Utah State, New Mexico State, FIU Could Be Added To MWC, C-USA Merger

WAC teams now get $400,000. MW get $1.5 or so. The idea is that the execs want more potential coverage than what is currently )or very soon) available. There is talk of a minimum jump to $3 million per team at 24. The C-USA, which has a smaller footprint than the combined MW / C-USA was getting $42 million for only 20 games. There are reports that they could average around $5 – 7 million for the contracts. Rumor has it, Tiers 1 & 2 with competing networks and sell left overs to ESPN for fill coverage and using the Mtn. Redux for extras and olympic sports. Simple question: why give up a guaranteed $5 million if there aren’t higher projections? If 24 is what the networks want and will pay for: You go get the teams. BTW: who do you think is really picking the teams in that scenario? There were already whispers when the ACC expanded, that it was the world-wide leader in sports that called the shots. When the ACC expanded, it got an extra $1 – 2 million per team.

In an academic scenario, at the lower averaging schools (Sun Belt, WAC many MW schools on up) the students pay athletic fees to make up the difference between what the TV money is and what the need is. University presidents are under TREMENDOUS pressure to stop sports subsidies through student fees. Sure, the students get free tickets, but to and for what? At UF, there is a lottery to see who is even ALLOWED to buy tickets. When I was a student there I got my 6 home games for $36. At CSU, for example, the students all pay around $50 – $100 athletic fee, whether they want to or not.

These “deadwood” teams are already on most MW teams’ schedules. They have been for years and aren’t going away. If the network says get deadwood state and we will pay you more, the president says: yes, that will get the academics off of my back, because I can lower the sports subsidies. SJSU has a big rivalry with Fresno State. Keep it, make it a conference game. The advertising, merchandise, apparel sales at these games are way higher and should be averaged into sports’ budgets, but mostly aren’t.

In the end, to get to a 12/12 (MW side), you have to add someone. You add someone in an area who at least gets you potential TV sets (even if they are turned off – new area is new area). Even if they only fill out the divisions to allow for a conference championship game, you still win. From a provost’s point of view, hard money contracts with TV ALWAYS beat soft money scheduling options: they are guaranteed. $1.5 million TV contract for WKU, which is probably too low, and $1 million for an ass whooping in Knoxville: $2,500,00 million with contract > $1,150,000 without. Contract wins.

As states restrict funding to higher education you will see, in direct proportion, the need for more hard money revenue streams. If you think CSU’s stadium is just for fans to enjoy the game better: guess again. The AD is already talking about an Apple store and a Starbucks in it. These “deadwood” candidates are needed to bolster in-conference wins for the big boys, more merch/apparel sales, advertising and for a championship game. The WAC / SunBelt teams need the hard money to get academics to quit poking holes in their budget ideas. Win/Win.

What keeps these teams down is access: Access to revenue for exposure, facilities, coaching and administrative positions. If the Mtn. keeps recruits from seeing the teams play and being able to show people where they want to play… they don’t go. (Other than those departing for the BE, how did we all do? Many in the 100’s!) No hard currency accounting measures (debits vs liabilities) means no expenditures on facilities. Coaches salaries suffer. Scheduling options don’t offer that… they are not budgeted the same way in the previous fiscal year, because there is no repeating contract like a home and home, TV or conference affiliation. They are debits to be sure, but they don’t hold the weight solid things do. Think like a Vice President (Provost), who has competing interests at a university. He tells the president what is fiscally secure, on a reoccurring basis, and the president acts accordingly.