Power conferences' increased autonomy could affect C-USA

North Texas Shep · May 6, 2014

Just to point something out, but athletes in sports that give out partial scholarships would be further punished with this system. They still put in a lot of time and are not allowed to work per NCAA rules, but with your proposal, they would still get less. To me, if you get a scholarship, regardless of the percentage of coverage, same stipend.

True... I would hate for the system to be even less fair. However I was trying to consider a way all D1 schools could afford the possible change. Sorry I forgot to explain that.

UNTexas · May 7, 2014

1. UNT could afford something like 2k per player. I believe for the time they put in, the fact they are not allowed to work, giving them some monthly spending cash to go out on a date or a movie on top of their scholarship isn't asking a lot.

2. The girl's sports are discriminated against already. Each player, at every school, in every sport, should be given equal scholarships. It's the right thing to do.

Edited May 7, 2014 by UNTexas

Ben Gooding · May 7, 2014

I'm all about not paying the players a dime. They eat, shit, piss, learn, workout, sleep, etc. for free. With that said, if this is what the big boys turn to then we have to do it. I'm of the group that beleives that North Texas is a legitimate future P5 school. So, if we have to cough over cash to keep up for the sake of hoping a P5 conference one day throws us a bone then so be it. Still extremely against paying players, its a can of worms opening up that is and will be even further controlled by the wealthier schools in the P5 conferences.

MeanGreenTexan · May 7, 2014

1. UNT could afford something like 2k per player. I believe for the time they put in, the fact they are not allowed to work, giving them some monthly spending cash to go out on a date or a movie on top of their scholarship isn't asking a lot.
2. The girl's sports are discriminated against already. Each player, at every school, in every sport, should be given equal scholarships. It's the right thing to do.

I think the idea is to compensate the players on teams that are producing revenue like football. If that's the driving force behind a stipend, then football and, on occasion, mens basketball (does TN, ND and/or UConn WBB produce revenue?), would be the only teams to receive stipend funds.

UNT90 · May 7, 2014

I'm of the group that beleives that North Texas is a legitimate future P5 school.

That's great and all, but the problem is no one in power at UNT feels the same way, and they demonstrate this with the lack of commitment to the athletic program.

You only have to go back to the lack of protection of the athletic fee to see the commitment to athletics. Or the refusal to fire coaches until the 4th year of their contract, or the failure to raise the athletic fee since it has been instituted.

People on this board care way more than any administrator at UNT about UNT athletics. The sooner you understand this, the less frustration you will feel as a fan.

The powers that be see us as a large regional school that provides a cost effective (read: not quality) education to those that can't afford or get into a better school. Don't believe me? Just look at the newest AD campaign. Tells you a lot about the thought process behind our "leaders."

Arkstfan · May 7, 2014

I'm all about not paying the players a dime. They eat, shit, piss, learn, workout, sleep, etc. for free. With that said, if this is what the big boys turn to then we have to do it. I'm of the group that beleives that North Texas is a legitimate future P5 school. So, if we have to cough over cash to keep up for the sake of hoping a P5 conference one day throws us a bone then so be it. Still extremely against paying players, its a can of worms opening up that is and will be even further controlled by the wealthier schools in the P5 conferences.

Unfortunately the media sets the narrative and the narrative is the schools are screwing the players over because the players make the system great.

Now we know that's bunk. If you have a Mean Green player you like enough to buy their jersey and he transfers to SMU, you aren't going to buy his SMU jersey. The colors, logo and team name on those jersey sales have higher value than the number and name. The narrative doesn't recognize that but good luck changing it.

Arkstfan · May 7, 2014

That's great and all, but the problem is no one in power at UNT feels the same way, and they demonstrate this with the lack of commitment to the athletic program.
You only have to go back to the lack of protection of the athletic fee to see the commitment to athletics. Or the refusal to fire coaches until the 4th year of their contract, or the failure to raise the athletic fee since it has been instituted.
People on this board care way more than any administrator at UNT about UNT athletics. The sooner you understand this, the less frustration you will feel as a fan.
The powers that be see us as a large regional school that provides a cost effective (read: not quality) education to those that can't afford or get into a better school. Don't believe me? Just look at the newest AD campaign. Tells you a lot about the thought process behind our "leaders."

There are 65 P5 schools.

NBA, NHL, MLB have 30 teams, NFL has 32.

Many of the P5 schools are simply along for the ride thanks to good luck and good decisions made 50-80 years ago.

Would the net payments to the P5 drop if the number of schools fell to 48? Probably not.

The P5 may grow thanks to some bargain hunting but long-term if there is not a change to the economic model there is more to gain reducing the number of power schools than increasing it.

UNT90 · May 7, 2014

There are 65 P5 schools.
NBA, NHL, MLB have 30 teams, NFL has 32.

Many of the P5 schools are simply along for the ride thanks to good luck and good decisions made 50-80 years ago.

Would the net payments to the P5 drop if the number of schools fell to 48? Probably not.

The P5 may grow thanks to some bargain hunting but long-term if there is not a change to the economic model there is more to gain reducing the number of power schools than increasing it.

No doubt, except I would put the time frame on the good luck and good decisions at 20 to 30 years ago, not 50 to 80. See Miami as a prime example.

The thing is, we continue to make the mistakes that we made 20-30 years ago. It's not that we don't learn, it's that the people that lead this organization simply don't see us and will never see us as capable of advancing past where we are right now athletically. Hell, the students had to organize to replace a falling apart relic of a stadium because the administration couldn't/wouldn't get it done.

We have had the ability to raise the athletic fee for the last 3 years but haven't. It stays at $10 a semester hour. That craphole in San Anotnio has a $20 per semester hour fee.

Why do we withhold funds from the athletic department that could damn sure help right YEARS of underfunding? And we do this to ourselves!!!

Arkstfan · May 7, 2014

No doubt, except I would put the time frame on the good luck and good decisions at 20 to 30 years ago, not 50 to 80. See Miami as a prime example.
The thing is, we continue to make the mistakes that we made 20-30 years ago. It's not that we don't learn, it's that the people that lead this organization simply don't see us and will never see us as capable of advancing past where we are right now athletically. Hell, the students had to organize to replace a falling apart relic of a stadium because the administration couldn't/wouldn't get it done.
We have had the ability to raise the athletic fee for the last 3 years but haven't. It stays at $10 a semester hour. That craphole in San Anotnio has a $20 per semester hour fee.
Why do we withhold funds from the athletic department that could damn sure help right YEARS of underfunding? And we do this to ourselves!!!

We are reaching the tail end of an enrollment boom. Raising fees may not be a great decision as competition for students is going to become more fierce though the smaller privates and small publics face the greater risk.

Also a good time to be cautious about incurring debt with the changes in enrollment coming.

I suspect most publics over 7500 students will be OK but less selective but debt service may be coming issue.

UNT90 · May 7, 2014

We are reaching the tail end of an enrollment boom. Raising fees may not be a great decision as competition for students is going to become more fierce though the smaller privates and small publics face the greater risk.

Also a good time to be cautious about incurring debt with the changes in enrollment coming.

I suspect most publics over 7500 students will be OK but less selective but debt service may be coming issue.

Our enrollment is 36k. There is not one valid reason not to raise the fee. The administration simply doesn't care enough to take the heat from the granola crunchers that will be inevitable.

We have neglected athletics for years. There is no reason to continue to do so, except that we apparently want to be known as the cheapest education in DFW.

Hooray??

Edited May 7, 2014 by UNT90

Ben Gooding · May 7, 2014

Our enrollment is 36k. There is not one valid reason not to raise the fee. The administration simply doesn't care enough to take the heat from the granola crunchers that will be inevitable.
We have neglected athletics for years. There is no reason to continue to do so, except that we apparently want to be known as the cheapest education in DFW.
Hooray??

yeah, for real, those signs gotta go. Is there not a petition we could start. These billboards are a literal slap to all of our faces. THE worst advertising slogan ever. Whoever thought this up needs to be fired and whoever approved for this slogan to be affiliated with our university has gotta go too. It's pitiful!!

Arkstfan · May 7, 2014

Our enrollment is 36k. There is not one valid reason not to raise the fee. The administration simply doesn't care enough to take the heat from the granola crunchers that will be inevitable.
We have neglected athletics for years. There is no reason to continue to do so, except that we apparently want to be known as the cheapest education in DFW.
Hooray??

Frankly I fully understand the university position. AState charges less than three other schools in the state and likes the fact that only UArk among the state's Division I schools collects less. It provides nice political cover.

There is a real conversation to be had about how much reliance there is on students to fund an activity they mostly don't care about and is primarily driven for reasons unrelated to their primary concerns.

But I notice that among CUSA's publics only USM uses a smaller university subsidy than UNT.

NorthTexan95 · May 7, 2014

We are reaching the tail end of an enrollment boom. Raising fees may not be a great decision as competition for students is going to become more fierce though the smaller privates and small publics face the greater risk.

Earlier this week I listed to an administrator from Stanford make this same observation.

untjim1995 · May 8, 2014

Earlier this week I listed to an administrator from Stanford make this same observation.

I think that's a prevalent thoughtamongst academia, but I am not sure that it is true to the point that they want it to be, especially in Texas and in the South. Look, UTSA knows what that fee is getting them--its a way to gain civic pride for the locals, to get extra "free" media coverage to help recruit future students in the San Antonio area, and it helps retain good coaches and administrators.

Academia leaders often want to believe that people attend college to learn as much as possible in their classes. Obviously, becasue of the need of a degree, class does matter greatly...but the "experience" of college is also a very important part of the decision on where to go. This is where your academia leaders often get short-circuited. People, especially guys, like to pick schools on their athletic prowess and for the experience of being a part of something big and great. The 12th Man, the Texas Exes, That Ol' Baylor Line, Boomer Sooner, Rock Chalk Jayhawk, etc...people like to be a part of something. Here at UNT, we have that to offer, as well. Its just in the College of Music--The Green Brigade, The One O'Clock Lab Band, and other well-known musical groups are well-respected in the world of music. Music, as opposed to athletics, is looked upon very fondly by academia, since it is artistic and not barbaric (see football).

That's where the athletic fee being capped at $10 comes from, in my opinion. If we changed that fee to Music and Marching Band Fee, there wouldn't be one word of consternation from the administration, faculty, or BOR. And it would get done. But that's the difference between spending the last century striving to be an awesome college for music, arts, and education instead of using athletics as a window that got the correct support from the administration and BOR. There are tons of examples of schools who have seen incredible jumps in funding and enrollments from having a great run in a revenue sport. I remember TCU benefitted greatly with applications just after they won the Rose Bowl a few years back. But TCU and Ft. Worth have a great fondness and history of football down there, which is a huge advantage compared to what we have endured for so long. Its really just apples versus oranges when you look at it that way.

To ArkStFan's point, the number of P5 schools will continue to stay right around that 65 number--it could grow some, but it won't be much. Really, the schools who have made the jump up from non-AQ to AQ recently (Utah, Louisville, & TCU) had made their football programs top notch by earning BCS berths--and in the case of Utah and L'ville, had good to awesome basketball teams year-in and year-out. It took TCU 18 years to climb back up the ladder, and the only way they got in was because A&M left the Big XII and the northern Big XII schools wanted another confernece opponent in Texas. I say all this because those three schools have had decades of tradition, recent and historical success, and location on their side for each conference that picked them up.

If we ever became a P5 school, it would be in the Big XII. Well, the only way that happens is if the conference lost two or more huge programs. So let's say that happened--let's say Texas, OKlahoma, Okie State, and Tech all go West to make it the Pac-16, and Kansas moves up to either the B1G or the ACC (all of these are heaviily rumored to eventually happen in the future). Then, the Big XII does the old Big East move and just poaches from the conferences below and HOPES it can still satisfy the other big conferences to keep its AQ status (would never happen today). That occurs, and the need arises to replace 5 teams to play WVU, Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, and Baylor. First call that gets made is to Cincy. Next call goes to USF and UCF. Then UH gets a call. That leaves one spot left--for SMU, Tulane, Memphis, and everyone else to fight over. But let's say we got that spot. We have finally made it up that mountain!! I am telling you that this league would no more get to be called AQ than the curretn AAC or MWC does. Its why the AAC/CUSA/SBC just have it all wrong and the MAC and MWC have it all right about geography alignment for rivalries and travel--almost every school in the G5 have zero chance of ever being an AQ school ever. If Boise State couldn't pull it off after their run, then no one else is going to do it, either. The amount of sustained success and history has to go for decades to even get an AQ look. No one in the G5, except for UConn, has a chance of moving up from the non-AQ. Its just reality of the NCAA today.

Ben Gooding · May 8, 2014

I disagree. There will be another large expansion that shuffles a lot of teams around in the near future. Conferences are going to go after the big schools with the big markets that have a lot of potential. The MAC Michigans and the majority if the MWC will be up creek, but the schools such as Houston, Memphis, Us, etc. will get called up to expand big markets with big enrollment bc that is big alumni bases which in hand eventually brings in big money. It's only a matter if time. The P5 is going to run away with college athletics in general. If G5 schools want to get serious then they will start making significant adjustments to their athletic programs.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Ben Gooding

TIgreen01 · May 9, 2014

I think that's a prevalent thoughtamongst academia, but I am not sure that it is true to the point that they want it to be, especially in Texas and in the South. Look, UTSA knows what that fee is getting them--its a way to gain civic pride for the locals, to get extra "free" media coverage to help recruit future students in the San Antonio area, and it helps retain good coaches and administrators.
Academia leaders often want to believe that people attend college to learn as much as possible in their classes. Obviously, becasue of the need of a degree, class does matter greatly...but the "experience" of college is also a very important part of the decision on where to go. This is where your academia leaders often get short-circuited. People, especially guys, like to pick schools on their athletic prowess and for the experience of being a part of something big and great. The 12th Man, the Texas Exes, That Ol' Baylor Line, Boomer Sooner, Rock Chalk Jayhawk, etc...people like to be a part of something. Here at UNT, we have that to offer, as well. Its just in the College of Music--The Green Brigade, The One O'Clock Lab Band, and other well-known musical groups are well-respected in the world of music. Music, as opposed to athletics, is looked upon very fondly by academia, since it is artistic and not barbaric (see football).

That's where the athletic fee being capped at $10 comes from, in my opinion. If we changed that fee to Music and Marching Band Fee, there wouldn't be one word of consternation from the administration, faculty, or BOR. And it would get done. But that's the difference between spending the last century striving to be an awesome college for music, arts, and education instead of using athletics as a window that got the correct support from the administration and BOR. There are tons of examples of schools who have seen incredible jumps in funding and enrollments from having a great run in a revenue sport. I remember TCU benefitted greatly with applications just after they won the Rose Bowl a few years back. But TCU and Ft. Worth have a great fondness and history of football down there, which is a huge advantage compared to what we have endured for so long. Its really just apples versus oranges when you look at it that way.

To ArkStFan's point, the number of P5 schools will continue to stay right around that 65 number--it could grow some, but it won't be much. Really, the schools who have made the jump up from non-AQ to AQ recently (Utah, Louisville, & TCU) had made their football programs top notch by earning BCS berths--and in the case of Utah and L'ville, had good to awesome basketball teams year-in and year-out. It took TCU 18 years to climb back up the ladder, and the only way they got in was because A&M left the Big XII and the northern Big XII schools wanted another confernece opponent in Texas. I say all this because those three schools have had decades of tradition, recent and historical success, and location on their side for each conference that picked them up.

If we ever became a P5 school, it would be in the Big XII. Well, the only way that happens is if the conference lost two or more huge programs. So let's say that happened--let's say Texas, OKlahoma, Okie State, and Tech all go West to make it the Pac-16, and Kansas moves up to either the B1G or the ACC (all of these are heaviily rumored to eventually happen in the future). Then, the Big XII does the old Big East move and just poaches from the conferences below and HOPES it can still satisfy the other big conferences to keep its AQ status (would never happen today). That occurs, and the need arises to replace 5 teams to play WVU, Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, and Baylor. First call that gets made is to Cincy. Next call goes to USF and UCF. Then UH gets a call. That leaves one spot left--for SMU, Tulane, Memphis, and everyone else to fight over. But let's say we got that spot. We have finally made it up that mountain!! I am telling you that this league would no more get to be called AQ than the curretn AAC or MWC does. Its why the AAC/CUSA/SBC just have it all wrong and the MAC and MWC have it all right about geography alignment for rivalries and travel--almost every school in the G5 have zero chance of ever being an AQ school ever. If Boise State couldn't pull it off after their run, then no one else is going to do it, either. The amount of sustained success and history has to go for decades to even get an AQ look. No one in the G5, except for UConn, has a chance of moving up from the non-AQ. Its just reality of the NCAA today.

The teams that got into P5 (Utah, Louisville, TCU) primarily got there because they grew their budget to the level required to earn a seat at that table.

This is less about tradition, etc, than it is just plain old money. If Char moved back from Thailand and dumped $300 million into UNT, half of which went to the AD, you can bet your @ss that we'd DOMINATE the level that we're currently at, leading to bowl wins, tourney runs, etc to the point that we'd be a legitimate media draw. That P5 table is not impossible to get access to if you have the money to buy your way in.

Back when TCU was winning the MWC every year and made that Rose Bowl run, they were spending $50 million per year. That put them right near the middle of the Big 12 in budget. The year that they played Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, they actually outspent them in football budget and ranked in the top 10 of ALL bowl eligible teams that year in terms of football budget.

untjim1995 · May 9, 2014

The teams that got into P5 (Utah, Louisville, TCU) primarily got there because they grew their budget to the level required to earn a seat at that table.

This is less about tradition, etc, than it is just plain old money. If Char moved back from Thailand and dumped $300 million into UNT, half of which went to the AD, you can bet your @ss that we'd DOMINATE the level that we're currently at, leading to bowl wins, tourney runs, etc to the point that we'd be a legitimate media draw. That P5 table is not impossible to get access to if you have the money to buy your way in.

Back when TCU was winning the MWC every year and made that Rose Bowl run, they were spending $50 million per year. That put them right near the middle of the Big 12 in budget. The year that they played Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, they actually outspent them in football budget and ranked in the top 10 of ALL bowl eligible teams that year in terms of football budget.

I just don't think its as simple as increasing funding for the program. TCU watched their budget soar, but it was because Fran turned them around and they became a big hit over in Ft. Worth after that, especially since Patterson kept them moving forward. Ft. Worth and TCU have always had a special relationship together, as they market TCU as their hometown team. But when TCU was losing in the old SWC days and early WAC days, they weren't even close to funding that program to the level that they did once they started winning. That's when the advantage of being an old SWC school and being the "hometown" team in FW started really pushing them upward. But, even with all of that, TCU got into the Big XII because A&M left and the other Big XII schools in the North wanted another Texas team to play. Even Chris Del Conte, TCU's AD, admits that. DId it help that they had funding? Sure--but they also benefited from being in the Metroplex and having ties to UT, Baylor, and Tech. The winning, the location, and the team that left all played in perfectly for TCU. How long that last is very debatable, since I think the Big XII's life expectancy won't go beyond 2025 when its GOR expires, if not sooner. But until then, they made their way upward in a big way.

Utah and Louisville both benefitted from this same sitaution. Utah filled in as a capable addition when the Texoma 4 or 5 didn't follow CU to the Pac-whatever. Their choices for expansion were Utah, BYU (who cannot play on Sundays and their Morman beliefs contradict the liberal Pac schools), Boise State (the new kids on the block, don't fit with the other Pac schools academically), UNLV, or Nevada, both of whom weren't gonna sway anyone in CA, AZ, OR, or WA to bring over for membership. Utah has had a solid basketball program for sometime, their football program had risen dramatically in the last decade, and their facilities got a huge boost from the Winter Olympics in 2002. Louisville, by now a blue blood in basketball, but also a rising college football program, was the perfect addition when Maryland announced they were leaving the ACC. They are a national name, even when their football program started rising upward in the 90s from really nothing, just due to their basketball program. And geographically, they add a nice market to the ACC and fit perfectly for travel for all of their other programs.

To me, even if we just poured tons of cash into the program and started winning big, we'd be the next Boise State. Would that be awesome? Of course it would--it would be beyond belief, actually. But the P5 conferences aren't gonna add us for the same reason that Boise State couldn't crack the Pac-12--we aren't a program that is going to make other programs in those conferences want us as members. Teams like Houston, Memphis, Cincinatti, UCF, and USF are in the same boat, even if they don't want to admit it. They are in locations, that while seeming attractive because of enrollment and population, are already full of alums and fans from the big state schools in their states. That the P5 already got rid of one AQ conference (the old Big East) tells you that they aren't going to be adding another one anytime soon. Hell, the old MWC wouldv'e been the perfect addition to the AQ leagues, having accomplished a lot more than the old Big East in football, but even then, the AQs wouldn't let them come over. That ain't changing...too much money and power in the P5. They don't want anyone else getting that pie. And, when its all said and done, that will eventually be a P4 in my opinion, when the Big XII dies off. Then, TCU and Baylor probably will find themselves in lawsuit mode to try and stay at the AQ level.

To me, the only non-P5 school that has a great chance to move up is UConn. Either the ACC or the Big Ten will look hard at them whenever the next realm of expansion goes forward. Beyond that, I just don't see anyone else moving upward. If Notre Dame ever becomes a full member of the ACC, then they will need another team to add, which would certainly be UConn. One thing that hurts UConn now with B1G is that they aren't a member of the AAU, which everyone in the Big Ten is, except for recently booted Nebraska, who lost their AAU membership after moving to the Big Ten, which is why many think Kansas will evenutally move to that league in the Midwest and that UConn will either get that other bid or an existing ACC school will get invited over and UConn will replace them. If the Texoma Four go out west, evenutally, that leaves West Virginia to find a place, which could also be the ACC if Notre Dame doesn't become a full football member, to go with UConn, getting them to 16 in football. Then, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, and Baylor are left behind. Those schools would be additions to the MWC or AAC, for sure, but they will be back on the outside of the AQ. This assumes a model of having 64-66 teams as AQ, which includes ND and BYU as independents.

TIgreen01 · May 9, 2014

I just don't think its as simple as increasing funding for the program. TCU watched their budget soar, but it was because Fran turned them around and they became a big hit over in Ft. Worth after that, especially since Patterson kept them moving forward. Ft. Worth and TCU have always had a special relationship together, as they market TCU as their hometown team. But when TCU was losing in the old SWC days and early WAC days, they weren't even close to funding that program to the level that they did once they started winning. That's when the advantage of being an old SWC school and being the "hometown" team in FW started really pushing them upward. But, even with all of that, TCU got into the Big XII because A&M left and the other Big XII schools in the North wanted another Texas team to play. Even Chris Del Conte, TCU's AD, admits that. DId it help that they had funding? Sure--but they also benefited from being in the Metroplex and having ties to UT, Baylor, and Tech. The winning, the location, and the team that left all played in perfectly for TCU. How long that last is very debatable, since I think the Big XII's life expectancy won't go beyond 2025 when its GOR expires, if not sooner. But until then, they made their way upward in a big way.

Utah and Louisville both benefitted from this same sitaution. Utah filled in as a capable addition when the Texoma 4 or 5 didn't follow CU to the Pac-whatever. Their choices for expansion were Utah, BYU (who cannot play on Sundays and their Morman beliefs contradict the liberal Pac schools), Boise State (the new kids on the block, don't fit with the other Pac schools academically), UNLV, or Nevada, both of whom weren't gonna sway anyone in CA, AZ, OR, or WA to bring over for membership. Utah has had a solid basketball program for sometime, their football program had risen dramatically in the last decade, and their facilities got a huge boost from the Winter Olympics in 2002. Louisville, by now a blue blood in basketball, but also a rising college football program, was the perfect addition when Maryland announced they were leaving the ACC. They are a national name, even when their football program started rising upward in the 90s from really nothing, just due to their basketball program. And geographically, they add a nice market to the ACC and fit perfectly for travel for all of their other programs.

To me, even if we just poured tons of cash into the program and started winning big, we'd be the next Boise State. Would that be awesome? Of course it would--it would be beyond belief, actually. But the P5 conferences aren't gonna add us for the same reason that Boise State couldn't crack the Pac-12--we aren't a program that is going to make other programs in those conferences want us as members. Teams like Houston, Memphis, Cincinatti, UCF, and USF are in the same boat, even if they don't want to admit it. They are in locations, that while seeming attractive because of enrollment and population, are already full of alums and fans from the big state schools in their states. That the P5 already got rid of one AQ conference (the old Big East) tells you that they aren't going to be adding another one anytime soon. Hell, the old MWC wouldv'e been the perfect addition to the AQ leagues, having accomplished a lot more than the old Big East in football, but even then, the AQs wouldn't let them come over. That ain't changing...too much money and power in the P5. They don't want anyone else getting that pie. And, when its all said and done, that will eventually be a P4 in my opinion, when the Big XII dies off. Then, TCU and Baylor probably will find themselves in lawsuit mode to try and stay at the AQ level.

To me, the only non-P5 school that has a great chance to move up is UConn. Either the ACC or the Big Ten will look hard at them whenever the next realm of expansion goes forward. Beyond that, I just don't see anyone else moving upward. If Notre Dame ever becomes a full member of the ACC, then they will need another team to add, which would certainly be UConn. One thing that hurts UConn now with B1G is that they aren't a member of the AAU, which everyone in the Big Ten is, except for recently booted Nebraska, who lost their AAU membership after moving to the Big Ten, which is why many think Kansas will evenutally move to that league in the Midwest and that UConn will either get that other bid or an existing ACC school will get invited over and UConn will replace them. If the Texoma Four go out west, evenutally, that leaves West Virginia to find a place, which could also be the ACC if Notre Dame doesn't become a full football member, to go with UConn, getting them to 16 in football. Then, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, and Baylor are left behind. Those schools would be additions to the MWC or AAC, for sure, but they will be back on the outside of the AQ. This assumes a model of having 64-66 teams as AQ, which includes ND and BYU as independents.

http://collegead.org/college-athletic-department-budgets/

Take a look.

Quick summary:

UNT : $18,935,422

Houston: $33,450,817

Texas: $133,686,815

Utah: $36,846,478

Boise: $37,293,281

Louisville:$81,837,054

Hard to find stuff for the private schools, but here's an article referencing TCU's budget:

http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-ceo/2012/january-february/why-tcu-bet-big-on-football

TCU: $~52,000,000

So, obviously the one outlier here is Boise. They spend enough to warrant an equal comparison with Utah. However, what TV market and population base do they bring to the table? Near nothing. Utah is close to Salt Lake. So, while it's not entirely based on money, it mostly is. If UNT were to suddenly begin spending $60 million a year on athletics, we'd start winning so much that people would notice---similar to what happened with TCU, Utah, and Louisville. Then we'd be in DFW, a market that commands attention. It'd be hard to keep us out if we replicated Boise's success.

Ben Gooding · May 9, 2014

Exactly. We can go as far as administration lets us go.

greenit · May 9, 2014

I thought our budget was recently announced around $30mm?

Ben Gooding · May 9, 2014

I just found a budget online. Not sure if it is fully up to date or if it accounts for all spending, but its 17.3 million. Its located on page 93.

http://www.unt.edu/ereports/pdffiles/FY14%20Budget%20Summary.pdf

Arkstfan · May 10, 2014

The market model is dying.

ESPN earns 75% of its revenue via carriage fees, Fox wants to go that direction as well.

Carriage fees are generally market agnostic. In the carriage fee economy Nebraska and Arkansas are worth far more than Miami and Colorado because they have fan bases that will tell Comcast to shove it in large numbers if they don't carry the channels the Razorbacks or Huskers are on and move to ATT, Verizon, Dish or Direct. A large and engaged fan base is of far greater value than what TV markets you are in.

Right now unless you are a big sports fan, you can put up an antenna, subscribe to Amazon Prime, Hulu+, and Netflix and not spend money on cable or satellite. But if you are a sports fan and want to see the Mavericks, Rangers, Stars, the Horns, you have to be on satellite or cable. I could cut the cord but for my wife wanting HBO and me wanting to watch foreign soccer because I can get most the college games I want on WatchESPN and will either attend or can go to BWW for what few I can't. I can watch all but a few of the MLS games I want via my MLS MatchDay subscription.

If you are a Longhorn or Aggie fan, be prepared to impose on friends or run up a bar bill if you cut the cord.

The whole game is about content that people are not willing to give up. Does Time Warner hate forking over $5.50 a head to ESPN per subscriber, per month? Absolutely but if they don't they lose thousands and thousands of customers.

Look at AAC. They thought they were going to bring huge dollars because of their markets. It didn't happen. They came in getting less than a third as much money for all sports as what they expected just for football. They have 5 top 20 markets and 2 top 5 markets and what they got came out of a bid battle.

They created a league built around markets at a time when the networks are more interested in how many people would change providers if their team wasn't available from the local cable company or their current satellite provide. Taking Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, and SMU chasing markets was the flaw in their logic. Even being down right now USM would have been more valuable than those four as would be Marshall, because the game is much less about how many people live in the market. Houston is helluva market but what good does that do CSS Houston? They don't have enough carriage agreements to be significant in the market and have so far been unable to leverage their product into the carriage deals they expected.

Just as carriage agreements are replacing the old market model, the current carriage economy is destined to end. I see three possible replacements.

1. Enhanced carriage. The pro leagues and colleges used to price tickets on a low common denominator model. What they figured out was that while they could fill the stadium at $20 a head, there were people willing to pay $40 for some of the better seats, and that evolved into thousands for luxury suites, and a bit less for indoor/outdoor club seats, and hundreds for premium seats with waiter service etc. Right now carriage fees are low common denominator. If you can raise your carriage fee 4X and lose half your subscribers you are rolling in massive cash and your demographic profile skews toward a wealthier group harder to reach effectively.

2. Free. App driven tv is coming fast. Next year will be the first when more than half of the televisions in service will have internet connectivity and the ability to use at least some apps. As the saying goes with Facebook, Twitter, and Google, if the service is free then you are the product. Delivery of content in exchange for agreeing to allow extensive data collection about you can make advertising far more profitable especially in an app driven market where two neighbors watching the same game are delivered different ads based on data collected. The app will serve other offers as well.

3. Subscriber/Freemium. A conference or league or an aggregator like ESPN or Fox will offer a game or a few games each week either on broadcast TV or a cable channel either for free or as part of a carriage fee or the game may be free on an app. So you might get Kansas - Texas Tech from the Big XII for free or part of regular cable but if you want the other four league games, you pay a subscription fee. With app technology you might watch a game like UNT at MTSU for $20 a month but for an added $10 a game you can get other premium features like listening to the UNT radio broadcast synchronized with the video (or MTSU audio) and have the ability to call up replays from any of the cameras in the stadium that you select.

My guess is #1 becomes the norm for the power leagues and something more like #2 or #3 the norm for the G5.

VideoEagle · May 12, 2014

I think ArkStFan is dead on in that many games, especially for G5 schools, will move to an internet app/freemium model. It's just too easy to do. I have a friend who started doing video for a cheerleading group. They charge a subscription for the viewer, plus feed custom ads based on the location of the viewers IP address. I'm setting up a content distribution network for my own video clients that will allow clickable links within the videos. Imagine what the advertisers will think of have clickable links within the game to respond - no shouting phone or web addresses three or four times in hopes that people remember them! Viewers can act on ads with the game either paused or going in another window. And the ads delivered are based on cookies, geolocation and the time of day of the game. And any revenue or data collection can be directly attributed to a specific ad.

Harry · May 12, 2014

I don't think the market model is dying but it is probably cooling off. The fact remains, there are more potential advertisers in a larger media market and more eyes to watch the ads.

Arkstfan · May 13, 2014

I don't think the market model is dying but it is probably cooling off. The fact remains, there are more potential advertisers in a larger media market and more eyes to watch the ads.

The game is over Harry.

The old model died yesterday when ESPN and Fox agreed to boost Major League Soccer's rights fees 5X.

Old contract, MLS got a game each week on NBC Sports and most weeks a game on ESPN2.

New contract, MLS gets one game a week on ESPN2, one game on FS1.

How is that worth 5X more?

Simple. ESPN bought the digital rights to all MLS games not shown on FS1 or Univision. Folks like me who paid $65 a year to see those games on a computer, or phone or tablet or Roku will now get them free on ESPN3 and the WatchESPN app.

The rights increase is almost all about ESPN gaining leverage to charge internet providers, cable and satellite more money to carry ESPN3/WatchESPN and don't think ESPN won't use the data gained from MLS to show them how many of their customers were shelling out $65 a year and let them know those people are a risk to change providers if they don't pony up.

The market model is dead and now TV carriage is becoming Internet carriage.