UMass OUT 2015

[zippy5]

What would their athletic budget be if they were getting MAC tv money from ESPN/Time Warner?

13.7M?

[ZachTheZip]

What would their athletic budget be if they were getting MAC tv money from ESPN/Time Warner?

The MAC's TV money under the new deal signed this past summer isn't much. Whoever was negotiating on behalf of the MAC really, severely screwed up and left the MAC short-changed compared to similarly-positioned conferences such as C-USA and the MWC. MAC schools only get $600k/year under the new deal, which they are locked into for more than a decade.

FBS playoff money is where a bigger boost would come from. The MAC gets a minimum of $1 million per school per year. Bowl payouts add another $500k.

That puts YSU at $16.7m just for moving up. Still significantly less than any MAC school, and most of that extra money would be to fund the additional 44 scholarships (22 more for football, and 22 women's scholarships for Title IX balancing). They would still need to come up with at least $4 million more annually to fit with what the MAC is looking for.

[ZachTheZip]

I wonder how all of us older Zips fans would feel if we raised up these programs to join us again in D-1A.......after all of the effort and resources it took to move above them and separate ourselves from them 3 decades ago.

I don't know. It's a little bit too much Deva Vu for me to think that the new MAC would somehow start to resemble the old OVC. But much like the YSU situation, it's unlikely those schools would ever be able to garner the resources to do it.

I'm not sure how recent move-ups have changed. I was under the impression that, for the most part, the programs already fit the profile before making the move. That's why JMU is so intriguing to me. They have a $40 million athletic budget, a football stadium that shames most of the MAC, and are building a huge new basketball convocation center. JMU is one of the last holdouts of the big-time eastern FCS programs. The rest have already moved up or have de-emphasized football.

[LZIp]

The MAC's TV money under the new deal signed this past summer isn't much. Whoever was negotiating on behalf of the MAC really, severely screwed up and left the MAC short-changed compared to similarly-positioned conferences such as C-USA and the MWC. MAC schools only get $600k/year under the new deal, which they are locked into for more than a decade.

FBS playoff money is where a bigger boost would come from. The MAC gets a minimum of $1 million per school per year. Bowl payouts add another $500k.

That puts YSU at $16.7m just for moving up. Still significantly less than any MAC school, and most of that extra money would be to fund the additional 44 scholarships (22 more for football, and 22 women's scholarships for Title IX balancing). They would still need to come up with at least $4 million more annually to fit with what the MAC is looking for.

Thanks. What you are saying is mostly in line with what I have read. Though, its more or less semantics, but Elton says its closer to 1 million per school. I also did some research on James Madison and came across some interesting tidbits. Subsidies increase an average of 1.2 million when reclassifying from FCS to FBS. James Madison also expects that I move to FBS would result in an increase of 2 million/year in donations. I cannot find anything regarding the whole athletics budget for JMU. Using my math, 400 difference in the tv contract, 1.2 million in subsidies, and 2 million increase in donations, this puts their athletic budget at 20.3 million. That isn't considering the University's additional commitment to athletics that would come with a move to FBS.

However, debating minor math is besides the point. The point is that they are a lot closer than many on here are making them out to be, and certainly capable of hitting some minimum threshold if one were to be set. I think its a good fit in the sense of competitivness, making more money (better draws, local rivalries), and savings on costs (travel) for the whole conference compared to someone like UMASS or JMU.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2014/08/new_mac-espn_deal_features_foo.html

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2013/10/21/should-james-madison-university-move-to-fbs/

[footballzip]

I don't mind adding another Ohio school. It would be good for northeast Ohio, close geographical rivals. Akron, Can't and YSU. I would be more interested us playing them, rather than UMass, Temple, or JMU, out of state nobody's.

[OU Dude]

The previous MAC/ESPN deal was for 10yrs/$14M. The New deal is an additional $24M on the final 3 years of the previous deal and then 10yrs/$100M.

Although not huge, UMass would have got a piece of that as a football only member of the MAC, but as an Independent they will recieve $0 for TV money. And in regards to the payout for the College Football Playoffs in 2014 the 5 G5 conferences shared $75M which comes out to an avg. of $1.22M, depending on team and conference performance. By comparision, the 3 Independent teams (BYU, Army, Navy) split a total of $922,658, or an avg. of $307,553. That's 1/4 the payout for the avg G5 team. There's no way UMass can survive as an Independent, not to mention the nigthmare of scheduling. UMass currently has 1 home game scheduled for 2016. Their affiliation ends at midnight on the day of their last game of the 2015, regular or bowl. I would not be surprised if UMass has a change of heart at the 11th hour and accepts full memebership.

[Balsy]

Thanks for the stats on that OU Dude...my only issue with that perspective is: what are the numbers on Basketball which is probably more of a cash cow for them? Would Basketball be affected by a full move to the MAC?

[OU Dude]

no prob. The A10 signed a TV contract with ESPN/CBS/NBC in 2012 worth $40M over 8 years, that's $5M/yr divided by 14 teams for an average of $357,143 per team. Its a little harder to determine how much they earn from the Tournament payout as those are units paid over 6 years, etc. but I did manage to find total payout from 2011 and the A10 earned $5,751,936 (the MAC earned $1,677,648). On average each of the 14 teams in the A10 would have received $410,852.

As a football Independent and full member of the A10 this is what UMass's annual revenue intake looks like-

$357,143- TV contract (A10)

$410,852- NCAA Tourney (A10)

$307,553- FBS Playoffs (Independent)

$1,078,548- Annual payout as A10/Indy

By comparison, here is an approx. annual revenue intake for UMass as a full, 13th member of the MAC-

$769,230- TV contract (MAC)

$129,959- NCAA Tourney (MAC)

$1,229,508- FBS Playoffs (MAC)

$2,128,697- Anual payout as MAC full member.

Has anyone at UMass bothered to do the math?

[Balsy]

no prob. The A10 signed a TV contract with ESPN/CBS/NBC in 2012 worth $40M over 8 years, that's $5M/yr divided by 14 teams for an average of $357,143 per team. Its a little harder to determine how much they earn from the Tournament payout as those are units paid over 6 years, etc. but I did manage to find total payout from 2011 and the A10 earned $5,751,936 (the MAC earned $1,677,648). On average each of the 14 teams in the A10 would have received $410,852.

As a football Independent and full member of the A10 this is what UMass's annual revenue intake looks like-

$357,143- TV contract (A10)

$410,852- NCAA Tourney (A10)

$307,553- FBS Playoffs (Independent)

$1,078,548- Annual payout as A10/Indy

By comparison, here is an approx. annual revenue intake for UMass as a full, 13th member of the MAC-

$769,230- TV contract (MAC)

$129,959- NCAA Tourney (MAC)

$1,229,508- FBS Playoffs (MAC)

$2,128,697- Anual payout as MAC full member.

Has anyone at UMass bothered to do the math?

Assuming your numbers are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them), it's a no-brainer for UMass to become a full member of the MAC. I wonder if it's an ego thing...

[zippy5]

I think they're trying to get in another conference and not remain independent. Obviously to no avail yet.

I would love them to come in for all sports. We'd be a 2 bid conference soon.

[Balsy]

I think they're trying to get in another conference and not remain independent. Obviously to no avail yet.

I would love them to come in for all sports. We'd be a 2 bid conference soon.

I agree. I think they're holding out to get an invite to another conference, however I also don't think it's going to happen. Depends on how well they're football team does this year.

[LZIp]

Even if their football team does well this season, they are still spending some time being indepdendent. I can't think of a team who has accepted an invite in the offseason and was in the new member conference the next fall. Takes time to adjust things for the new conference. Same for UMASS. If they have games scheduled, they are going to have to cancel those ($$)/play them out until contract expires. Surely they wouldn't risk going into a season with no games scheduled.

[OU Dude]

UMass grossly over estimates their attractiveness to the AAC. I think the demographics of their school (size, academics, revenue, etc) make them a natural fit in the MAC and I think their BBall team would be a nice addition , but I don't think it would be a game changer. UMass had a 5 year run from 1992-1996 that any MAC team would kill for- 2 rounds of 32, 1 Sweet 16, 1 Elite 8, and 1 Final 4. Amazing. (of course the Final 4 run doesn't officially count because those wins were vacated, but let's not dwell on that embarrassing detail.)

But here's the thing, outside of that 5 year stretch where UMass won 11* tournament games they haven't won a single tournament game before or since. Not one. Before 1992 UMass only had 1 tournament appearance in 1962. After the Final 4 run in '96 they made it back in '97 and '98 but lost in the first round both times. In spite of being in a conference that annually earns multiple bids their at-large bid in 2014 is their only appearance since 1998. Their 9 appearances would rank them 3rd in the MAC behind Ohio and Miami. This year they would be 3rd in attendance behind Ohio and Toledo.

Here's how UMass stacks up historically in regards to program all time winning % compared to the rest of the MAC (through 2014)-

.609 Akron (1,503-966)

.574 Ohio (1,450-1,077)

.571 Toledo (1,354-1,016)

.542 Miami (1,313-1,108)

.540 BGSU (1,300-1107)

.532 UMass (1,222-1,074)

.529 WMU (1,262-1,123)

.519 Ball St (1,148-1,063)

.506 Buffalo (1,089-1,062)

.506 CMU (1,214-1,184)

.492 Can't St (1,138-1,171)

.492 NIU (1,185-1,222)

.491 EMU (1,155-1,197)

UMass is an above average MAC team, nothing more.

[Blue & Gold]

Great work, OU Dude. Thank you!

[Dave in Green]

Nice research, OU Dude. In 1988 John Calipari took over a UMass basketball program that didn't have a winning record for 10 straight seasons and turned them into a national power. Since he left in 1996 they've had almost as many losing seasons as winning ones. Their basketball program would likely be above average but not dominant in the MAC.

[Blue & Gold]

It's strange how impressionable (at least on me) their 5-year run was, because I still think of them as a top basketball school, but they're actually quite far from it.

They'd fit in nicely with us, Ohio, Buffalo & UT.

[zippy5]

UMass grossly over estimates their attractiveness to the AAC. I think the demographics of their school (size, academics, revenue, etc) make them a natural fit in the MAC and I think their BBall team would be a nice addition , but I don't think it would be a game changer. UMass had a 5 year run from 1992-1996 that any MAC team would kill for- 2 rounds of 32, 1 Sweet 16, 1 Elite 8, and 1 Final 4. Amazing. (of course the Final 4 run doesn't officially count because those wins were vacated, but let's not dwell on that embarrassing detail.)

But here's the thing, outside of that 5 year stretch where UMass won 11* tournament games they haven't won a single tournament game before or since. Not one. Before 1992 UMass only had 1 tournament appearance in 1962. After the Final 4 run in '96 they made it back in '97 and '98 but lost in the first round both times. In spite of being in a conference that annually earns multiple bids their at-large bid in 2014 is their only appearance since 1998. Their 9 appearances would rank them 3rd in the MAC behind Ohio and Miami. This year they would be 3rd in attendance behind Ohio and Toledo.

Here's how UMass stacks up historically in regards to program all time winning % compared to the rest of the MAC (through 2014)-

.609 Akron (1,503-966)

.574 Ohio (1,450-1,077)

.571 Toledo (1,354-1,016)

.542 Miami (1,313-1,108)

.540 BGSU (1,300-1107)

.532 UMass (1,222-1,074)

.529 WMU (1,262-1,123)

.519 Ball St (1,148-1,063)

.506 Buffalo (1,089-1,062)

.506 CMU (1,214-1,184)

.492 Can't St (1,138-1,171)

.492 NIU (1,185-1,222)

.491 EMU (1,155-1,197)

UMass is an above average MAC team, nothing more.

UMass has a .532 winning % in the A-10. We have higher win % in the MAC. They would have won our league most years. UMass would be a great addition, they've been ranked on and off, unlike any other MAC program. If only Temple would join all-sports with them..

[OU Dude]

UMass has a .532 winning % in the A-10. We have higher win % in the MAC. They would have won our league most years. UMass would be a great addition, they've been ranked on and off, unlike any other MAC program. If only Temple would join all-sports with them..

Not exactly. The winning percentages I listed are for the entire history of each program, UMass started playing basketball in 1900 but has only been in the A10 since its founding in 1976. Prior to the A10 UMass was in the Yankee Conference from '46-'76. Same for Akron, that percentage includes all of the pre-MAC games.

I'm not sure you can say UMass would have won our league most years because if they were in the MAC they would have had MAC level players/coaches/resources, just like the rest of us. UMass's history shows that when you compare them to a league of their peers they do not win that league most of the time. Outside of that magic run from '92'96 UMass has never won an A10 conference tournament and has been co-champ of the regular season just one time.

I understand why UMass doesn't want to leave the A10 and join the MAC, they'd rather be one of the worse teams in a great league than one of the better teams in a good league, can't say I blame them. But, if they are committed to playing big league football they are going to have to make some sacrifices.

[Dave in Green]

... I'm not sure you can say UMass would have won our league most years because if they were in the MAC they would have had MAC level players/coaches/resources, just like the rest of us. UMass's history shows that when you compare them to a league of their peers they do not win that league most of the time. Outside of that magic run from '92'96 UMass has never won an A10 conference tournament and has been co-champ of the regular season just one time. ...

Good analysis. A10 teams have a conference recruiting edge over MAC teams that currently gives UMass a talent advantage over MAC teams. That would go away if they were in the MAC.

[RACER]

thanks for the info OU DUDE. my question is. everyone assumes we will be a

two bid league every year. what if u-mass won the mac tourney,and we only get one bid?

maybe they have bad year,and don't qualify for an at large bid.my point is the mac is taking all

the risk. now we are splitting the cash 13 ways instead of 12.how many times in a ten year period

would the mac have to get two teams in ncaa tourney to make $ sense. we taking on a bad football

program which does nothing but dilute the football revenue. let me know what you think.

OU DUDE.

[K92]

FUMass.

[OU Dude]

thanks for the info OU DUDE. my question is. everyone assumes we will be a

two bid league every year. what if u-mass won the mac tourney,and we only get one bid?

maybe they have bad year,and don't qualify for an at large bid.my point is the mac is taking all

the risk. now we are splitting the cash 13 ways instead of 12.how many times in a ten year period

would the mac have to get two teams in ncaa tourney to make $ sense. we taking on a bad football

program which does nothing but dilute the football revenue. let me know what you think.

OU DUDE.

Bids are given to teams, not leagues, so for a MAC team to earn an at-large bid they have to play both a strong conference and strong non conference schedule. The MAC asa whole was good enough this year to give a team a respectable conference schedule, the reason the MAC's regular season champ and tournament runner up (CMU) didn't earn an auto bid wasn't because they didn't have a strong enough conference schedule it was because they only played one non conference game vs an opponent with a RPI better than 274. And that one opponent finished 15-17! CMU's chances of an at-large were over before the season began. As a conference we have to improve in our non conference scheduling if we ever hope to see multi-bids again.

So how does UMass fit into that? Its true that splitting the money 13 ways is less than splitting it 12 ways but the payoff comes either directly by UMass earning an at-large bid themselves or indirectly by them giving the other teams in the MAC another solid opponent to build an at-large worthy resume on. I don't see any upside in the future to adding their football program. The last two schools the MAC added full time haven't provided much upside for football either, no offense. Like Akron and Buffalo, UMass would provide value to the conference in other ways.

[ZachTheZip]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83087806/

Here's a great article on the MAC and the new TV deal that I pulled from the Miami board.

The arrangement runs through 2026 and is designed to give national exposure to MAC teams and TV production experience to students at MAC schools, while generating a gusher of content for the network's burgeoning Internet ventures.

But left unstated since the deal was announced in August have been the overall value of the agreement, how much money schools receive and their production costs. Interviews and documents show details were hammered out in conference calls with athletic directors and commissioners, leaving no paper trail.

Though MAC schools would not say how much they're receiving and whether that money will cover the costs of their new production obligations, public records suggest annual payouts will start between $830,000 and $845,000 per school — eight times more than the previous deal.

As for schools still gearing up to produce events for ESPN, most did not specify any expected expenses. One exception was the University of Akron, whose athletics spokeswoman initially said ESPN had estimated its upgrades could reach $2 million. The school said last week that its current estimate is $300,000.

Bill Rich, Akron University's faculty senate chairman, said he was concerned about how schools did not document their responsibilities to the MAC and ESPN.

"I can't think of any reason why this arrangement between the MAC and member universities was not reduced to writing, other than to keep it a secret," he said