Topic: HZ: Banowsky Says Playoff Good for Herd, C-USA

[ZackUSAF82]

By JACK BOGACZYK
HERDZONE.COM COLUMNIST

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. -- As the metamorphosis of Conference USA membership takes shape, the altered landscape that realignment has brought arrives in concert with big changes in major college football.

It’s out with the Bowl Championship Series – thankfully -- and in with the College Football Playoff, starting next season.

And that’s a very good thing for Marshall and other Conference USA members, C-USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky said during a Nov. 8-9 visit to Huntington for Herd men’s basketball and football games.

The assured access of one lower-tier team into the six-bowl postseason system run by the Playoff system is an improvement, as is the revenue that the CFP will provide, even below the power conference level.

Link: http://www.herdzone.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111813aaa.html

[kjh]

Zach when and how much will the Herd athletic department realize from teams leaving CUSA and new members entering? Marshall, Rice, USM, UTEP, should receive a significant windfall $$$$$$$$.

[HerdEcon]

There have been several attempts to guess how much money Marshall will receive from the buy outs.  Last I heard it wasn't anywhere near a windfall.  Looks like at this point someone at CUSA home office or a member institution should be able to do better than a guess.

Looks like the playoff system is going to go well for Marshall.  Now more than ever CUSA needs to work on scheduling and a little scheduling luck wouldn't hurt.   

[ZackUSAF82]

I honestly don't know how much we'll get, I went and looked back at several threads on this and I saw many different numbers so I just don't feel comfortable saying.  What I do know is we won't get it all up front, it's going to be spread out over several years.  I'm sure someone will chime in with a ballpark figure for ya kjh, sorry I couldn't be of more help.

[_sturt_]

Me:

Hi, Mitch.

There is some uncertainty as to how to interpret Mike Hamrick's quote in your recent column:

"Our TV package is solid for the next three years," Hamrick countered. "As far as I know renegotiations aren't scheduled. Our TV partners like the new Conference USA teams and markets.

"Also, the exit fee for the [departing] schools is a flat $500,000. But the schools must also pay the difference if the next contract is less than the current one. I'd be surprised if the next contract is less, but if it is, the former schools have to collectively make up the difference."

Previously it had been widely reported that the exit fee for each departing school was $6.6 million. This, however, seems to indicated that the fee is $500K plus any difference between the TV revenue in the next contract as opposed to the current one.

Based on the entirety of your conversation with Hamrick, and knowing the specific questions you posed to him, can you help clarify this? Are we correct to conclude there would not be any additional fee beyond the $500K if there is no difference between this TV contract and the next? And, accordingly, is it accurate to assume that any money collected from the departing schools beyond that $500K is money that had already been anticipated, realignment or not, and would have received anyhow--but that, now, instead of receiving it strictly from the networks, some part of it would come from the departing schools?

I'm confused, as are several others of my Herd friends. Thanks in advance for any informed input you can lend.

Vingle:

Thanks for the email. I double-checked with Hamrick and he said whatever reports you saw of $6.6 million as an exit fee per departing school were incorrect. ("I wish," he said.) It's simply $500,000 per school, plus the difference between TV contracts. If there is no difference, it's just $500,000 per school. Hope this clears it up.

http://www.herdfans.com/12thman/index.php?topic=69644.msg548428;topicseen#msg548428

Entry fees for newbies has been reported by multiple sources as $2m each.

[_sturt_]

So, if (a) a Marshall, Rice, Middle Tennessee or UTSA leads C-USA to a No. 1 conference ranking (among the five) and (b) reaches one of the six biggest bowls, then C-USA is looking at a revenue year of at least $25 million from just the College Football Playoff system.

As a good company man, Jack doesn't bother to analyze the likelihood of either of those occurring anytime in the near future.

A? We're looking up at the MAC, looking up at MWC, looking up at AAC. Heck, at the moment we're even looking up at SBC, and we haven't even added all of the lower tier schools or lost ECU and Tulsa.

B? Of the non-BCS schools since 2005 who have finished highest in the BCS rankings, three things... not one, not two, but three... are consistent: they lost, at most, one game... they played, at minimum, one Top 25 school... and they played in a conference whose aggregated Sagarin ranking was one of the top two among non-BCS conferences.

To get a God-honest shot, we can't just maintain this status quo. We have to be innovative and do something different.

[carolinaherdfan]

I've said this a few years back and I will state it tonight. Not just only myself will never support MU again in this life or this death if they ever return to the MAC....never never never.....many and I mean many feel the same way....

[Greg H]

I've said this a few years back and I will state it tonight. Not just only myself will never support MU again in this life or this death if they ever return to the MAC....never never never.....many and I mean many feel the same way....

The MAC is having a nice run.  But they have basically no potential for improvement.  The new CUSA is not far behind now, and has incredible potential.  There are SEVERAL potential "UCF'S" in the new CUSA...and ALL of them appear 100% dedicated to winning football.  Yes, it sucks right now.  But we are well set for a dominating run, even while these new teams rise. 

[_sturt_]

The MAC is having a nice run.  But they have basically no potential for improvement.  The new CUSA is not far behind now, and has incredible potential.  There are SEVERAL potential "UCF'S" in the new CUSA...and ALL of them appear 100% dedicated to winning football.  Yes, it sucks right now.  But we are well set for a dominating run, even while these new teams rise. 

If we want to compete for the Go5 big bowl slot, the main competition is going to be AAC and MWC schools. MAC, as they've historically done, will probably sneak one in every now and then.

Optimism is good. It's important to stay positive, and especially about our own future success. But at the same time, we can't be blind to certain realities... we won't compete for the big bowl slot until we are able to acquire a caliber of conference schedule that is competitive with AAC and MWC.

So, we have to be willing to innovate... whether it's the idea I put forward or someone else's idea... we're all starting at the same mark, but we're in an outer lane with the wider curve, and no current way of compensating for the disparity... we have to figure out a way to mitigate our disadvantage.

[luvherd]

As a good company man, Jack doesn't bother to analyze the likelihood of either of those occurring anytime in the near future.

A? We're looking up at the MAC, looking up at MWC, looking up at AAC. Heck, at the moment we're even looking up at SBC, and we haven't even added all of the lower tier schools or lost ECU and Tulsa.

B? Of the non-BCS schools since 2005 who have finished highest in the BCS rankings, three things... not one, not two, but three... are consistent: they lost, at most, one game... they played, at minimum, one Top 25 school... and they played in a conference whose aggregated Sagarin ranking was one of the top two among non-BCS conferences.

To get a God-honest shot, we can't just maintain this status quo. We have to be innovative and do something different.

(bleep). Northern Illinois would have went last year to BCS. Hawaii went. Both had lower SOS. We go undefeated - we got a shot to be selected.

[_sturt_]

Bull%^&*. Northern Illinois would have went last year to BCS. Hawaii went. Both had lower SOS. We go undefeated - we got a shot to be selected.

luv, let's not do this merry-go-round again, please... the facts back me up, and of the two of us, I would appear to be the one who took time to research the facts. And last year was an outlier in that all of the Go5 conferences finished the year within relative inches of each other... can't expect that to happen again anytime soon.

[wasbarryb]

I've said this a few years back and I will state it tonight. Not just only myself will never support MU again in this life or this death if they ever return to the MAC....never never never.....many and I mean many feel the same way....

I could support adding a couple of better MAC teams to CUSA.

I could accept a merger of 12 or more CUSA teams with the MAC into a 20+ mega conference with multiple divisions.

BUT never would I be willing to see us leave CUSA for the MAC. Such a move would be stupidity beyond comprehension. As you said never never never!

[_sturt_]

A move to the MAC does not solve the problem. We want to compete annually with the AAC and MWC for that slot. At best, they'll compete for it occasionally.

[luvherd]

Sturt no doubt you know more than the commish. If you don't believe me ask yourself.

[biggreenarms]

Sturt no doubt you know more than the commish. If you don't believe me ask yourself.

bada-bing

[_sturt_]

Sturt no doubt you know more than the commish. If you don't believe me ask yourself.

luv, the passive aggressive attempt at re-focusing the conversation on me instead of the issue is a clever attempt at strategic distraction for those pretty easily distracted... but I'm just not sure why you think it's important to pretend all is hunky-dorry, when, in fact your good friend the commish and mine stated publicly back last winter that he, in fact, was trying to implement something that addressed the problem (see below). Evidently, it didn't fly... no surprise, actually, because from what little he revealed, it would have required AAC and/or MWC to do something they probably would have seen as disadvantageous to their causes.

=======================================================

Back to actual content....

Another perspective to this is the fact that Banowsky appears to be very much willing to explore ideas that create opportunities. Below, I've just found that he's been involved in talks that would seemingly involve an in-season playoff as this proposal suggests, and even better that the playoff would be among all Go5 conferences. From the beginning, that was a plan I'd thought was merited, but figured it would be too complicated to get it done politically... not to mention the bigger point that AAC and MWC probably have little incentive to agree to it. But hey, if he can sell his old pal Thompson on it... that would be even better than this current proposal.

I'm encouraged, at least, that Banowsky realizes status quo isn't going to serve his conference very well... to the disappointment of some in this thread who appear to think all is hunky-dory and there's no need to pursue anything "complex and unorthodox" (Banowsky's words).

Banowsky quote from January...

"Our view is, in this world if you're not collaborating with people, you're not performing at your optimum," Banowsky said. "I'm a collaborator. I like to collaborate with television people, I like to collaborate with my conference colleagues and I like to collaborate with bowl folks to try to put us in a place where we can grow our business together."

...and this from December...

We all just have to know that we have a responsibility to our own conferences. Each institution has a responsibility to their institution. But we’re also part of a bigger system. And it’s important for us to occasionally think, “How has the system improved and what can we do to make the system better?”

Banowsky and Benson are interested in bringing back some semblance of order. Separately, they’re exploring the idea of consolidating at least some of the schools in what is being called the “Group of Five” non-power conferences — C-USA, Sun Belt, Big East, MAC and Mountain West — into a mini-playoff structure, with the winner gaining the automatic berth to one of the three “host” bowls (most likely the Fiesta, Cotton and Chick-fil-A) in the new BCS format.

Banowsky’s plan is for four eight- or nine-team leagues grouped geographically, with the champions meeting in semifinal games on Thanksgiving weekend and the winners playing a week later.

There are complications, such as who makes the cut to 32 or 36 teams — more than 60 schools will be in the Group of Five — and whether schools would have to revert to an 11-game regular season, which would mean a loss in revenue. A similar proposal two years ago to merge C-USA and the Mountain West in football failed to materialize.

“It’s pretty complex and unorthodox,” Banowsky said. “And it’s my sense that most folks are more comfortable in approaching things in a more traditional way. But I also think it would bring a pretty interesting package to the marketplace.”

http://www.herdfans.com/12thman/index.php?topic=70578.msg556316#msg556316

=======================================================

Sooooo... point being... if you disagree that there's a problem that needs imaginative solutions, that kind of status quo cynical thinking is part of the problem... by the commish's own implicit admission.

*rimshot*

[GreenBison60]

You guys can throw it in my face when Marshall gets that 1 spot. It ain't gonna happen especially in this CUSA. It will be the worst conference out there for quite sometime. Like i said, rub it in my face when we get that spot.

[Greg H]

You guys can throw it in my face when Marshall gets that 1 spot. It ain't gonna happen especially in this CUSA. It will be the worst conference out there for quite sometime. Like i said, rub it in my face when we get that spot.

GB.  I know you have no faith in Doc.  That said, we face just about the easiest schedule imaginable next year and return the vast majority of a team that is VERY unlikely to finish no worse than 8-5, and which could finish 11-2.  It's a decent team. An undefeated 2014, though HIGHLY unlikely (as it ALWAYS is, for anyone, but more so for us, with our ability to lay eggs), is possible against that schedule.  We WILL be favored in every game, most likely.  I don't know of another non-AQ with an easier schedule, much less one good enough to make a serious run at an undefeated season. 

So, assume some facts for me (this does not mean you agree, just that you assume them for the sake of argument).  Assume we are 13-0.  Now assume there is 1 team each from the MAC and AAC that have one loss (say Ball State and ECU) and nobody else is undefeated.  DO you actually think that we would not get the bid?  If not, why not.

[extragreen]

It's going to be really difficult for us to finish 11-2. Really difficult.

[FlyHawk98]

We have one open date next year.... we should all email Hamrick and tell him to accept a 1 and done from a big boy, or a 2-1 with a semi big boy and we will go on the road next year. We have a good team coming back next year, I would like to see them get to play at least a middle of the pack BCS team. Plus it would boost our SOS.

Which would be better for us 12-1 with a respectable loss to a big well know team, OR 13-0 with our current schedule plus an FCS school.

Also, would you guys be ok with only 5 home games IF we got to play someone like Florida, UK, Ohio State, Pitt, Maryland, UNC, etc. This isn't about what team we play as I KNOW some of them will never play us, but thats the caliber of "name program" I am talking about.

[_sturt_]

Not sure how many people employed as ADs pulling down six figures running programs in larger conferences are going to be conned into signing off on a trip to Huntington next season... but who knows.

[Greg H]

It's going to be really difficult for us to finish 11-2. Really difficult.

You know what I meant, 11-3

[Greg H]

Not sure how many people employed as ADs pulling down six figures running programs in larger conferences are going to be conned into signing off on a trip to Huntington next season... but who knows.

Very good point.  It would take an absolute FOOL to come to Huntington next year if not required.  It'll be FCS or someone looking to schedule up.

[_sturt_]

GB.  I know you have no faith in Doc.  That said, we face just about the easiest schedule imaginable next year and return the vast majority of a team that is VERY unlikely to finish no worse than 8-5, and which could finish 11-2.  It's a decent team. An undefeated 2014, though HIGHLY unlikely (as it ALWAYS is, for anyone, but more so for us, with our ability to lay eggs), is possible against that schedule.  We WILL be favored in every game, most likely.  I don't know of another non-AQ with an easier schedule, much less one good enough to make a serious run at an undefeated season. 

So, assume some facts for me (this does not mean you agree, just that you assume them for the sake of argument).  Assume we are 13-0.  Now assume there is 1 team each from the MAC and AAC that have one loss (say Ball State and ECU) and nobody else is undefeated.  DO you actually think that we would not get the bid?  If not, why not.

All other things being equal, ECU gets the bid by virtue of its AAC schedule being considered stronger.

Even with two losses, it's plausible that ECU gets it if their schedule included a top 25 team that they defeated and ours didn't... and being in AAC gives them greater likelihood of that occurring.