I see in the other threads that people are writing arguments about what USM can offer, and we can come up with some ideas, but it is crucial that we keep in mind what are the motivations and consideration factors, and what we can offer in that respect.
The reports are that the B12 actually has a lot of leverage here, because they have an agreement with their network partners that additional member will result in set amounts of additional revenue to the conference. Let's assume that each new member results in $20M to the conference. What Clay Travis is reporting -- and what I have seen elsewhere -- is that unlike in other instances, the addition of the new members does not necessarily have to independently increase the size of the pie for it to make financial sense. The pie increases automatically by the terms of the TV contracts and the real question for current members is how little of the addition does the new member get and (in the long run) how will the new member impact a future deal.
All expansions in recent times have been dominated by the impact of money, but there are some significant differences now.
Prior additions were fueled by the TV model that depended on carriage fees from cable systems -- what this meant was that even a minority of fans (if they were loud enough) could convince a local cable system to add a channel to a cable system (or to a higher tier of a cable system) and ensure that the carriage fee would be charged to the whole market (or maybe all subscribers to a sports tier). This is why teams like TCU, Memphis, USF, UCF, suddenly became more valuable in spite of their teams sucking. It is also why Missouri could become such a hot property in spite of having teams that were historically worse than say Kansas State. However, this whole model of carriage fees is unraveling, and I don't think most conferences want to put all their eggs in the basket that "big markets = profit" regardless of the actual level of interest shown in that market. So what does USM offer from this perspective? We offer a passionate fan base. We have attendance (in spite of awful opponents) that is not horrible -- even when we went 0-12. We are in the middle of a state that cares about college football. Washington DC has many more people than the state of Mississippi -- I doubt that DC has more college football fans. In fact, I would be willing to bet that you are more likely to find a college football fan in Mississippi whose primary team is Ole Miss or State or LSU or Bama who would be willing to watch USM than you are going to find anyone in New Ooleans willing to watch Tulane on TV or someone in Connecticut interested in watching UConn.
So what should our pitch to the B12 look like?
1. We propose to take pennies on the dollar -- $500k per year or something for the first 5 or so years and only a quarter share or half share for an extended period of time. This obviously puts us at a disadvantage compared to the other members of the B12 that are getting $20M+ per year, but we will be better than we are now. And the interest and ticket sale increases from having decent opponents would be enormous and actually place us in a better financial condition than we are now. We can also disclaim any revenues from a B12 network for a number of years to sweeten the pot.
2. We commit to getting our stadium to hold 50k and until we do, we commit to having 2 or 3 conference games in New Orleans or Jackson or a neutral site each year. From a scheduling perspective, we will get a better game or two in H-burg than we currently have and we will have to put together a plan to expand. We can ditch the prostitution games and turn our "home" games in New Orleans, Jackson, or wherever into those "money" games by having the cities bid against each other. We can sign up one game a year with no return (JSU, Alcorn, etc.) and then have three home-home series with local schools (USA, ULL, Tulane, Troy, etc). The schedule would be:
That is four true home games a year and 2 or 3 close neutral sites. And that is until we can get MM Roberts to 50k. Plus we can pitch that we are expanding the reach of the B12 to additional markets in New Orleans, Jackson, or other locations. We can make some adjustments if we are required to have 9 conference games, but putting together a plan that works should not be that hard.
3. We offer a new recruiting area. Iowa State already tries to recruit down here and I am sure that others would as well if they could promise a game every once in a while for the recruits to play in front of mama.
4. We offer inroads into an area that is very passionate about college football and we sell ourselves as the sleeping giant that is just waiting for better opponents to pitch to the locals and recruits.
5. From a competitive standpoint based purely on resources, we would be at a huge disadvantage compared to Texas, Oklahoma, etc, but I would give us a good shot against Kansas and Iowa State from day one. Let us start recruiting where we can offer a chance to play in a P5 conference and I think that we could quickly be competitive with Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Baylor (after they fall apart this year). Ok. State, TCU, and WVU are all programs with which we could compete as well given some time to ramp up (and if OSU and TCU come a little bit more back down to earth).
6. We point out that we have a history of good performance -- super-long sustained run as one of the best non-BCS team. Squads in 2011, 1999, 1997, 1990 that all made noise on a national scale -- despite shoe-string budgets. Outside of Boise and BYU, I don't think there is another school that could show a similar run over the last thirty years. And such a run shows that our success was more than a fluke of the schedule (like Tulane in 1998). We had that success because we are well positioned for recruiting, we have a tradition of winning, and we know what it takes to win. And unlike a lot of these schools current and former B12 schools have seen the advantage of playing us home and home within the past 20 years -- Kansas, Ok. State, TAMU, Nebraska, TCU.
The goal is to outbid the competition. Of the ones being mentioned, we are clearly in the worst financial shape because we are not in a conference that offers decent revenue. It is easier for us to bid low than for anyone else. When you are making minimum wage, it is easier to ask for a small raise than it is for someone else to agree to a pay-cut. I think we make the low-ball, desperation bid and hope for the best. We certainly can't end up in worse shape.
The reports are that the B12 actually has a lot of leverage here, because they have an agreement with their network partners that additional member will result in set amounts of additional revenue to the conference. Let's assume that each new member results in $20M to the conference. What Clay Travis is reporting -- and what I have seen elsewhere -- is that unlike in other instances, the addition of the new members does not necessarily have to independently increase the size of the pie for it to make financial sense. The pie increases automatically by the terms of the TV contracts and the real question for current members is how little of the addition does the new member get and (in the long run) how will the new member impact a future deal.
All expansions in recent times have been dominated by the impact of money, but there are some significant differences now.
Prior additions were fueled by the TV model that depended on carriage fees from cable systems -- what this meant was that even a minority of fans (if they were loud enough) could convince a local cable system to add a channel to a cable system (or to a higher tier of a cable system) and ensure that the carriage fee would be charged to the whole market (or maybe all subscribers to a sports tier). This is why teams like TCU, Memphis, USF, UCF, suddenly became more valuable in spite of their teams sucking. It is also why Missouri could become such a hot property in spite of having teams that were historically worse than say Kansas State. However, this whole model of carriage fees is unraveling, and I don't think most conferences want to put all their eggs in the basket that "big markets = profit" regardless of the actual level of interest shown in that market. So what does USM offer from this perspective? We offer a passionate fan base. We have attendance (in spite of awful opponents) that is not horrible -- even when we went 0-12. We are in the middle of a state that cares about college football. Washington DC has many more people than the state of Mississippi -- I doubt that DC has more college football fans. In fact, I would be willing to bet that you are more likely to find a college football fan in Mississippi whose primary team is Ole Miss or State or LSU or Bama who would be willing to watch USM than you are going to find anyone in New Ooleans willing to watch Tulane on TV or someone in Connecticut interested in watching UConn.
So what should our pitch to the B12 look like?
1. We propose to take pennies on the dollar -- $500k per year or something for the first 5 or so years and only a quarter share or half share for an extended period of time. This obviously puts us at a disadvantage compared to the other members of the B12 that are getting $20M+ per year, but we will be better than we are now. And the interest and ticket sale increases from having decent opponents would be enormous and actually place us in a better financial condition than we are now. We can also disclaim any revenues from a B12 network for a number of years to sweeten the pot.
2. We commit to getting our stadium to hold 50k and until we do, we commit to having 2 or 3 conference games in New Orleans or Jackson or a neutral site each year. From a scheduling perspective, we will get a better game or two in H-burg than we currently have and we will have to put together a plan to expand. We can ditch the prostitution games and turn our "home" games in New Orleans, Jackson, or wherever into those "money" games by having the cities bid against each other. We can sign up one game a year with no return (JSU, Alcorn, etc.) and then have three home-home series with local schools (USA, ULL, Tulane, Troy, etc). The schedule would be:
Even years: 4 away conference games; 3 "home" conference games in New Orleans, etc; 1 conference game at MM Roberts, 1 FCS at home, and 2 non-conference home, and 1 non-conference road game.
Odd years: 4 away conference games; 2 "home" conference games in New Orleans, etc; 2 conference games at MM Roberts, 1 FCS at home, 1 non-conference home and 2 non-conference away.
Odd years: 4 away conference games; 2 "home" conference games in New Orleans, etc; 2 conference games at MM Roberts, 1 FCS at home, 1 non-conference home and 2 non-conference away.
That is four true home games a year and 2 or 3 close neutral sites. And that is until we can get MM Roberts to 50k. Plus we can pitch that we are expanding the reach of the B12 to additional markets in New Orleans, Jackson, or other locations. We can make some adjustments if we are required to have 9 conference games, but putting together a plan that works should not be that hard.
3. We offer a new recruiting area. Iowa State already tries to recruit down here and I am sure that others would as well if they could promise a game every once in a while for the recruits to play in front of mama.
4. We offer inroads into an area that is very passionate about college football and we sell ourselves as the sleeping giant that is just waiting for better opponents to pitch to the locals and recruits.
5. From a competitive standpoint based purely on resources, we would be at a huge disadvantage compared to Texas, Oklahoma, etc, but I would give us a good shot against Kansas and Iowa State from day one. Let us start recruiting where we can offer a chance to play in a P5 conference and I think that we could quickly be competitive with Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Baylor (after they fall apart this year). Ok. State, TCU, and WVU are all programs with which we could compete as well given some time to ramp up (and if OSU and TCU come a little bit more back down to earth).
6. We point out that we have a history of good performance -- super-long sustained run as one of the best non-BCS team. Squads in 2011, 1999, 1997, 1990 that all made noise on a national scale -- despite shoe-string budgets. Outside of Boise and BYU, I don't think there is another school that could show a similar run over the last thirty years. And such a run shows that our success was more than a fluke of the schedule (like Tulane in 1998). We had that success because we are well positioned for recruiting, we have a tradition of winning, and we know what it takes to win. And unlike a lot of these schools current and former B12 schools have seen the advantage of playing us home and home within the past 20 years -- Kansas, Ok. State, TAMU, Nebraska, TCU.
The goal is to outbid the competition. Of the ones being mentioned, we are clearly in the worst financial shape because we are not in a conference that offers decent revenue. It is easier for us to bid low than for anyone else. When you are making minimum wage, it is easier to ask for a small raise than it is for someone else to agree to a pay-cut. I think we make the low-ball, desperation bid and hope for the best. We certainly can't end up in worse shape.
