Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CaffeinatedCoog

  1. Uh huh......at roughly 200 miles away----Birmingham is a convenient roadie for Memphis. Yet UAB is such an incredibly attractive opponent for Memphis that the Tigers have scheduled them exactly ZERO times since leaving CUSA. Furthermore, Memphis finds that game so attractive, they have NOT YET bothered to place them on the schedule in the future---despite already having some OOC games planned out as far out as 2029. Since leaving CUSA, Houston has played no games against UAB--nor or any planned. SMU, since leaving CUSA, has played no games against UAB--nor or any planned. Tulane played one home-and home vs UAB since they left CUSA---but has scheduled S Alabama twice as much since the start of the AAC in 2013. Tulane has no future games planned vs UAB. The back half of a home and home vs Tulane (set for 2021) is the only game any AAC team has scheduled against UAB.. Other than one game against Tulane---no other AAC school has played or bothered to schedule UAB since the AAC started in 2013. That should tell you all you need to know about how attractive the AAC schools find games against UAB.
  2. If only there was some way we could see 20 years worth of data indicating what UAB actually drew playing UCF, Memphis, Houston, etc. I respect your opinions UofMTigers, but I just think Birmingham is already growing bored again with UAB. It was fun saving the program---but now that euphoria has worn off---the locals have remembered that they dont really give a crap about the Blazers and would rather watch the SEC on TV. UAB is just another Tulane.
  3. I dont see how a "merger" between CUSA and the Sunbelt makes any sense what so ever. As a merged 24 team conference, those 24 schools would be giving up half the auto-bids that group currently enjoys and still have a ton of travel. I do think it makes a lot of sense for the two conferences to reshuffle their membership in order to become two much more regional conferences.
  4. UofMTigers totally missed my point. The attendance trended down all season---despite the fact they had a great year and were heading to the CCG. vs Alabama St---39,165 (their best crowd was when an in state HBU filled their stadium) vs S Alabama--27,932 (more help from an in state opponent). vs Rice---23,526 vs ODU 19,511 vs UTEP--19,875 vs LaTech--18,346 Thats not how its supposed to look when your team is 9-3 playing a big home game for the division crown.
  5. Nope. Same UAB. UAB didnt build that stadium and wont make a dime off of it. That practice facility is not a an indoor facility----its open on the sides and is little more than a tin roof over a turf field. They have the same small budget they always had. Same board controlled by Tuscaloosa. Same fickle fan base. Birmingham is already losing interest even while the team is still winning. Attendance isnt supposed to trend downward over the season as the win total rises on your way to the CCG---but it did. The only thing different right now at UAB is Clark--who is a true miracle worker.....but we all know Clark wont be there much longer. He's destined for bigger things. That said---UAB at least has a chance to have a good year every once in a while as long as they stay in CUSA where their athletic budget is only slightly below average for the conference. They are where they need to be.
  6. In other words the Vandals and NM State should be added to the MW immediately since they are at least as good as San Jose St? C'mon. Your smarter than that. Its just dumb to purposely add to the bottom of the conference when you arent forced to. Yes, all programs have ups and down---but when looking for a member, you want to look at programs are tend to be up far more often than down. UAB? Thats a program that will be down far more often than not. Right now---the best AAC option is to stand pat---or maybe add VCU as a non-football member. It is what it is.
  7. UAB?. Spent years in a league with them and was never so happy to have a school dropped from our schedule. It was just a few years ago they were shuttering their football program. Look---I dont want anyone to lose their program like that---so Im glad they were able to save it, but their tiny budget and poor support screams CUSA. Clark will be gone soon. Once Clark leaves, they will be the same ole UAB that was so close to death Tuscaloosa thought they could quietly kill the program without anyone noticing. The only way UAB has a chance of being competitive is if it stays grouped with other similar low budget programs in CUSA. They are where they need to be, They would just be a dead weight anchor in the AAC.
  8. Lol. Does it say “seven figures a year”? Nope. It’s CUSA money.
  9. Incorrect. The 7 figures is the cumulative total over 4 years. Not 7 figures a year for 4 years. "believed to be a seven-figure sum over four years" https://www.pressherald.com/2020/05/11/newly-independent-uconn-signs-deal-with-cbs-sports-network/ https://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/article242653281.html https://media.sportbusiness.com/news/uconn-signs-multi-year-college-football-tv-deal-with-cbs-sports/
  10. Its seven figures over 4 years. He also said that something to the effect that it "was better than having to pay for the productions". So, while "7 figures" covers a wide range---Im betting the actual total amount just barely hits that 7 figure range over the 4 year period. If correct, that would be about $250-to-300K a year. CUSA/Sunbelt teams get about $400K a year from media---but thats for football and basketball. If we assume that 75% of the tv value is in football--that would place the deal right in the same CUSA/Sunbelt range ($400K x 75% = $300K). Based on UConn football TV ratings being very similar to CUSA/SB TV ratings---thats probably about right.
  11. As long as boosters are allowed to participate it will simply devolve into thinly veiled "pay for play" deals with third party payers. There is no way to control it if boosters are allowed to participate. Furthermore----I'd argue that any attempt by the NCAA to "cap payments" would amount to blatant antitrust activity and will result in yet another lawsuit in which the NCAA would be liable for a hefty damages payout. Additionally, as best as I can tell, any attempt by the NCAA to control NIL payouts would directly conflict with the California NIL law---and likely would conflict with many of the other state laws that are currently working their way through the legislative process.
  12. I think the key here is the intent of the parties. It seems to me the two parties could have placed an expiration date in the original deal in 2013 or the amended deal in 2017, Instead, on both occasions, no expiration was placed in the deal. Furthermore, the term sheet has specific clauses that block the MW from unilaterally changing the deal. The deal also indicates that it overrides all other documents and bylaws governing the MW. Thus, it seems pretty clear the intent of the parties was for the deal to last as long as Boise was in the conference. Even if you want to use the perpetual or indefinite contract arguments---Boise could argue the announcement of the intent to cancel the deal gives them the right to take legal action due to "anticipatory breach" which requires that Boise act to mitigate any damages the cancellation would cause Boise.
  13. Wrong again. After missing out on the College Football Playoff for the second year in a row, the Big Ten is discussing the possibility of doing away with the conference's East and West divisions, commissioner Jim Delany said on Wednesday. According to Delany, Big Ten decision makers have had conversations about making changes to the Big Ten championship game so that it would feature the two best teams and not the division winners. "It's an item that has been discussed before," Delany said at the Sports Business Journal Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York. "There is actually more discussion now than there was four years ago." https://www.si.com/college/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff
  14. The Big10 has talked openly about eliminating divisions since that vote---so its unlikely their stance is exactly the same as it was in 2016. The ACC always wanted more flexibility in the CCG process (they actually prefer complete deregulation). The Big10 would probably not vote against it---and the Pac12 would have little reason to oppose it. I suspect a rule change allowing conferences (of 10 or more members) a reasonable path to a divisionless CCG has a high probability of passing--especially if the rule's structure is crafted as a colaborative effort with 3 or more P5's. That said, the AAC has indicated it would prefer to add another member and stay with its 2 division format---IF a quality #12 was available. Big10 Considering Eliminating Divisions https://www.si.com/college/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff
  15. I keep hearing this as a legal reason to breach the deal. Even if Boise was using the terms of the deal as leverage to get a bigger bonus--So what? That was perfectly within their rights to do and did not violate the terms. Besides, if you game plan that strategy out to the end game--it kinda goes nowhere. Think about it---Boise only has veto power over its 6 home football games---nothing else. So Boise can not stop the MW from selling the the vast majority of their inventory. Furthermore, the Boise can only sell their home football games if BOTH the MW and Boise consent. So---Boise says we dont consent to the sale of our games until we get a bigger bonus. MW says "no". Boise says we wont sign off on the deal. MW says "cool". MW then completes the deal with FOXX/CBS without the 6 Boise home games. Boise then waits....and waits...and waits---and summer hits. Now Boise is facing a season where every single home games is NOT on TV.....and they have very little time to do a deal. If Boise home games aren't on TV, it hurts Boise a hell of a lot more than the other schools---so suddenly the negotiating advantage is now with the MW. So, honestly, somewhere between getting that first "no" from the MW on their increased bonus demand---and the first football game in late August----a deal is going get worked out. The whole "holding the league TV deal hostage" is a bit overblown. Boise only has veto power over a very tiny portion of the MW TV inventory and the contract is constructed where both parties have sufficient leverage to take care of their own interests.
  16. Boise specifically states that they voted against the proposal in the meeting. For all we know the statement was prepared by the SID after a request from the conference.
  17. To be fair to Thompson, its very very unlikely Thompson drove this decision. A commissioner can lead a conference, but if the vast majority of presidents feel strongly about an issue---there isnt much a commissioner can do other than implement the policy the presidents are demanding. As long as he is implementing the directives agreed upon by the presidents competently---its not likely the presidents would have any interest in firing him. Conversely, if a commissioner is NOT doing what the vast majority of the presidents have instructed him to do---he wont be around long.
  18. Maybe. But lets say---the FOX offer was the offer than benefited the rest of the league the most. On the other hand, Boise didnt really want to be on FOX. Maybe they wanted to stay on ESPN---but were willing to move to FOX if they got a bump in their bonus. Boise was deprived of the opportunity of having those negotiations when the MW accepted the CBS/FOX deal without Boise's consent. So, the lawsuit would simply seek to void the Boise portion of the deal and reopen those negotiations. If thats the purpose---then that has to be done NOW. That cant wait for 6 years. It may be that Boise has no intention of going anywhere at this time but has issues with the current deal and believes the MW did not have the right to close the negotiations over Boise's objections.
  19. There is also a legal concept known as anticipatory breach. It basically says that if someone notifies you that they intend to breach the deal, then the other party is no longer held to the contract terms of the bargain and may take legal action in order to mitigate the future damage.
  20. Correct. As I said earlier---the only way it happens is if ESPN is willing to pay 14 million for 3 MW teams (Boise is essentially a no net cost addition because Boise would just be getting Conns share, which ESPN was already paying). So, would ESPN pay 14 million for 2 extra MW teams. Who knows? It would net ESPN 18 potential late night slot games rather than just 6. Right now, all they have is half the Pac12 inventory (actually less than half because some games are going to the Pac12 Net) and BYU.
  21. I doubt it. The fans didnt file a law suit....and the fans did not push Boise into a corner where they felt a law suit was necessary. I think the Boise has the facts on their side. So why would the MW presidents make such a move knowing they might end up in court with the merits of the case against them? I think its simple. They wanted to force an end to the "special deal" and they were willing to face the worst case outcome of pressing that issue now. If you look at it---Boise actually has no real monetary damages yet. So there is no real cost if the MW loses. The worst case scenario for the MW is Boise leaves without having to pay an exit fee and the new CBS/FOX deal has to be reworked. Thats the worst case. My guess is the MW presidents have had a can full of the Boise "special deal" (and perhaps a can full of Boise as well) and decided getting rid of the special deal was worth any worst case scenarios the MW lawyers presented. They also probably believe Boises alternative options to the MW (AAC, WCC, Indy, etc) are far from perfect---so they actually feel they have a reasonable chance to avoid the worst case scenario and end up with some sort of agreement that keeps Boise in the fold and eventually eliminates the special deal. Either way---they are ok with any of the expected possible outcomes and find them all preferable to continuing on with the special deal.
  22. Neither are the guys saying asking for more money is a breach. Boise can ask for more money. The MW can say no. Neither action constitutes a breach. The SEC asked for more money from CBS when they added A&M and Missouri. CBS said no. Neither side breached their deal. Someone has to actually violate the terms of the deal before you have a breach.
  23. Thats only a viable strategy if ESPN is willing to pay for it. I dont know if ESPN is willing to pay 21 to 35 million a year more for an expanded AAC.
  24. I think the drugs your taking are all you can handle.
  25. The financial incentive is the two figures are only close because of Boise's special deal---which the MW has made clear they no longer feel the need to honor. Conventional wisdom says the AAC is the more lucrative financial opportunity for Boise over the long term if the special deal is phased out. The question at this point is---how effective can settlement negotiations be if Boise cant trust that the league will honor its commitment for more than one tv contract. If you are the MW, how do you prove your willing to leave the deal in place for as long as Boise is in the league? On the other side of the ledger---how does Boise prove to the MW membership that they wont use the special deal to hold every future conference TV negotiation hostage in order to demand higher and higher bonus payouts?