"The three schools have agreed to pay their contractual exit fee for leaving the league, which is two years’ worth of revenue distribution (roughly $1.5 million). "
That blurb in the article is disturbing, just 1.5M for two years? Holy crap...
If they pay it and go on, does the remaining schools, particularly the ones off to AAC, get a share?
That article is misleading in some respects. It's $1.5M for each year so $3M total but the actual number amount is different, because 1) the actual amount vacated is different per school and b) that figure ($1.5M per year) is the lowest of the range. C-USA distributes revenues based on various metrics and it's not an equal revenue distribution for each member. So, USM, for example has averaged about just that number - $1.5M per year - over the past few years. Marshall, on the other hand hand, has averaged about $2.3M per year over the last few years. So, the bottom line is regardless of what that number is that's being reported it boils down to this. Total revenues divided by the five remaining schools.
Which should answer your second question. None of those schools leaving for the AAC receive any revenue distribution this year or next.
I've run these numbers roughly for all of you before here on the board but will briefly here again just to get back to the bottom line. C-USA annually distributes revenues to members in the range of roughly $40M to $45M. And I can't say factually if revenues will decrease if those three leave but let's assume C-USA only produces revenues of $35M over the next two years each. That $70M would be distributed to the remaining five unequally - because as I mentioned C-USA - distributes based on various performance metrics. But roughly it would be about $14M for each of the five over the next two distribution cycles assuming the degradation in revenue only falls by $5 to $10M. Now, it's possible after the other six leave revenues go way down, so maybe it's less. We'll just have to wait and see but whatever all nine of those schools would have earned this year and next will instead be split among the five holdovers.
Again, this why I advocated for staying in the near term while we look toward building for a future opportunity:
1) This increased revenue haul helps the facilities needs (hopefully)
2) MAC tried to trap us into a long term grant of rights eliminating future options
3) Northern-based conference bad for recruiting, fans, etc.
4) Realignment not over. Positions us better (hopefully) for whatever happens next.