Conf USA and MWC merger

[houstonmeangreen]

I'm thinking that after the money is collected for the departing schools and the BCS, AQ, conference shifts pan out in the next couple of years, that CUSA and MWC will merge and for a 24 team super conference, with divisions and playoffs...but who knows...any thoughts on this in say 2013-2015?

[UNTFan23]

I'm thinking that after the money is collected for the departing schools and the BCS, AQ, conference shifts pan out in the next couple of years, that CUSA and MWC will merge and for a 24 team super conference, with divisions and playoffs...but who knows...any thoughts on this in say 2013-2015?

What about auto-bids for sports like basketball? If the new combined conference can keep the existing bids there I see no problem with the merge. If not, I don't see the merger ever happening.

[shaft]

The problem with a 24-team megaconference is who would move West?

With a merger between the new CUSA & MWC you could get get to 4 four 6-team pods.

But who besides UTEP would move from CUSA-West (Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, Tulane) to MWC-East?

Why would the CUSA teams want to give up these close games?

[UNTflyer]

The merger was an interesting idea, but one of its biggest advantages was the possibility of AQ status. That is now off the table.

Why don't we see where this whole college football thing goes and how it all works out?

Edited May 5, 2012 by UNTflyer

[Mark Gommesen]

Some sort of merger is inevitable because of the changing media market. The issue of automatic tournament bids is not insurmountable for a 24 or more member super conference in the NCAA with major media contracts. The new conference will represent nearly 10% of the Division 1 schools and a huge share of the media market from Hawaii to the East Coast. We're not playing little boy ball anymore. I believe the first phase was expansion, second media alliance, third merger.

[Mark Gommesen]

If the MWC/CUSA are to compete for media contracts with the Big 12, Big 10, SEC, and PAC 12 they must merge. Like it or not, it is a money game, all other concerns are almost irrelevant. This is the unfortunate truth of modern college sports.

[Mark Gommesen]

There are approximately 120 teams BCS schools, a super conference of 24 or more of these teams would have a major impact on any future BCS selection process. Size does matter. You can ignore a regional conference of 10 or 14 teams. You cannot ignore a national conference of 24 teams. Especially if the super conference has major media contracts. We can figure out who plays in the east or west later.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Mark Gommesen

[shaft]

There's more than 120 FBS teams

121 - USA

122 - UTSA

123 - TXST

124 - UMASS

125 - UNCC

126 - ODU (maybe)

[JulesFIU07]

There's more than 120 FBS teams

121 - USA

122 - UTSA

123 - TXST

124 - UMASS

125 - UNCC

126 - ODU (maybe)

To be fair, ODU was better last year than all the other programs listed.

[houstonmeangreen]

The merger concept is dead until the NCAA allows for some rule changes. Unless the NCAA relents and allows for the addition of a conference semifinal in both the old CUSA and old MWC divisions it is a net loss in the revenue generation department.

Combine that with the loss of the one autobid in basketball if they combine and this is a total nonstarter.

TV revenue for a 24 team conference may change that picture

[UNTflyer]

TV revenue for a 24 team conference may change that picture

I doubt that. It may be a bigger pie than the two leagues can get separately, but in the end I think everyone would just get a smaller piece.

[Mark Gommesen]

The merger concept is dead until the NCAA allows for some rule changes. Unless the NCAA relents and allows for the addition of a conference semifinal in both the old CUSA and old MWC divisions it is a net loss in the revenue generation department.

Combine that with the loss of the one autobid in basketball if they combine and this is a total nonstarter.

Do not think this is an insurmountable problem. The NCAA cannot ignore a super conference with 24 or more schools. with a huge media contract. Such an entity could have the potential bargaining power as a Big 10 or the SEC. First expansion, second media alliance, third merger...fourth the world. Additionally, if a merger was to occur , because of the sheer size of conference one can reasonably assume that one or two at large slots would go to a member of this conference. A super conference would result in more funding and media exposure increasing the likelihood of securing at large slots. If a 24 team conference cannot capture at least one at large slot, it probably has greater issues.

[Mark Gommesen]

I doubt that. It may be a bigger pie than the two leagues can get separately, but in the end I think everyone would just get a smaller piece.

A 24 team national conference in multiple large media markets can certainity demand greater revenues than a regional conference of 10 or 14 teams. Most sports and television networks are national. This is particularly true if some groups schools in conference are dominate in certain sports but not in the same region. For example, New Mexico and Old Dominion are excellent basketball schools. Let's say C-USA is dominates football, but the MWC dominates basketball. Broadcasters are virtually guaranteed a quality product throguht the year.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Mark Gommesen

[Mark Gommesen]

There's more than 120 FBS teams

121 - USA

122 - UTSA

123 - TXST

124 - UMASS

125 - UNCC

126 - ODU (maybe)

There's more than 120 FBS teams

121 - USA

122 - UTSA

123 - TXST

124 - UMASS

125 - UNCC

126 - ODU (maybe)

You're right the landscape of college football is constantly changing. However, my premise that 24 team or larger conference would be a dominate force in the BCS stills stands.

[Mark Gommesen]

I completely disagree. They can and will ignore the merger. The NCAA can do nothing about conference size. They can only dictate structure of a conference title game and would have to allow for the creation of the semifinals. 12 teams or 40, they are powerless to regulate on max size. The problem is that without the semifinal games there is no reason to give a merger a larger TV deal. The inventory of games have not changed and the national slate can only go so far. What prints money are playoff implications and marque matchups. To go a step further the BCS is not an NCAA entitiy, so as teh merger grows it is not even assured that the BCS would attempt to recognize the fact.

You can't get the huge media deal without the revenue drivers of the semifinal games. You might be able to come in the ballpark of a total value media deal that equals the ACC's total payout (which would be awesome but would still be WAY below the SEC, Pac12, Big12 and Big10), but you are still only talking about significantly less than 8M per school, or BE money, at the absolute top end. That would be awesome to get, but in the grand scheme of things it still puts the merger a distant 5 in total payout and in 6 or 7th in payout per school.

You are right when it comes to the NCAA tournament revenues. my point was if a national super conference was created and generated national media exposure. Most likely it would be in the best interest of the NCAA.to assure more than one team from that conference was included in the tournament. I also believe that the number of automatic qualifiers per conference will soon be come an issue. As some conferences expand to 14 or more while others remain at 10 or even less. Only by a merger and developing a national media presence can the MWC/CUSA play big boy ball with the SEC, BIG 10, etc.

Without the merger MWC/CUSA will lack influence in the NCAA or BCS and will be treated as the minor leagues. Please note, I am not advocating this should happen immediately . First expansion. Second, media alliance to expand national media presence and than and only than merger. The automatic qualifier is not an insurmountable issue.

[wardly]

The problem with a 24-team megaconference is who would move West?

With a merger between the new CUSA & MWC you could get get to 4 four 6-team pods.

But who besides UTEP would move from CUSA-West (Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, Tulane) to MWC-East?

Why would the CUSA teams want to give up these close games?

UTSA comes to mind,but thats a stretch.also,now that CUSA has schools in DFW,Houston, and San Antonio, i don't think UTEP would want to move west.

[GrandGreen]

I hope all this merger talk ends fast, the reality is I think CUSA at 14 is on the edge of being too big. 14 teams playing for one championship and being restricted to one automatic entry to the NCAA basketball tournament is bad enough. In fact, I believe if the Western Division of CUSA was an indepent league it would be much better. Pull in a couple from NMSU, ULL, Ark State, USM or USA and you would have a much more manageable league.

I really don't see any major benefites, in theory the one massive conference is a bigger player in the NCAA, very doubtful. The reality of two similar conferences with similar priorites would be a bigger factor in the NCAA of one conference of 24.

[PlummMeanGreen]

If CUSA remains rogue, separate or whatever, and if they have good negotiators out of the CUSA offices, I believe our new conference trumps MWC in TV revenues per school hands down. Should not even be a contest. TV markets, baby, TV markets and that is the only reason MWC would want to hook up with CUSA IMHO.

GMG!

Edited May 6, 2012 by PlummMeanGreen

[Mark Gommesen]

I hope all this merger talk ends fast, the reality is I think CUSA at 14 is on the edge of being too big. 14 teams playing for one championship and being restricted to one automatic entry to the NCAA basketball tournament is bad enough. In fact, I believe if the Western Division of CUSA was an indepent league it would be much better. Pull in a couple from NMSU, ULL, Ark State, USM or USA and you would have a much more manageable league.

I really don't see any major benefites, in theory the one massive conference is a bigger player in the NCAA, very doubtful. The reality of two similar conferences with similar priorites would be a bigger factor in the NCAA of one conference of 24.

Unfortunately mega- or super- conferences appear to be the trend of the future. I think in the near future conferences as large as 18 teams will not be unusual. Why, conferences want to grab as big of slice of media dollars as possible. Media market size will be the key factor as conferences expand. The C-USA could grow to 16 in a very short time if they can find schools in rapidly growing media markets. Obviously C-USA/MWC expansion plans were motivated in part by media considerations. That's why NMSU and Idaho are out in the cold and a major factor why UTSA is in the C-USA. A MWC/CUSA media alliance might be necessary to have the economies of scale to complete for media dollars with the Big 12 or the SEC. This isTHE unfortunate or sad truth of college sports.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Mark Gommesen

[Mark Gommesen]

What do you think can MWC/CUSA get a better contract from CBS sports if they negotiate together? Keeping teams in the C-USA and MWC is less about AQs and more about money.The only way C-USA and MWC can make any gains to combine forces and not offer a competitive products.

If you are keeping score in the money game the score stands at:

CUSA

5 years, $35 million, CBS College Sports (through 2016)

5 years, $35 million, Fox (through 2016)

Annual: $14 million

Average Annual per School: $1.17 million

Mountain West

10 years, $120 million, CBS College Sports (through 2016)

Annual: $12 million

Average Annual per School: $1.33 million

Notes: losses and additions now have the MWC at 10 members with Hawaii as a football only member, will lower per school payout.

SEC

15 years, $2.25 billion, ESPN (through 2024)

15 years, $825 million, CBS (through 2024)

Annual: $205 million

Average Annual per School: $17.1 million

Notes: contract is expected to be renegotiated with the addition of Texas A&M, maintaining the current per-school payout. The SEC may be on it’s way to starting it’s own network that depending on future additions, could gain the conference and additional $10-$20 million per school per year).

Big 12

13 years, $1.17 billion, Fox (through 2025)

8 years, $480 million, ABC/ESPN (through 2016)

Annual: $150 million

Average Annual per School: $15 million

Notes: The Big 12 contract is expected to remain as it is if a 10th school is added to replace Texas A&M. If the conference opts to expand to 12, the per-school payouts would likely remain the same with the total overall annual increasing. Expansion to 12 would also add a championship game expected to fetch a payout of $10-$18 million per year.

Big East

6 years, $200 million, ABC/ESPN [CBS contributes $9 million of total] (through 2013)

Annual: $40 million

Average Annual per School: $3.18 million for football schools, $1.56 million for non-football schools

Notes: contract is expected to change with the losses of Syracuse and Pittsburgh but will still grow due to the valuation of available conference television contracts (Big East is next conference up for renewal).

Big 12

13 years, $1.17 billion, Fox (through 2025)

8 years, $480 million, ABC/ESPN (through 2016)

Annual: $150 million

Average Annual per School: $15 million

Notes: The Big 12 contract is expected to remain as it is if a 10th school is added to replace Texas A&M. If the conference opts to expand to 12, the per-school payouts would likely remain the same with the total overall annual increasing. Expansion to 12 would also add a championship game expected to fetch a payout of $10-$18 million per year.

[Mark Gommesen]

If CUSA remains rogue, separate or whatever, and if they have good negotiators out of the CUSA offices, I believe our new conference trumps MWC in TV revenues per school hands down. Should not even be a contest. TV markets, baby, TV markets and that is the only reason MWC would want to hook up with CUSA IMHO.

GMG!

Historically MWC has done better in terms of media dollars than C-USA, but both are about even. However, this may change with then new additions/ deletions of schools and contract negotiations.

[golfingomez]

What do you think can MWC/CUSA get a better contract from CBS sports if they negotiate together? Keeping teams in the C-USA and MWC is less about AQs and more about money.The only way C-USA and MWC can make any gains to combine forces and not offer a competitive products.

If you are keeping score in the money game the score stands at:

CUSA

5 years, $35 million, CBS College Sports (through 2016)

5 years, $35 million, Fox (through 2016)

Annual: $14 million

Average Annual per School: $1.17 million

with CUSA adding schools, do they get to go back to the negotiating table in hopes for more money?

[Mark Gommesen]

with CUSA adding schools, do they get to go back to the negotiating table in hopes for more money?

If the conferences were to dissolve and form a new conference than all media contracts would have to be completely renegotiated because the new conference would be new legal entity. An alliance or the addition of teams may result in modifications in excisting contracts but not necessary a complete renegotiation A new conference would not be bound by previous agreements could most likely obtain the most lucrative deal for member schools. This is perhaps the the strongest argument for a merger. The media footprint of a combined mwc/cusa does not overlap the over lap the other major conferences in most media markets. If they were renegotiate the new contract would be certainly more substantial than existing contracts.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mark Gommesen

[VideoEagle]

It depends on what you call "merged." They can operate as two separate leagues with shared marketing and operational offices. That gives all the benefits for media contracts and reduced office costs while keeping the same number of auto-qualifiers. It fixes the "no semi-final" problem. At also maintains two votes on issues where the NCAA votes by conference as it does on FBS rules.