Arkstfan

No one with a job goes to EMU for any reason other than desperation. For the UTSA situation to be so bad to take EMU speaks volumes. Mumme is career 139-136-1. Had to cheat at UK and still had a losing record there. His 12-11 record at SELA got him a crack at NMSU and he went 11-38 (Not exactly an upgrade from Tony Samuel), he has kicked butt in Division II and Division III (though not at Belhaven so far). Really doubt UTSA is considering him.

Don't know how things are in Texas but in Arkansas if you are a music major hoping to get employment teaching you at bare minimum need marching band experience and odds are stacked against you getting one of those few teaching spots unless you served as drum major. My son's ex-girlfriend was a drum major at AState and when she changed her major from music she was told she could play but would have to come down from the step ladder because the music majors needed the spot for employment. Dropping football? It's going to happen somewhere. It will be someone taking 75% or so of their budget from student fees and university transfers who has declining enrollment.

He supposedly had a $2.25 million deal over five years which averages to $450,000 a year. Got that just before 2014 season. But saw a report saying he made $400,000 this year which would imply the deal was backloaded. Unless he agreed to a weak buyout they are on the hook for at least $1.35 million maybe $1.5 depending on the backload.

West Virginia

Scuttlebutt is that Rice and UTEP approached MWC and the MWC doesn't have the needed 9 votes to expand yet. Unless the new CUSA TV deal is a dandy, can't see why CUSA would want to go back to 14 if the UTEP/Rice escape plan works. UAB gets their act together, back at 12 and the West can be UNT, UTSA, Tech, USM and either WKU+MTSU or WKU+UAB or MTSU+UAB.

They better count for something otherwise the 1000+ four year schools engaging in athletics that aren't in the 10-20 making a profit need to rethink their spending. I think you have to look at the big picture. There was a guy in Sherwood, Arkansas who had a pretty good Cajun restaurant. Food was great, sevice sucked, and nothing ruined a nice night out worse than him stopping by the table to whine. He once went on rant about the various taxes and fees he had to pay to have a business and he could be profitable but for the taxes and fees. Well he could have been profitable if the owner of the building lowered the rent or let him use the place for free. If his suppliers charged less or gave him his sacks of rice and shrimp for free, he would have made money hand over fist. If people came in and volunteered to cook, bus tables, wash dishes, and take orders for free he would have made big bucks. This is reality. You don't "lose" money on softball or volleyball. NCAA rules say that if you want to play FBS football you must sponsor 16 sports and award at least 200 rides. None revenue sports are a cost of FBS football just the same as buying helmets and pads. The law says if you offer educational opportunities, you must offer them to women as well. Sponsoring enough women's sports to play FBS football is part of the cost of football. The NCAA recently lost a lawsuit (it is pending appeal) where the judge ruled that the NCAA cannot conspire to pay students anything less than full cost of attendance. If a school chooses to not offer it, that is the business of the school but the NCAA is barred from preventing schools from paying full cost. Does not matter whether you think it is fair for players to have spending money, the bottom line is the NCAA can't prevent it and if schools choose to do so, anyone they compete against for talent is at a disadvantage. If the Texas schools in CUSA opted to not pay that is fine, If UT does it, that's not going to hurt UNT, but if Texas State, Houston, and SMU opt to pay, then you either pay or live with the disadvantage. FCOA is a cost of business like paying the electric bill or the rent.

Right now the going rate for the early season neutral site clashes is $5 million per team. Let's not forget that G5-P5 games and FCS-P5 games are starting to end up on ESPN3 and Conference Network+ channels that not all channel subscribers receive. Name one conference negotiating a television deal other than CUSA in the next two years. Big Ten. Hummm they put the word out to bidders they aren't going to be dumping them any FCS games. That won't impact the TV deal. Added perspective. ESPN bought the rights to the US Open Tennis tournament. Weekend before the finals there will be ZERO football games on ESPN2 and they are scrambling to meet their contract obligations. What would ESPN do if the Power 5 quit dumping unattractive games on them? Most likely pay more. Watch what happens ahead of the next round of TV. SEC, Pac-12, ACC, and Big XII (if it still exists) will all be touting their new tougher scheduling standards that bar FCS games and discourage G5 games.

Sure you do. Bet anytime there is an alumni event some dude from the academic side asked about athletics will talk about the publicity, exposure and name recognition athletics provides and the importance of aligning with peer institutions. There is no such thing as a free lunch. AState is doing $4005 per scholarship per year in all sports. No one is going to notice but in the non-revenue sports, schools without stipend will be much less significant in NCAA competition. Stipend is a true game changer in equivalency sports. The kid who was getting a third of a ride worth $5000 and $1300 in stipend and is left borrowing $8700 is going to take that over a third of a ride and borrowing $10,000 and the kid who was looking at a third of a ride at a non-stipend school will see that a quarter ride and quarter of a stipend is worth about the same amount.

This isn't for sure a good thing. Right now the college model for all the sound and fury about TV money isn't driven by TV money the way the NFL, NBA, MLB are. The real money in college football remains ticket sales, donations, and sponsorships (or university money or student fees). One thing that is different from college vs pros is that the pros can get by just fine if they don't sell tickets. College has carved a different niche where playing a couple tomato cans to bolster wins and losses is essential. Big 10 believes that getting into the playoff means playing tougher tomato cans, Big XII so far hasn't bought in despite what happened last year and prefers to blame the lack of a title game instead of assigning blame to the one true champion playing FCS NW State, 5-6 Buffalo and 1-11 SMU. We saw this play out with the G5 slot with the committee dissing Marshalls terrible FCS opponent and two very bad MAC opponents and one mediocre MAC (yes I know they had a game cancelled but the committee looks at the games actually played) vs. Boise's schedule and before they faltered, ECU's schedule. If the Big 10's strategy appears to work and the money looks like it will work, scaling back G5 games is the next logical step.

I'm with Vito. When I rode my dinosaur to classes, college football players reported in mid-August, usually didn't have a game until the week after Labor Day. Finished the season before Thanksgiving. They meandered back in for a few weeks of spring practice. They went home after spring semester finals. Most of them worked over the summer and a regular part of the media guide or game programs would be "what the players did this summer". Some worked in factories, some in farms, there was always someone who got a lifeguard gig, a handful didn't do much other than go on a family vacation with their parents. Today players leave after spring finals but they are back on campus three to four weeks later. They pick up some hours in the summer but they are spending time every day either in the indoor practice facility working on routes and such or they are in the weight room or they are running. They usually get another week off between second summer term reporting for fall camp the first week in August. They are in practices past Thanksgiving. Make a bowl game if it is pre-Christmas they get released after the game. If it is post-Christmas they maybe get some time off for Christmas if it is NYD or later. If it is between Christmas and New Year's Day they maybe get of Christmas Eve and Day if they aren't at or traveling to the bowl site. They generally get two to three weeks off and report back to the S&C coach for "voluntary workouts". Then they have spring drills, get a week or two before resuming training. A college football player 30 years ago worked football for about six of the nine months of school and had three months off. Today, they are rarely home more than six weeks of the year.

Players received a cash stipend until 1973. It was taken away because schools weren't sure they could afford Title IX and it wasn't until the mid to late 80's that revenue really caught up with the new expenses that came from Title IX. Rather than give the stipend back, schools raised salaries. If players are interchangeable widgets, I presume you don't care if UNT puts its future at QB in the hands of a one star recruit rather than trying to sign a three star. Pac-12, SEC, Big 10, and ACC all agreed to split the pie, but they brought in schools who made the pie so much larger that splitting 14 ways gave them more pie than splitting the old one 12 ways. In no way shape nor form did TCU and WVU make the Big XII pie bigger per slice than TAMU, Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado made it. Fox and ESPN basically tossed money at the Big XII just to get things to settle down and not drive their costs up even more. BYU is the only school out there that could come close to increasing the value of the Big XII per member. I like your neighbors in Houston, I hate my neighbors in Memphis, I liked the Cincinnati fans I met at the Final Four, but no combination of those schools makes the Big XII worth more per member. No one is in the business of reducing their revenue unless they can somehow reduce expenses even more and right now the Big XII is stuck because they cannot add anyone to make them more money over all.

Got one on staff already at the CUSA office who is more than qualified. Commissioners don't wield a lot of power. The most they can do is help set the perception with how they do they business and build consensus. Sometimes it may not be the path they want to take but getting the membership to the point of an agreement and walking out of the room still feeling like partners is often the best result they can get.

If you are Charlotte, UAB, WKU, MTSU, ODU, and arguably UTEP you might be looking around saying "We've let a great basketball brand erode and need to do something about that."

Another name likely to pop up is Alfred White. If the membership is happy with the current direction he is far and away the logical choice. Already on staff, NCAA HQ experience, good stint with the Southern Conference, good media and marketing experience. http://www.conferenceusa.com/genrel/white_alfred00.html

Not a surprise that he's leaving. So much turmoil and he seems to have a real heart for charitable work. Benson won't apply, rumor is he's heading to the house as soon as his contract is up with the Sun Belt. The person I'd go after is the same one I wanted Sun Belt to go after, Tom Burnett from the Southland.

GOR is a sticky thing to deal with. It is a subset of a subset of the law and the nearest analogy we have are some of the contracts for performers (anyone remember when Prince hurriedly cranked out a lot of crap records to fulfill his contract?) I think the B12 is like the airline in Wall Street, worth more busted up than as a single entity. That was the case for the Big East and how'd that turn out? My life doesn't revolve around Texas so there were two times a year I was likely to watch UT play, vs OU vs TAMU. After that? So what if its on and the best game yeah I'll watch. I might watch Bedlam, I would watch Mizzou-KU hoops. I feel about the Big XII the way I feel about Pac-12 or ACC, interesting team, interesting game, I'll watch. The problem for the Big XII is there isn't a lot of interesting other than the hook of ridiculous scoring in football. The Big East getting mostly absorbed by the ACC was brilliant. Big East was pretty good at football in an area that isn't crazy about college football, the ACC great at basketball in an area not crazy about hoops (ie. all the ACC other than North Carolina though UVA and MD had good support). Now Duke-UNC is a "local" game in NY and Boston thanks to expansion and Syracuse-Pitt football is "local" in South Carolina and Georgia. You can bust up the Big XII and make the P12 or Big 10 or SEC more interesting in more places.

Every contract can be broken. Only question is how much will it cost you to do it. The GOR simply says the Big XII owns the rights to telecast each school's home games through the 2024-25 academic year. Big XII has in turn sold the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights to Fox and ESPN and turned Tier 3 back to each school. So we already know there is some part of the TV rights that do not belong to the Big XII and can go to the new league. As a general principle all the Big XII is entitled to is the stream of payments from Fox and ESPN. If a school leaves, ESPN and Fox still have the right to pick Tier I and II of the departed school and Big XII still gets paid. What becomes interesting is potential liability on the part of the Big XII. Supposedly the agreement provides that a school forfeits their share of the payments from Fox and ESPN but a court may not agree that the financial hit is consistent with any economic harm and require Big XII to pay a portion to the departee so that it isn't an unconscionable penalty. I'm not sure a grant of rights is quite the bulletproof vest it has been touted to be. If ESPN and CBS think OU for example is worth increasing the SEC rights fee by more than OU's share of Big XII TV and they get to move part of their content over for free (Tier III) it can be cost effective. If a court says forfeiting all of the payment is too extreme, they could potentially move at little to no cost.

Not like we've not seen this movie before. Nebraska. Oh woe is us, the Big XII won't share TV money equally. Never mind they profited nicely from the unequal sharing and by all accounts never tried to end it. Texas A&M. Oh woe is us, UT has its own TV network and the money isn't shared fairly. But of course they also by all accounts never tried to change the system and supposedly they were offered partnership in LHN and declined it, then it become untenable. Why I'm Leaving the Big XII Episode Three coming to a sports page near you.

OU doesn't have the votes to expand. If I were wagering, my wager would be OU is just beating the drum to get fans and supporters stirred up to create cover for OU "having no choice" but to defect the Big XII.

This is just a nutty rant. You got panty-wadded because I said a list that includes a bunch of schools that were in the Sun Belt when the Sun Belt was holding you back from scheduling good games and being serious about athletics is a load of bull. If you read what I wrote, I specifically said if the discussion were about playing more regional schools I'd nod my head in agreement, what I specifically challenged (that means I pointed out) was the idea that playing FIU, FAU, WKU, MTSU is "more special" now. That's stupid and you know that but instead you want to rant on me. Fine. You have the same capacity to influence scheduling and realignment as I do so your wish means about as much as bird droppings. You perceive you've moved upward, you moved upward by joining a school UNT blocked from entering the Sun Belt. No the Sun Belt didn't offer you Texas opponents, but that's UNT's fault. Your president had indicated he would make the motion to admit UTSA and when new business came upon the agenda he chose to remain silent, everyone was ready to support UTSA to help you get a regional rival and UNT made the decision to not support them.

Here's the rub. Boren says a third of the presidents agree with him about expanding. Even if you round up, that's four. It takes eight votes to expand.

I call bull when I see it. When someone says this list is better than that list and there is that much overlap... that's bull. I don't argue UNT is better off facing regional schools but don't blow smoke up my hiney claiming playing those schools is better now because of a patch. If the list had been the nearest Sun Belt vs nearest CUSA, I nod my head in agreement and move on but please this blame Sun Belt for your ills meme is pathetic and deserves being called out.

One of my favorite message board comments of the 2014 season came from the ULM board. "ASU has had five different coaches and Todd hasn't beaten any of them" which then led into an extended rant.

So basically what you just said is... It was terrible awful horrible to play FIU, FAU, WKU, MTSU when the patch was Sun Belt but if the patch says CUSA they are great opponents you want to play. And people wonder how it is that business can dump the same crap in a prettier box and get people to pay double for it.

I view the realignment whining about the same way I view most realignment whining and boasting. It's a load of horse dung. Realignment had a minimal impact USM. The realignment impact was in the schools moving to FBS to backfill. FAU doesn't get a conference home if the WAC doesn't take Sun Belt schools. Troy doesn't get a conference home but for that. ULM is still floating along as a football only and still playing in the Southland in other sports. Texas State and UTSA don't have a conference home and don't reclassify but for the WAC needing bodies. USM starting in 1994 didn't have a losing record again until the 2012 season. In 1994, there 107 schools in FBS (UNT was in the SLC). Counting Charlotte, there are now 129. That is 22 new schools in FBS competing for talent since the start of that winning season streak. Of the 22 only Idaho, Boise State, Buffalo, UConn, and UMass are not in the CUSA footprint. That's 17 new schools in the CUSA footprint and EIGHT members of CUSA were not playing FBS football in 1994 when that streak started. There is more competition for talent. Throw in AState and ULL paying competitive coaching salaries and multi-millions on facilities in the past few years and USM just has to fight far harder to land quality players. But that isn't even the biggest factor. Larry Fedora leaves USM. He has recruited a spread option team that depends on speed and tempo. The average age of Fedora and his coordinators was 48. USM hires Ellis Johnson who has one year as a Division II head coach and three years as an FCS coach and his best record as a head coach was 6-6. They put him in charge. They take Tommy West from UAB as defensive coordinator and Ricky Bustle to be OC. If you haven't repressed your Sun Belt memories Bustle fizzled at ULL and he was a run between the tackles own the line of scrimmage guy. The average age of the head coach and coordinators was 58.3 years old. USM basically said we despise what gave us a 12-2 record and we are going to do the exact opposite. Realignment didn't cause that stupid decision, placing the muzzle of the loaded shotgun against their foot and pulling the trigger caused it. Spare me the blame realignment crap the author spouts. USM made a stupid hire and is paying the price. Arkansas is making the same transition with far more resources and recruiting advantages and they are 2-14 in the SEC after two years of that.