did the SEC needed OU & UT? no. will the media money be better for the 14? unknown. but the sec decided to get bigger by adding good programs: adding value builds value. its is a pro-growth move rather than a minimize losses mentality. the sec got bigger.
You make a great point here. from looking at distributions and their new contract, I don't see how Texas and OU are increasing the revenue for SEC. I think they ARE increasing revenue, but only by the same amount as the teams are already earning. These numbers I'm using are not to be taken literal: but for example, SEC teams currently earn $40M/year (someone can enter the real numbers here; or I can look them up later). OU/TX are adding $80M total so about $40M/year. the current SEC teams don't look to be making additional $$
4. the big 12 was very uncomfortable at 10 and said so. they actually considered expanding in 2016 but got bogged down in politics. if the big 12 was happy with ten then why did they add 4 rather than just 2 to replace OU & UT? looking at the past 5 years OU is better than UC but BYU is better than UT; why take UH & UCF when the pie maybe shrinking? because you build conference value by adding teams of value. like the SEC bigger can be better if value is also increased.
You say politics, and you might be right. I think ESPN told them they wouldn't be making any additional money and so the Big 12 passed on adding members. It's also possible that ESPN asked for an extended GOR and TX/OU passed because they already had a roving eye. They added 4 because losing TX/OU was BIG. ESPN told the Big 12 they would continue to pay the same amount but only if the Big 12 provided additional inventory. The Big 12 agreed and added 4 teams so that they could provide more games to the mouse and keep their payouts the same. bigger can be better if value is increased; or in this case if value can be maintained
5. To replace three lost programs the AAC could have just added 1 to have the minimum of 8. they could have added 3 or 4 to replace the losses. nope; they went with 6 growing bigger than before despite facing probable revenue losses. just like the big 12.
yeah, this was mind boggling and is definitely a point in favor of your argument. I absolutely did NOT see the AAC adding six teams. I have read on here and in some media reports at the time that the new adds will be making less money. I think it's possible that this was to offset revenue losses. Perhaps ESPN also allowed them to finish out their current contract if they provided additional inventory (more teams/games) for their ESPN+ platform. I think the AAC is going to take a huge per team hit in revenue at their next contract
6. the sbc was 10 and now going to 14; will the original 10 be making more money each? doesn't look that way, but they are still getting bigger. Sure you can argue ESPN is enabling this but hard feelings aside against CUSA ESPN is a business and out to make money; they wouldn't be funding SBC's expansion if they won't profit from it, which means ESPN view a 14 teams sbc as more valuable at 14 than 10; a bigger SBC is better. this isn't Games of Throne and ESPN isn't trying to off CUSA.
in the case of the Sun Belt, adding four teams that fit the footprint and carried such brands as Southern Miss and Marshall was hard to pass up. And I think a larger point is being made here - that most conferences view 12-14 as the ideal number. 12 allows for divisions and 8 conference games very easily; 14 also works very well for either 8-9 conference games. 12-14 members makes perfect sense to provide stability and for scheduling purposes, provided it does not dilute value. in the case of the Big 12 and the Sun Belt, the additions did not dilute value ( I don't think they added $$, though). The AAC is, again, the head-scratcher here
7. which brings us back to CUSA currently at 9. Are there available programs that can bring value to CUSA? i think yes: recent fcs championship quality programs similar to SHSU and JSU, programs like NDSU, SDSt, and MoST. Given the events of this year's current realignment moves, i feel safe in betting that CUSA will not stay at 9 but 12 is the likely size, though i wouldn't be shock at a 14 members CUSA.
Unlike yourself, I would be shocked at 14. I think CUSA would expand to 12 if they had the right teams to add. In all of the examples you provided (SEC, Big 12, Sun Belt, and even AAC), the teams that were added were quality, proven programs that had made investments that showed they were ready for the next level or could add value to their new conferences. It just seems harder to know for sure when it comes to FCS call-ups. Very few conferences have ever added more than like 2 FCS's at a time; I think there's a reason for that. I also don't think there are any natural additions. You mention Missouri State - from what I've read, Missouri State has supposedly passed on CUSA. If they want to join CUSA, then I agree that they would seemingly make a great 10th team, and I think most of the current members would agree.
NDSU/SDSU are just so far away from the current CUSA, and that would theoretically make 5 of the 12 members be brand new FCS call-ups. additionally, that looks like fractured "conference" - 2 teams in the Dakotas, 2 on the NM/TX border, 2 near the LA/TX border, 2 together at TN/KY with 2 more nearby-ish (JSU/MoSt), and then Liberty and FIU sort of on islands (FIU on a more remote island)
I think it boils down to this: you think there are available programs that will add value, and I just don't see them being able to do it. I also think some of the current members don't want to suddenly elevate 3-5 teams that might just turn around and leave them.
It'll be interesting to watch and see. I'll be the first to come back in and say "you were right" if they go up to 12 or 14 in the next 7-8 months. I think it's much more likely that they'll stay at 9. I would be willing to bet that we see no new additions (provided no more than one more defection - new defections would change the math) for at least 2 years.
Feel free to respond back. You definitely brought up several things that really made me put my thinking cap on (specifically the AAC expansion and the fact that the other 9 conferences all have 12+ now)
3.1 regarding the big 12. It was reported the big 12 contract permitted the big 12 to have 14 teams with everyone making the same as 12, I.e. ESPN would give more money to accommodate #13 and #14. Supposedly instead of adding 2 the ten teams split the money for 12 10 ways but they had to maintain inventory so they went to 9 conference games rather than 8. This capacity for 14 remains in play but without knowing when OU & UT leaves they took 4. There will likely be 14 teams in the big 12 for 2023. But once the big 12 knows when OU & UT leaves they will move regarding phase two of expansion. Since tv contracts ends 2025, the year OU & UT will be gone, the conference will compare the income for 12 vs 14. If money stays the same for 14 then I think it will be likely the big 12 will add 2 more and trigger another round of realignment in 2024.
7.1 regarding CUSA. it is expected the 9 departing teams to be gone by 2023. Any FCS teams transitioning must declare by June 1 of 2021 and start transitioning in 2023. Thus in 2023 CUSA will be at 7 fbs and thus enter the two years grace period but by the end of grace years in 2025 the fcs translation would have been completed and CUSA would be in good standing. But should CUSA lose 2 teams during grace period (season 23/24 and 24/25) they must replace them with 2 FBS teams by 25/26 when grace period ends. So if the big 12 decides to expand in spring of 24 with new additions to join the big 12 in 25/26 and it trickles down to CUSA, how likely will CUSA be able to get the 2 fbs programs to join and play by 25/26? Come spring of 24 no fcs programs can help CUSA; they declare intent to transition by June 1 of 24, transition year 1 will be in 25. So CUSA runs the risk of losing fbs status in 25. Sure they can get an exemption but that won’t be in their control. What is under their control is adding 1 more fcs now to be at projected 10 fbs in 25 to be able to lose two more fbs before then, but that will leave just 8 fbs, the minimum needed. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to take 3 more fcs now for a projected 12 in 25, a safer margin? Hence I see 3 more fcs additions, possibly 5 more (setting CUSA at 7 fbs + 7 fcs).
|
|
