Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Could this happen?


Recommended Posts

side note Rutgers commissioned a what happened study on their move to the B1G, I just read the E -summary but it seems pretty obvious what happened.

My favorite statement was: “The early lack of success of Rutgers teams in the Big Ten has been a surprise to donors and alumni, a substantial disappointment.”

They really thought they were gonna come in and do well, while not getting paid. SAD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2019 at 6:10 AM, BrooklynBull said:

Temple agreed to play multiple MAC schools in basketball (possibly other sports as well) as part of their football participation. UMass had four years as football only.  It was either move everything or leave.  They left.

I either didn’t know or remember this. Thanks that makes sense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think the BE would be a good fit for us. We don’t fit that mold of religious college. We are a larger university kind of feel. Also definitely don’t want to go independent in football. We would never be able to schedule anyone and I’m all for conference championships. I always hated ND because of this. No conference championship game and no conference games just doesn’t match the level of playing teams week in and week out like the Big10 and SEC. There are teams in those conferences that may have terrible seasons but live for that one rivalry game to come out with the upset and it happens. 

Although our ultimate goal should be Big10 with location and style of school there is no way we get scooped up by them anytime soon and no way it would happen directly from the MAC. Although our basketball team has been on a pretty good streak the last 5ish years and I do love alumni arena (despite starting the thread earlier about if alumni could/should be expanded) our football team and facilities are nowhere close to Big10 acceptable. 

This year was overall great for our football team but the letdown of the MACC and the bowl game and the fact that we still have NEVER even won a single bowl game don’t bode well. We need to build consistency in winning seasons and actually start winning MACCs and bowl games. Yes this season is a good start and the field house should be great but the stadium is also terrible and typically empty. First we need consistency to fill the seats and second we need to get rid of the track, lower the field and build a lower level of stands, and create permanent stands on the south side to help give it an enclosed feel. Again, good start, but we are a long ways away from any of that. 

Big12 is interesting but for the same reasons as the Big10 we would never fit the bill yet and it would be even more travel costs than the Big10 I think. 

Id really like to move to the AAC first. It’s a definite step way up from the MAC. Although travel costs would go way up I think our level of competition would help offset it a little bit. Plus it wouldn’t be the weirdest addition geographically and I think the quality of teams (although definitely better than us) aren’t terribly far off. Our football facilities would still be behind but even just taking the track out and making permanent seating on the south end (even if the capacity drops) could really improve things. Removing the track doesn’t really get anyone closer but it would just look so much better. I don’t hate the east and west grandstands, just wish we could put some blue paint all over it to make it look less blah. How much could that really cost?? Finally, I swear the grandstands are designed ready to add another layer above if ever needed. I could never find anything about it but I swear the main supports extend higher and totally look like another level could be built on top. That’s my way more than 2 cents 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also in regards to NYC it’s not that they aren’t college sports fans. It’s just such a conglomeration of people from all over that there’s fans from every school. I don’t think one school could ever take the whole NYC market but saying that they just aren’t college fans isn’t right. They just already have their teams and go to their teams bars to watch all the games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, weareub46 said:

Although our ultimate goal should be Big10 with location and style of school there is no way we get scooped up by them anytime soon and no way it would happen directly from the MAC. Although our basketball team has been on a pretty good streak the last 5ish years and I do love alumni arena (despite starting the thread earlier about if alumni could/should be expanded) our football team and facilities are nowhere close to Big10 acceptable. 

I think on conference realignment you're either the buyer or the seller. I'd argue Rutgers/B1G was about as even a transaction you could hope for, B1G wanted the NY market, Rutgers wanted a P5 landing spot. B1G offered them an awful deal, Rutgers could have called their bluff but they didn't, (although how do you explain to your fans you turned the B1G down?) they may never recover.

The Rutgers situation I think shows that you should only move conferences once your revenue is on par with the new conference and if the conference is going to immediately distribute revenue evenly with you. 

UConn makes $83 million in revenue

Cincy - UH - UCF - USF - Memphis - ECU averaged $54 million in revenue

MAC averages $31 million in revenue, UB had $36 million.

So AAC 54-2 (tv deal) = 52
UB 36-800k = 35.2

So we'd have to make an additional 16.8 million dollars/year before we really could be competitive in the AAC. I don't think despite being as successful as we can probably hope for in Football and Basketball that we made significantly more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bull_trojan said:

I think on conference realignment you're either the buyer or the seller. I'd argue Rutgers/B1G was about as even a transaction you could hope for, B1G wanted the NY market, Rutgers wanted a P5 landing spot. B1G offered them an awful deal, Rutgers could have called their bluff but they didn't, (although how do you explain to your fans you turned the B1G down?) they may never recover.

The Rutgers situation I think shows that you should only move conferences once your revenue is on par with the new conference and if the conference is going to immediately distribute revenue evenly with you. 

UConn makes $83 million in revenue

Cincy - UH - UCF - USF - Memphis - ECU averaged $54 million in revenue

MAC averages $31 million in revenue, UB had $36 million.

So AAC 54-2 (tv deal) = 52
UB 36-800k = 35.2

So we'd have to make an additional 16.8 million dollars/year before we really could be competitive in the AAC. I don't think despite being as successful as we can probably hope for in Football and Basketball that we made significantly more money.

The Big 10 had rejected Rutgers earlier.  They did a study and found that adding Rutgers did nothing for the conference.  They ended up being added because Fox wanted to get the Big 10 network on cable systems in the New York City area.  They used the YES Network as leverage to for cable systems to add the Big 10 Network.  Take the Big 10 Network on basic tier or you do not get the YES Network.

Granted that is a classic anti-trust violation, however, what cable provider wants to claim anti-trust violation against a provider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bull_trojan said:

I think it's significant because it's the goal of being in the conference, but I wouldn't be sad about it if we weren't in a confernce 

I think our run of winning 2 of 3 MAC championships in Basketball was significant for UB fans, but we didn't really start moving the needle with the non-hardcore fans until we won a tourney game AND got ranked... so putting Football in the best position to be ranked and win the G5 bid would I guess be the real goals to build big support, I don't think conference matters for either of those goals unless you're going AAC or MW as the winner of those conferences seem to have the advantage for the G5 bid.

Indy schedule has:

1) 12 Saturday games instead of MACtion games
2) More games in our footprint to the east instead of 5+ games in Ohio
3) Ability to negotiate our own bowls (Get some secondary deals with Pinstripe, Music City, Boca Raton, Bahamas (no conf champ game helps there), New Orleans, Cheez-it ) So then fans would have a chance at a game in NY, Nashville, South Florida, Bahamas, New Orleans, or Arizona, much more exciting than choosing between Birmingham and Montgomery.
4) The value of our Football TV deal + our new conference basketball TV deal instead of the 833k we get from the MAC for all of our TV 
5) The potential to get off of ESPN+ instead of being the slave to whatever ESPN decides to do next to wring money out of us

I think the AAC would give us most of this plus the security of the conference, but you have to be invited... so I'd say it's AAC > Indy > MAC in my book

I am curious what schedule you think UB could build.  Keep in mind that most teams have their schedules filled with conference games so there are very few slots available after the few weeks of the season.

Who do you think would agree to come to UB stadium?  And what teams do you think would buy the Bulls that are local and in the footprint? 

The problem with secondary deals is that they only happen if there aren't bowl eligible teams to fill the primary deals.  So not only would UB have to be bowl eligible but the teams from the conferences the bowl games actually want would have to not be an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rma said:

Or build a perennial national championship team in basketball.  See: Duke, Kansas

Every single team in the Big 8 since 1960 was together until all of those eight teams joined the Big 12 when it was created.  The Big 12 was just the Big 8 plus four Texas schools.

The ACC was formed in 1953 with Duke as a founding member.  Since 1953, there have only been two schools who have ever left the conference (South Carolina to the SEC and Maryland to the Big Ten).  Wake Forest has remained a member.

The real key to being in these conferences is to be a founding member, or in the case of programs like DePaul, be a member of the conference at the right time.

Wichita State is the only basketball program that I can think of that has gotten an invite to a conference with football based solely on their basketball accomplishments.

If your point wasn't about joining a conference but about football facilities... Duke and Kansas have P5 quality football facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bull_trojan said:

I think on conference realignment you're either the buyer or the seller. I'd argue Rutgers/B1G was about as even a transaction you could hope for, B1G wanted the NY market, Rutgers wanted a P5 landing spot. B1G offered them an awful deal, Rutgers could have called their bluff but they didn't, (although how do you explain to your fans you turned the B1G down?) they may never recover.

The Rutgers situation I think shows that you should only move conferences once your revenue is on par with the new conference and if the conference is going to immediately distribute revenue evenly with you. 

UConn makes $83 million in revenue

Cincy - UH - UCF - USF - Memphis - ECU averaged $54 million in revenue

MAC averages $31 million in revenue, UB had $36 million.

So AAC 54-2 (tv deal) = 52
UB 36-800k = 35.2

So we'd have to make an additional 16.8 million dollars/year before we really could be competitive in the AAC. I don't think despite being as successful as we can probably hope for in Football and Basketball that we made significantly more money.

I believe the story is that the Big Ten played UConn against Rutgers.  While they were never considering UConn they made Rutgers think that if they didn't take the deal they would just move on to UConn.

 

You also have your numbers wrong.  You're not showing athletic department revenue.  You're showing expenses.  That's how much athletic departments spend. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I believe the story is that the Big Ten played UConn against Rutgers.  While they were never considering UConn they made Rutgers think that if they didn't take the deal they would just move on to UConn.

 

You also have your numbers wrong.  You're not showing athletic department revenue.  You're showing expenses.  That's how much athletic departments spend. 

 

UConn was a stretch to get into the Big 10.  They are not an AAU school.  All of them members of the conference were when they joined the conference.  Nebraska is no longer an AAU member because of not enough research dollars at the school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schedule - 

Weeks 1-5: 5 G5 games home and homes
1) vs Temple, 2) at UConn, 3) vs EMU,  4) at Akron, 5) vs Georgia State
1) at Temple, 2) vs UConn, 3) at EMU, 4) vs Akron, 5) at Georgia State

Week 6-12: 1 FCS home, 1 P5 road, 5 home and home with Indys

6) vs Stony Brook, 7) vs Army, 8. vs UMass, 9) at Liberty, 10) at New Mex St, 11) at Vanderbilt 12) vs BYU
6) vs FCS 7) at Army 8. at UMass, 9) vs Liberty, 10) vs New Mexico St, 11) at Florida, 12) at BYU

Revenue - I used revenue from USA Today, because institutional support is included as revenue, in general most schools revenues = expenses. It's not true revenue, but if the school will pay for athletic spending, that counts. Whatever numbers we want to use, I think the point stands we're a bit below the level of the American and wouldn't be able to compete if we made the leap until we got up to the level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to guys in front of me at the Rutgers game this year that said Rutgers (and I’d assume Maryland is the same) is only receiving a portion of the money from the big 10 that the other teams are for a certain amount of time. I can’t confirm the legitimacy but if that’s true they could be getting some more money once they get “tenured”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, weareub46 said:

I was talking to guys in front of me at the Rutgers game this year that said Rutgers (and I’d assume Maryland is the same) is only receiving a portion of the money from the big 10 that the other teams are for a certain amount of time. I can’t confirm the legitimacy but if that’s true they could be getting some more money once they get “tenured”. 

This is accurate.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2016/01/how_much_is_rutgers_getting_from_the_big_ten_and_w.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bull_trojan said:

Schedule - 

Weeks 1-5: 5 G5 games home and homes
1) vs Temple, 2) at UConn, 3) vs EMU,  4) at Akron, 5) vs Georgia State
1) at Temple, 2) vs UConn, 3) at EMU, 4) vs Akron, 5) at Georgia State

Week 6-12: 1 FCS home, 1 P5 road, 5 home and home with Indys

6) vs Stony Brook, 7) vs Army, 8. vs UMass, 9) at Liberty, 10) at New Mex St, 11) at Vanderbilt 12) vs BYU
6) vs FCS 7) at Army 8. at UMass, 9) vs Liberty, 10) vs New Mexico St, 11) at Florida, 12) at BYU

Revenue - I used revenue from USA Today, because institutional support is included as revenue, in general most schools revenues = expenses. It's not true revenue, but if the school will pay for athletic spending, that counts. Whatever numbers we want to use, I think the point stands we're a bit below the level of the American and wouldn't be able to compete if we made the leap until we got up to the level.

Temple and UConn could happen with a home/home.

But it won't be a long term deal.  They would only agree to play one home/home series.  So even if you could get them both in the same year you would need to get two other teams to fill those slots for years three and four.

Army and UMass are realistic games. 

Does it really make sense to fly to NM State?  I suppose that is telling though.  Both teams will be desperate for a game. 

Depending on the SEC games late in the year?  That's not likely.  At least not if the team is any good.  They only play weak teams late in the year.  The last three years Florida scheduled Idaho, UAB (just coming back from being shut down), and Presbyterian as their late OOC games.

BYU wouldn't be likely to happen.  It might be played but it wouldn't be a long running series.  BYU doesn't have problems scheduling and they don't like to play G5 teams more than in one series.  They are considered a P5 for scheduling purposes.

Do you think the MAC schools would start scheduling Buffalo if Buffalo left the MAC?  UMass has only played one MAC team in the three years since they left the MAC and they have their next two years schedules finalized with no MAC teams.  You would think the MAC would be perfect for them to play.  They mainly play Sun Belt schools.

I think Buffalo would really struggle with scheduling if they moved to an indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, weareub46 said:

I was talking to guys in front of me at the Rutgers game this year that said Rutgers (and I’d assume Maryland is the same) is only receiving a portion of the money from the big 10 that the other teams are for a certain amount of time. I can’t confirm the legitimacy but if that’s true they could be getting some more money once they get “tenured”. 

True. So the B1G deal was the schools would get what they would have gotten from their old conference for 6 years. So at the time Rutgers was looking at 10 million a year from the American, so the B1G is giving them 10 mil a year, while everyone else gets 50 million. but they won't get the full amount till 2021, so almost 2 full classes of students will only know Rutgers as an awful whipping boy (2014-2021). By 2021, will they be too far down to catch up. Additionally they've "borrowed" money from their full distribution from the University. So even with the full distribution, they'll have to take some of that money and repay the university. Finally, the University wants to reduce the university support to $0, so even with the extra money, they might not have extra, just enough to stay at this level with no university support. Bad situation.

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I think Buffalo would really struggle with scheduling if they moved to an indy.

You're 100% right it would be a huge struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of University support...

Isn't that one of the big issues we have?  About $20 Million of the Athletic budget comes from student fees right now. 

There is a big push going on around the country by advocacy groups to roll back spending on athletics that comes from students or the University directly.  They argue that should be the first cut to be made before a school looks for more taxpayer funding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole student revenue is a much bigger issue around our MAC brethren then here.  Yeah we survive on student fees, but the population of the fees is diminishing around the MAC more so then at UB.  Thank god the degree at UB still means something.  Worth the price of the ticket.  Some of our conference mates are struggling to make that same argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

Last year we lost 3 conference games. We already lost 2. With our consistency can we expect only one more loss?

I wouldn’t be shocked if we lost at Toledo. That would give us 3 losses. Realistically I see us losing no more than 3 or 4. And we must beat BG on senior night. Life on the road is rough. Tough pill to swallow but hopefully we grow from it. Back to basic this week. Treat it as the start of a new season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...