Morons Strike Again

[blueraiderJT]

Can someone explain to me this veto power that Memphis has over any conference they are in? I didn't realize Memphis has SEC level power to wield and make determinations on every addition so hoping someone can detail how that works.

Because ECU couldn't block Charlotte. USF couldn't block FAU. SMU couldn't block Rice, or North Texas or UTSA. So why is it that Memphis can block us? As I have said before, our barrier to entry is our own damn selves. As in the title of this thread. The people that run the university put us in this position. Not Memphis. At least that's my take.

I feel that Memphis would vote against us coming in. I've had big Memphis boosters tell me this in the past. They can't "block" us but they would not vote for us. Therefore, the vote to accept us would not be unaminous. That is how I feel. It's fine if you don't feel that way.

I'll lay down 500.00 on a bet that says if we ever get an AAC invite, Memphis won't be there. I also said earlier that I'm not saying it can't happen, I just think it won't.

 

[blueraiderJT]

I like to argue? But you're the one digging in that there was no way in hell these schools would ever be in the ACC. Hmm.

The MAC does not have a GOR. They tried to implement one with us coming on board. And as I said I thought the Big 12's expired. I don't exactly keep up with the Big 12's inner dealings. My bad for not googling it. Sheesh.

The ACC has still not voted and has been dragging their feet. They skipped Tuesday and did not vote yesterday either. The season starts this weekend which delays all of this for a year pretty much. If it was such a good deal, the ACC would have been unaminous as the B12 and B1G were when they picked up their teams. Not saying it won't happen but there is a reason it hasn't happened yet. FSU and Clemson are totally against it which is actually a big deal for now. UNC and NC state are as well.

Also, all of this talk about Stanford not getting any money for a while to go to the ACC apparently isn't true...

Cal, Stanford reportedly don't have ACC votes needed for an invite yet, but are they coming?

Although there were some reports that the ACC might be on the verge of inviting the California Golden Bears and Stanford Cardinal, those efforts still have not led to a vote.

writeforcalifornia.com

Here is an excerpt....
"One of Cal’s NIL directors, Greg Richardson, released this public comment that contained a note of optimism, tinged with many conditionals that will change the Cal Athletic Department forever.

Tuesday the 22nd looms as the day when the ACC may make an official vote.

The economics are continuing to be negotiated. However, the Tweets and rumors that Stanford or anyone else will be taking no revenue are patently false. That's not to say that Cal and Stanford will get an equal share in year one as the discussion of what that number will be is likely what's holding up the proceedings at this point. When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).

Meanwhile, Cal will continue to have internal discussions about its forward-looking budget which at this point almost certainly requires material cuts to the existing supported sports programs.

However, no meeting did occur on Tuesday, as Brian Murphy of WRAL reported:"

 

[RaiderDoug]

Can someone explain to me this veto power that Memphis has over any conference they are in? I didn't realize Memphis has SEC level power to wield and make determinations on every addition so hoping someone can detail how that works.

Because ECU couldn't block Charlotte. USF couldn't block FAU. SMU couldn't block Rice, or North Texas or UTSA. So why is it that Memphis can block us? As I have said before, our barrier to entry is our own damn selves. As in the title of this thread. The people that run the university put us in this position. Not Memphis. At least that's my take.

I don’t think it’s veto power, it’s just that we’re essentially a redundant asset when we’re in a conference with Memphis.

What do we bring?

We don’t bring success, a big fan base, $$$$, academics, quality leadership, or brand recognition.

We can offer location, and maybe market.

Memphis is essentially a more successful version of us. So why would a conference want us when it already has Memphis?

The nightmare scenario is that they take WKU, which does offer some success, the same geographic perks, at least some Q-rating, all the while not being redundant with Memphis.

 

[mtfblue]

I don’t think it’s veto power, it’s just that we’re essentially a redundant asset when we’re in a conference with Memphis.

What do we bring?

We don’t bring success, a big fan base, $$$$, academics, quality leadership, or brand recognition.

We can offer location, and maybe market.

Memphis is essentially a more successful version of us. So why would a conference want us when it already has Memphis?

The nightmare scenario is that they take WKU, which does offer some success, the same geographic perks, at least some Q-rating, all the while not being redundant with Memphis.

How is adding the Nashville DMA redundant? The AAC is all Markets except for ECU. WKU brings a DMA of 186k people, Nashville DMA is over 2 million and over 1 millions TV's. So MT has the edge based on markets

 

[MT01]

Western doesn't fit into AAC's model, but it's probably them, us, or La Tech. I would be surprised if they added them.

Conferences don't make these decisions. ESPN and the rest of the networks do. ESPN has shown unwillingness to move G5 schools from one conference in content it already possesses to another conference with content it already possesses.

This is why AAC was forced to add a school like Rice vs say Georgia State, Buffalo, Ohio, etc. So, if that holds true, C-USA remains the only viable place from which ESPN is likely to tap since the AAC still has a long-term deal in place with ESPN and our tier 1 rights are with CBS.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

Western doesn't fit into AAC's model, but it's probably them, us, or La Tech. I would be surprised if they added them.

Conferences don't make these decisions. ESPN and the rest of the networks do. ESPN has shown unwillingness to move G5 schools from one conference in content it already possesses to another conference with content it already possesses.

This is why AAC was forced to add a school like Rice vs say Georgia State, Buffalo, Ohio, etc. So, if that holds true, C-USA remains the only viable place from which ESPN is likely to tap since the AAC still has a long-term deal in place with ESPN and our tier 1 rights are with CBS.

I've thought this exact same thing. It's why FSU, Clemson, Miami etc are either stuck till their GOR ends/paid off or will go to B1G/FOX. ESPN pays ~$40m for those schools. They aren't going to pay them $60m as SEC for the same content. Once contracts are up things can be different. But it makes zero sense when ESPN essentially has those schools locked at a lower price till '36.

Same for us. ESPN has the AAC and SBC. They pay almost $2m now for GA St and Troy. They aren't going to tell the AAC to take them now just so they can pay $7m instead for the same games. (It would be prorated to the school but the overall $ to the conf would be full).

As said, CUSA Tier 1 is with CBS. So if the AAC took WKU and MT, ESPN would be paying more but getting more as they would then have access to our Tier 1 rights.

If the AAC does expand, it won't be with SBC schools.

 

[mtfblue]

I've thought this exact same thing. It's why FSU, Clemson, Miami etc are either stuck till their GOR ends/paid off or will go to B1G/FOX. ESPN pays ~$40m for those schools. They aren't going to pay them $60m as SEC for the same content. Once contracts are up things can be different. But it makes zero sense when ESPN essentially has those schools locked at a lower price till '36.

Same for us. ESPN has the AAC and SBC. They pay almost $2m now for GA St and Troy. They aren't going to tell the AAC to take them now just so they can pay $7m instead for the same games. (It would be prorated to the school but the overall $ to the conf would be full).

As said, CUSA Tier 1 is with CBS. So if the AAC took WKU and MT, ESPN would be paying more but getting more as they would then have access to our Tier 1 rights.

If the AAC does expand, it won't be with SBC schools.

so what is the SBC TV deal numbers, i've seen 500k a school to 2 million a school.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

so what is the SBC TV deal numbers, i've seen 500k a school to 2 million a school.

I've seen both but moreso leading to the higher figure.

The S Miss AD was also quoted as saying the new SBC deal would "make them whole" within the first year. They paid $1.75m to leave CUSA.

METTLEN: Hints Suggest SBC Has American In Crosshairs

As college football media days roll on across the country, some conference commissioners have made clear threats aimed at rival leagues. The Sun Belt’s Keith Gill didn’t do that when

www.dnronline.com

 

[mtfblue]

I've seen both but moreso leading to the higher figure.

The S Miss AD was also quoted as saying the new SBC deal would "make them whole" within the first year. They paid $1.75m to leave CUSA.

METTLEN: Hints Suggest SBC Has American In Crosshairs

As college football media days roll on across the country, some conference commissioners have made clear threats aimed at rival leagues. The Sun Belt’s Keith Gill didn’t do that when

www.dnronline.com

I also saw that, but also saw that the total payout was 2.8 million for ULL, that was media rights, playoff money, all ncaa money. You can't say that USM, ODU, UM and JMU brought that much value when the old deal was for 500k until 2031, but in CUSA that were worth 300k. No way they increased the other schools by 1.5 million. Maybe i'm wrong.

 

[MT01]

I also saw that, but also saw that the total payout was 2.8 million for ULL, that was media rights, playoff money, all ncaa money. You can't say that USM, ODU, UM and JMU brought that much value when the old deal was for 500k until 2031, but in CUSA that were worth 300k. No way they increased the other schools by 1.5 million. Maybe i'm wrong.

Correct. Their TV revenue is roughly in the neighborhood of $500K.

 

[MT01]

I'm softening my vitriol toward this GOR issue.

If the reporting on this is accurate that 1) we can buy our way out of it if the opportunity presents itself and 2) it was the only way we were getting both the revenue amount and a consolidated network partner footprint with more linear games, I can live with it. I still don't like it, but I can live with it.

It still doesn't change the fact that we should not be in the position in the first place and for that I remain salty.

 

[RaiderDoug]

How is adding the Nashville DMA redundant? The AAC is all Markets except for ECU. WKU brings a DMA of 186k people, Nashville DMA is over 2 million and over 1 millions TV's. So MT has the edge based on markets

Well, it's not so much Nashville as it's Tennessee as a whole.

Do we bring the Nashville market? I think we should and it should be our greatest asset, but in our present circumstances - debateable. Maybe you get some conference commish or some TV/Streamer to bite on that hook.

Geographically, there's not much different between Memphis and Nashville when you're flying/bussing your teams around - a few hours here or there. From an economy of scale standpoint, I don't think the benefits of having two teams near each other outweigh the detriment of essentially selling your product to people who are already customers.

What these conferences are really looking for would be to sell football game inventory to streamers. So, I could logically see a conference saying "Look, we already have an interest in the state in Memphis, we're going to get those folks who just want to see an instate team, we don't need two of them, lets go for fresher eyeballs in Kentucky (or whereever else).

I'm looking at this from the perspective of looking at the Sunbelt map, where there's a giant hole in the dead center of their footprint where Kentucky and Tennessee would slot right in. The AAC doesn't have that hole.

 

[ewglenn]

Well, it's not so much Nashville as it's Tennessee as a whole.

Do we bring the Nashville market? I think we should and it should be our greatest asset, but in our present circumstances - debateable. Maybe you get some conference commish or some TV/Streamer to bite on that hook.

Geographically, there's not much different between Memphis and Nashville when you're flying/bussing your teams around - a few hours here or there. From an economy of scale standpoint, I don't think the benefits of having two teams near each other outweigh the detriment of essentially selling your product to people who are already customers.

What these conferences are really looking for would be to sell football game inventory to streamers. So, I could logically see a conference saying "Look, we already have an interest in the state in Memphis, we're going to get those folks who just want to see an instate team, we don't need two of them, lets go for fresher eyeballs in Kentucky (or whereever else).

I'm looking at this from the perspective of looking at the Sunbelt map, where there's a giant hole in the dead center of their footprint where Kentucky and Tennessee would slot right in. The AAC doesn't have that hole.

I agree with you Doug but you’re missing the way that tv money views it. We do not pull the Nashville but our location in the Nashville metro means our inclusion automatically gives those conferences access to that market. Memphis is a great addition to their conference and they pull the Memphis market but their location doesn’t give the AAC access to the Nashville TV sets.

I personally think college football realignment should be about aligning brands regionally vs markets. The SBC has done well with that but their issue is they are limited with potential upside. A mix of markets and brands while keeping it regional for rivalries would be my strategy if I was creating a G5 conference.

 

[MT01]

Consider for a moment that the following schools are closer to each other than Murfreesboro is to Memphis.

FAU and USF
Charlotte and ECU
SMU and North Texas (these two are actually in the exact same market)

And North Texas and Rice are only slightly further in distance. So,, I'm not sure I understand the point about Murfreesboro's proximity to Memphis or being in the same state. Again, I'm pretty confident the barrier is our own administration and leadership. In fact, we have a leadership that has said similar things with respect to the AAC and Memphis. That's the problem. You don't hear AD's at schools like UNT, Charlotte, and Rice talking like that. They just get it done rather than make excuses.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Ok, let me re-phrase this in another way:

What does MTSU offer a conference that already has Memphis?

You can't say geography or market. Market is 10 years ago thinking. That was when TV networks wanted to collect cable subscriber fees from local markets. It's about selling streaming packages nationwide now. You want to sell TV inventory/time slots, and you need matchups - that's why FSU will be in the SEC as soon as they can figure out how to get out of the ACC, despite the SEC having Florida. Geography is moot. Flying your team in from Dallas to Memphis or Nashville is an extra 25 minutes. It's not a big deal.

So, if you're selling MTSU to the me what other than market, which i'm not that interested in, does MTSU have to offer?

 

[BRaiderDave]

Consider for a moment that the following schools are closer to each other than Murfreesboro is to Memphis.

FAU and USF
Charlotte and ECU
SMU and North Texas (these two are actually in the exact same market)

And North Texas and Rice are only slightly further in distance. So,, I'm not sure I understand the point about Murfreesboro's proximity to Memphis or being in the same state. Again, I'm pretty confident the barrier is our own administration and leadership. In fact, we have a leadership that has said similar things with respect to the AAC and Memphis. That's the problem. You don't hear AD's at schools like UNT, Charlotte, and Rice talking like that. They just get it done rather than make excuses.

I remember when we were excluded in the first round of CUSA additions from the SBC. MT and FAU were in the second wave after Tulane left. Anyway, the presentation we had sent to the CUSA office incorrectly listed the location of one of the existing CUSA teams in a graphic showing how close we are to them.

 

[MT01]

Ok, let me re-phrase this in another way:

What does MTSU offer a conference that already has Memphis?

You can't say geography or market. Market is 10 years ago thinking. That was when TV networks wanted to collect cable subscriber fees from local markets. It's about selling streaming packages nationwide now. You want to sell TV inventory/time slots, and you need matchups - that's why FSU will be in the SEC as soon as they can figure out how to get out of the ACC, despite the SEC having Florida. Geography is moot. Flying your team in from Dallas to Memphis or Nashville is an extra 25 minutes. It's not a big deal.

So, if you're selling MTSU to the me what other than market, which i'm not that interested in, does MTSU have to offer?

What does Charlotte, Rice, or North Texas offer any differently??

As frustrated as we have been, the past 10 years - excluding the pandemic year - MT has more wins in football and basketball. More bowl wins. More NCAA Tournament wins.

In fact, out of the four of us only MT has a win pct better than 50% over the past decade in football.

I mean we have a lot of reason to be disenfranchised. Don't get me wrong, but when you are evaluating us vs some of the schools added to the AAC they certainly didn't bring anything more to the table from a performance perspective.

 

[RaiderDoug]

What does Charlotte, Rice, or North Texas offer any differently??

As frustrated as we have been, the past 10 years - excluding the pandemic year - MT has more wins in football and basketball. More bowl wins. More NCAA Tournament wins.

In fact, out of the four of us only MT has a win pct better than 50% over the past decade in football.

I mean we have a lot of reason to be disenfranchised. Don't get me wrong, but when you are evaluating us vs some of the schools added to the AAC they certainly didn't bring anything more to the table from a performance perspective.

I don't disagree - Charlotte is a dog as well. I do think they're gambling on some upside here with Charlotte and ODU. Time will tell whether or not it's worth it. I could see a scenario where they said - "Look, MTSU had 20 years to build something, and they did diddly squat, let's see if Charlotte can develop instead".

But most of the other teams they've added have been solid - JMU was an FCS powerhouse who looks like they're transitioning well, UAB and FAU have been good, North Texas has been up and down but has some upside.

But we've got nothing going for us other than a dubious claim to the Nashville "market". We keep saying "well, AAC would want a team in Nashville". Maybe, maybe not, but if they don't, then what else do we offer?

Fan base - negligible. Leadership - in the toilet. Brand name - inconsequential. Investment in football - LOL!

FWIW, I do think if you simply swapped the last 10 years of WKU and MTSU football, we'd 100% be moving up.

Like i said a few posts above, I don't think it's Memphis keeping us out, it's just that we're not that attractive right now overall.

 

[blueraiderJT]

What does Charlotte, Rice, or North Texas offer any differently??

As frustrated as we have been, the past 10 years - excluding the pandemic year - MT has more wins in football and basketball. More bowl wins. More NCAA Tournament wins.

In fact, out of the four of us only MT has a win pct better than 50% over the past decade in football.

I mean we have a lot of reason to be disenfranchised. Don't get me wrong, but when you are evaluating us vs some of the schools added to the AAC they certainly didn't bring anything more to the table from a performance perspective.

Great point. As far as performance goes overall, I feel that MT brings more to the table collectively than just about every team that went except UAB. FAU picked the exact right time to peak in BB. We also were like the only team that got a piece of them in regular season. Of the 3 that went to the SBC, we had a better performance overall as a program. Marshall and UAB were the 2 best overall programs that left. Rice is the most confusing program of all. They are like Vandy but worse. SMH

That's also why I've felt that there are other issues than our performance that have held us back. (Politics, facilities, etc.)

Performance should merit more but I get it.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

It's 100% politics. Who you know.
It's why I've said we should not be presenting only when there's an opportunity, but constantly. Always on the phone, talking to other conferences at games, gatherings, etc, so we are at the forefront of everyone's mind.

The top two overall athletic schools for the past decade in CUSA are still here.
The AAC lost Houston and knows SMU will bolt at the first chance so they had to cover Texas no matter what, even if others left. Explains UTSA, UNT, and even Rice.

FAU was same for Florida after losing UCF. Remember their tourney run was after they were taken by AAC.

UAB makes sense as it gives them a new state. Charlotte is weird but maybe it is potential.

There is all this talk about performance, facilities, market, and those things do matter, but no where near as much as who you shake hands with. And we all are fully aware of our administration's political prowess.

 

[ewglenn]

The AAC adds were one of two criteria. 1) a massive market that they did not have a presence in or 2) a large market that they did not have a presence in that did not have a professional/P5 team.

 

[blueraiderJT]

The AAC adds were one of two criteria. 1) a massive market that they did not have a presence in or 2) a large market that they did not have a presence in that did not have a professional/P5 team.

Markets for G5's are laughable. No one is watching G5 on a scale these conferences are judging. Hilarious.

 

[ewglenn]

Markets for G5's are laughable. No one is watching G5 on a scale these conferences are judging. Hilarious.

I don’t agree with it but that is their strategy

 

[JohnDavidBlue]

MT / WKU as a package seems like a good fit for any G5 conference. I don't understand the hole that is in the SBC or being overlooked for AAC.

I'm not waiting for an invite but I am waiting for an outright conference championship.

 

[SpaceRaider]

I am waiting for an outright conference championship.

I'll be six feet under for a decade and all the mediocre leadership long gone before a CC happens.

 

[MTOleBlue]

It's all about the financials. That's the same reason the ACC is going to add Stanford, Cal, and SMU -- a significant monetary boost from those additions that will placate some of the upset teams who have been letting off smoke signals about leaving ($40m last year + $70m or more from the new schools divided up to the 15 current members gives $45m+ next year... a big big boost). SMU's mega donors able to let the school go 7-9 years without payouts is just incredibly powerful. If we had that sort of money to give to a conference and ability to prove our worth in the American, for example, we would have a shot. So, any hidden billionaires in these forums? Lol

 

[Brew_Raider]

It's all about the financials. That's the same reason the ACC is going to add Stanford, Cal, and SMU -- a significant monetary boost from those additions that will placate some of the upset teams who have been letting off smoke signals about leaving ($40m last year + $70m or more from the new schools divided up to the 15 current members gives $45m+ next year... a big big boost). SMU's mega donors able to let the school go 7-9 years without payouts is just incredibly powerful. If we had that sort of money to give to a conference and ability to prove our worth in the American, for example, we would have a shot. So, any hidden billionaires in these forums? Lol

If GW can help SMU into the ACC, maybe former lecturer Al Gore to get use his influence to get us into the American.