Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-X-

WAC vs MWC TV deal, from the cellar dwellar POV

Recommended Posts

UNLV

2008 SCHEDULE

08/30/08 vs. Utah State No TV

09/06/08 at Utah The MTN

09/13/08 at Arizona State FSN

09/20/08 vs. Iowa State The MTN

09/27/08 vs. Nevada, Reno The MTN

10/04/08 at Colorado State The MTN

10/18/08 vs. Air Force The MTN

10/25/08 at BYU The MTN

11/01/08 vs. TCU CBS-College

11/08/08 vs. New Mexico The MTN

11/13/08 vs. Wyoming CBS-College

11/22/08 at San Diego State CBS-College

UTAH STATE

08/30/08 at UNLV No TV

09/06/08 at Oregon No TV

09/13/08 vs. Utah ESPN Gameplan

09/20/08 vs. Idaho No TV

10/03/08 vs. BYU No TV

10/11/08 at San Jose State No TV

10/18/08 at Nevada No TV

10/25/08 vs. Fresno State No TV

11/01/08 vs. Hawai'i ESPN Gameplan

11/08/08 at Boise State No TV

11/15/08 at Louisiana Tech No TV

11/29/08 vs. New Mexico State No TV

Yeah....the WAC has a KILLER deal!!!! LMAO! :):lol::D :)

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of Rebellion" -Ablert Camus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UTAH STATE

10/03/08 vs. BYU No TV

Do you really think this game won't be televised at all?

#20 BYU 14, #3 Oklahoma 13

#18 BYU 26, #21 Utah 23

#14 BYU 44, #16 Oregon State 20

#10 BYU 82, Utah 69

#14 BYU 71, Utah 51

#16 BYU 99, Florida 92

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UTAH STATE

08/30/08 at UNLV No TV

09/06/08 at Oregon No TV

09/13/08 vs. Utah ESPN Gameplan

09/20/08 vs. Idaho No TV

10/03/08 vs. BYU No TV

10/11/08 at San Jose State No TV

10/18/08 at Nevada No TV

10/25/08 vs. Fresno State No TV

11/01/08 vs. Hawai'i ESPN Gameplan

11/08/08 at Boise State No TV

11/15/08 at Louisiana Tech No TV

11/29/08 vs. New Mexico State No TV

Yeah....the WAC has a KILLER deal!!!! LMAO! :):lol::D:)

I fairness I imagine that at least 3-4 USU games will get picked-up by either KJZZ for local over the air broadcast (Utah and BYU games for sure) or Altitude which is a local cable distribution. However that really doesn't change your point much... UNLV obviously gets much better TV exposure than USU any way you look at it.

Certainly a UNLV fan living out of the West Coast/Mountain States can see the a lot of Rebel football if he/she choses to make a reasonable investment in satellite. A USU fan living anywhere but the state of Utah is flat out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the same situation WYO fans like me were in before the MTN. It was painful to wait for it, but now I will be able to see more games in all sports than I ever possibly could have with the ESPN deal. The only WAC-OFFS who poo poo our tv contract are the ones who actually get their games on TV regularly (BSU mostly). The difference for me is that I can wake up on Saturday morning, relax for a bit, watch all the MWC football I can handle, and I dont have to stay up till 11pm on a workday to do it. And I live out of the footprint. I know how it is for those USU and Idaho fans, you gotta go to the game if you want to see them.

GO POKES!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends what you want from a TV deal.

I for one wouldnt want anyone to see Utah st or UNLV play on national tv, as a fan of the MWC or WAC.

Your list doesnt mention ESPN gameplan for the Boise state game which will almost surely happen since all available BSU games are on Gameplan at least. I am sure some of the other games against Fresno and maybe even Nevada would make that cut.

I agree that for your MWC college football fan your mountain tv deal provides you great coverage especially those fans who live outside the immiediate area of thier teams and are willing to switch to Direct TV.

The other obvious advantage is the payday MWC schools recieve for their TV contract.

Even with all that I would rather have BSU in the WAC with the ESPN deal. If BSU provides a good product it gets national coverage and any single game probably exceeds the combined rating of UNLV's entire season of TV. Now if the MWC could get some games on CBS then there is no argument, the MWC would have the best of all worlds.

Something else you don't consider is that Utah st has all their rights for internet streaming, local tv and radio. UNLV is entirely dependent on the MWC deal. People can watch an internet show anytime they want, even the networds are having a problem with a loss of viewership to this medium on their highest rated shows.

Even games that BSU doesnt have televised are streamed over the internet in 2 or more places and have been for 8 years or more. I dont no if Utah state does the same thing but they can if they want to.

I havent ever missed a BSU game in the last 5+ years and I havent lived within 400 miles of Boise since 1979.

The only problem i have seeing a BSU game is that getting a ticket to attend one is difficult, thank god they play at places like Utah, Oregon and Wyoming where its easy to buy a ticket. :o

It will be interesting in 10 years to see how the lack of national exposure effects the MWC in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends what you want from a TV deal.

------------------------

Your list doesnt mention ESPN gameplan for the Boise state game which will almost surely happen since all available BSU games are on Gameplan at least. I am sure some of the other games against Fresno and maybe even Nevada would make that cut.

-------------------------

Even with all that I would rather have BSU in the WAC with the ESPN deal. If BSU provides a good product it gets national coverage and any single game probably exceeds the combined rating of UNLV's entire season of TV. Now if the MWC could get some games on CBS then there is no argument, the MWC would have the best of all worlds.

---------------------------

It will be interesting in 10 years to see how the lack of national exposure effects the MWC in the long run.

I think you are missing the point of this thread which I think is the MWC is more egalitarian, there are some (BYU fans ;) ) that think it is too egalitarian and treating UNLV and Wyo as media equals to BYU or Utah is bad business.

If you are Boise (or Hawai'i or maybe Fresno) I think you can make a case for liking the ESPN deal better... However when you look at money and exposure teams 6-9 in the MWC are making out like bandits compared to teams 6-9 in the WAC.

What is the mantra that gets repeated again and again? "The top of the WAC might be a good as the top of the MWC but the middle and bottom is far weaker." Well as long as ESPN treats BSU so much better than NMSU and USU then there is a huge hurdle for those weaker teams (physically and financially) ever competing with the top of the WAC.

I am not saying the CBS-C/Vs/Mtn deal is perfect or all that MWC fans should want... I am not saying I would not want ESPN "pimping" a hot MWC team on a BCS-busting run. In fact it was funny/scary to hear Kirk Herbstreet try to pooh-pooh BYU and pimp Fresno State as the best non-BCS team. (No ESPN bias there ;) ).

Still I would not trade TV deals with the WAC... Certainly not conference wide and even as a fan of (supposedly) one of the big dogs of the MWC I like the route (rocks and pot holes noted) the MWC has taken.

The die hard MWC fan can see a lot of MWC sports no matter where they live... Now the MWC is still suffering from a deficit of "casual exposure" that is the kind of games that the casual (non-MWC fan) is going to stumble upon as they channel surf but, that is the next step in the MWC's media journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, isn't it about time that "X" started a thread complaining about all the WAC trolls?

There is no question that the MWC has more games on TV, if you count the mtn. The problem with this troll is that people don't watch what's available -- they watch what interests them. I doubt that very many people will watch any of those games, for either school, except their own alumni. Which is kind of as it should be, don't you think?

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with all that I would rather have BSU in the WAC with the ESPN deal. If BSU provides a good product it gets national coverage and any single game probably exceeds the combined rating of UNLV's entire season of TV. Now if the MWC could get some games on CBS then there is no argument, the MWC would have the best of all worlds.

Wait you would rather have 4 games on ESPN that are televised on Wed and Fri for a measly 100K a year compared to 10 televised games a year for 1.2 mill? I'm so sure that will be a rating juggernaut when you play La Tech and San Jose St too. Plain and simple....there is no comparison between both TV deals, the MWC TV (for all sports) package is light years ahead of the current WAC deal. It's the same thing with the MAC and CUSA, they like to use "east coast media" card all the time when comparing their TV deals yet it doesn't translate to more TV revenue for them either.

Boise St.

Saturday, 8/30 Idaho State GAMEPLAN

Saturday, 9/13 Bowling Green GAMEPLAN

Saturday, 9/20 @ No. 21 Oregon NO TV

Wednesday, 10/01 Louisiana Tech ESPN

Saturday, 10/11 @ Southern Miss NO TV

Friday, 10/17 Hawaii ESPN

Friday, 10/24 @ San Jose State ESPN2

Saturday, 11/01 @ New Mexico State NOT TV

Saturday, 11/08 Utah State NO TV

Saturday, 11/15 @ Idaho NO TV

Saturday, 11/22 @ Nevada NO TV

Friday, 11/28 Fresno State ESPN2

New Mexico

Saturday, August 30 TCU VS

Saturday, September 6 Texas A & M VS

Saturday, September 13 Arizona CBSCS

Saturday, September 20 at Tulsa NO TV

Saturday, September 27 at New Mexico State NO TV

Saturday, October 4 Wyoming MTN

Saturday, October 11 at BYU MTN

Saturday, October 18 San Diego State MTN

Thursday, October 23 at Air Force CBCS

Saturday, November 1 Utah MTN

Saturday, November 8 at UNLV MTN

Saturday, November 15 at Colorado State MTN

We play a WAC and CUSA team on the road and no TV is available...what a surprise!

roflbot.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait you would rather have 4 games on ESPN that are televised on Wed and Fri for a measly 100K a year compared to 10 televised games a year for 1.2 mill? I'm so sure that will be a rating juggernaut when you play La Tech and San Jose St too. Plain and simple....there is no comparison between both TV deals, the MWC TV (for all sports) package is light years ahead of the current WAC deal. It's the same thing with the MAC and CUSA, they like to use "east coast media" card all the time when comparing their TV deals yet it doesn't translate to more TV revenue for them either.

Boise St.

Saturday, 8/30 Idaho State GAMEPLAN

Saturday, 9/13 Bowling Green GAMEPLAN

Saturday, 9/20 @ No. 21 Oregon NO TV

Wednesday, 10/01 Louisiana Tech ESPN

Saturday, 10/11 @ Southern Miss NO TV

Friday, 10/17 Hawaii ESPN

Friday, 10/24 @ San Jose State ESPN2

Saturday, 11/01 @ New Mexico State NOT TV

Saturday, 11/08 Utah State NO TV

Saturday, 11/15 @ Idaho NO TV

Saturday, 11/22 @ Nevada NO TV

Friday, 11/28 Fresno State ESPN2

New Mexico

Saturday, August 30 TCU VS

Saturday, September 6 Texas A & M VS

Saturday, September 13 Arizona CBSCS

Saturday, September 20 at Tulsa NO TV

Saturday, September 27 at New Mexico State NO TV

Saturday, October 4 Wyoming MTN

Saturday, October 11 at BYU MTN

Saturday, October 18 San Diego State MTN

Thursday, October 23 at Air Force CBCS

Saturday, November 1 Utah MTN

Saturday, November 8 at UNLV MTN

Saturday, November 15 at Colorado State MTN

We play a WAC and CUSA team on the road and no TV is available...what a surprise!

Well in the WAC, and apparently in CUSA, we don't televise games against crappy opponents.

The only thing that you forgot to mention that you should have was that, while New Mexico has more games on TV, ten times as many people will actually watch Boise on TV as will watch New Mexico. You folks keep overlooking the fact that the mtn's viewership is insufficient to be measured in the ratings. It's a family and friends network -- meaning that the players family and friends are almost the only people watching it. Okay, alumni too but you get my point.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boise St.

Saturday, 8/30 Idaho State GAMEPLAN

Saturday, 9/13 Bowling Green GAMEPLAN

Saturday, 9/20 @ No. 21 Oregon KTVB

Wednesday, 10/01 Louisiana Tech ESPN

Saturday, 10/11 @ Southern Miss KTVB

Friday, 10/17 Hawaii ESPN

Friday, 10/24 @ San Jose State ESPN2

Saturday, 11/01 @ New Mexico State KTVB

Saturday, 11/08 Utah State KTVB

Saturday, 11/15 @ Idaho KTVB

Saturday, 11/22 @ Nevada KTVB

Friday, 11/28 Fresno State ESPN2

New Mexico

Saturday, August 30 TCU VS

Saturday, September 6 Texas A & M VS

Saturday, September 13 Arizona CBSCS

Saturday, September 20 at Tulsa NO TV

Saturday, September 27 at New Mexico State NO TV

Saturday, October 4 Wyoming MTN

Saturday, October 11 at BYU MTN

Saturday, October 18 San Diego State MTN

Thursday, October 23 at Air Force CBCS

Saturday, November 1 Utah MTN

Saturday, November 8 at UNLV MTN

Saturday, November 15 at Colorado State MTN

Fixed it for you. Bronco games will be shown on KTVB throughout Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, and Northern Nevada.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in the WAC, and apparently in CUSA, we don't televise games against crappy opponents.

You say this like it's your conferences choice instead of the networks.

The only thing that you forgot to mention that you should have was that, while New Mexico has more games on TV, ten times as many people will actually watch Boise on TV as will watch New Mexico. You folks keep overlooking the fact that the mtn's viewership is insufficient to be measured in the ratings. It's a family and friends network -- meaning that the players family and friends are almost the only people watching it. Okay, alumni too but you get my point.

Yoda out...

I think what you're overlooking is that they can watch it. They have a choice instead of a dark TV screen.

As for ratings, it's still too early to rate especially the non-Direct TV years. Ask again in a year or two.

2me1q87.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

I havent ever missed a BSU game in the last 5+ years and I havent lived within 400 miles of Boise since 1979.

:lol::lol:

Translation: I'm just a little fanboy that was born in boise. I really only started becoming a fan when boise started being good in football.

Now it makes sense; I'm actually surprised (and feel a little stupid) for not pegging it earlier.

Picture1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One local broadcast in Boise on our local NBC channel vs Weber St drew over 50k viewers in the treasure valley alone. That is higher than most MWC broadcast on any of their channels.

You wont find Neilsen ratings for 95% of MWC broadcasts because they ratings are so low they dont register.

How sad is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

One local broadcast in B

How's all that bball broadcasting going for the wac? Oh yeah, I forgot, TV deals only matter for football. :lol::lol:

Tell us again when our football recruiting is going to go in the toilet? It seems like you wac-offs were predicting a complete implosion by now as the MWC approaches (what could be) a pretty good season. You wac-offs tend to be right about one thing, nobody cares about non-aq teams, especially if they are from the west. I would think that in all the roads you travel in your big rig, that you would have realized this by now.

Thus, most would really question the value of your "passive viewership". That can be debated and debated. I would agree with you wac-offs that nobody really gives a rat's +++ about either of us meaning that the passive viewership is well.. you get the point.

I'll take our deal every Saturday and a few times on Thursday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem i have seeing a BSU game is that getting a ticket to attend one is difficult, thank god they play at places like Utah, Oregon and Wyoming where its easy to buy a ticket. :o

Maybe this is due to the fact Boise plays in a tiny gimmicky stadium nor is there much for the local hicks to do in dumpy boize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, before this turns into one of our infamous flaming threads let me make one little point.

There is a philosophical difference between our two TV contracts. The MWC favors the availability of as many games as possible with less exposure, and the WAC favors higher exposure in exchange for fewer games being televised.

I understand the desire for exposure to help get voters' and recruits' eyeballs, but the MWC's tradeoff hasn't seemed to hurt either votes in the polls or recruiting. For that reason I side with the MWC's decision.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. If you WAC fans are happy, then good for you.

Now you can continue your pissing match. Have fun.

l342ea5910000_1_1868.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends what you want from a TV deal.

I for one wouldnt want anyone to see Utah st or UNLV play on national tv, as a fan of the MWC or WAC.

Your list doesnt mention ESPN gameplan for the Boise state game which will almost surely happen since all available BSU games are on Gameplan at least. I am sure some of the other games against Fresno and maybe even Nevada would make that cut.

I agree that for your MWC college football fan your mountain tv deal provides you great coverage especially those fans who live outside the immiediate area of thier teams and are willing to switch to Direct TV.

The other obvious advantage is the payday MWC schools recieve for their TV contract.

Even with all that I would rather have BSU in the WAC with the ESPN deal. If BSU provides a good product it gets national coverage and any single game probably exceeds the combined rating of UNLV's entire season of TV. Now if the MWC could get some games on CBS then there is no argument, the MWC would have the best of all worlds.

Something else you don't consider is that Utah st has all their rights for internet streaming, local tv and radio. UNLV is entirely dependent on the MWC deal. People can watch an internet show anytime they want, even the networds are having a problem with a loss of viewership to this medium on their highest rated shows.

Even games that BSU doesnt have televised are streamed over the internet in 2 or more places and have been for 8 years or more. I dont no if Utah state does the same thing but they can if they want to.

I havent ever missed a BSU game in the last 5+ years and I havent lived within 400 miles of Boise since 1979.

The only problem i have seeing a BSU game is that getting a ticket to attend one is difficult, thank god they play at places like Utah, Oregon and Wyoming where its easy to buy a ticket. :o

It will be interesting in 10 years to see how the lack of national exposure effects the MWC in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this troll is that people don't watch what's available -- they watch what interests them. I doubt that very many people will watch any of those games, for either school, except their own alumni.

Well in the WAC, and apparently in CUSA, we don't televise games against crappy opponents.

The only thing that you forgot to mention that you should have was that, while New Mexico has more games on TV, ten times as many people will actually watch Boise on TV as will watch New Mexico.

First you say people don't watch what's available, they watch what interests them and then you claim ten times as many people will actually watch Boise on TV as will watch New Mexico. Based on your first statement you must be saying that ten times as many people are interested in Boise State than New Mexico, since availability is not an issue. There may be more Boise State fans, but I doubt it is ten times as many.

I think that people will watch what is available, which actually makes the ESPN deal look pretty good (at least for the top teams) but I don't think you can underestimate the importance of making as many games as possible available to family, friends, alumni and fans. While national broadcasts on ESPN may help build your band wagon, I would say it doesn't do much for fostering a solid fan base. As you pointed out networks will not broadcast crappy opponents, so when your team has a down swing (and they will, just ask USC, Notre Dame, Alabama...) your team will no longer selected for the few ESPN broadcasts and your casual and real fan base dwindle. I would say that making 10-12 games nationally available annually, regardless of how the team is doing, helps maintain a fan base. That way where ever life takes your alumni they can watch, and regardless of where your recruits are from their families can watch. So in the case of Boise State and New Mexico, the family of a recruit from California or Texas would be able to watch 6 or 10 games respectively, and that is comparing a the top WAC team to a mid-pack MWC team. Compare UNLV and Utah State and it becomes 11-2. This is one difference that will help the MWC grow from top to bottom, not just keep the top teams on top, and the bottom teams struggling to maintain FBS status.

Plus we get tons more money and have reasonable start times and dates.

2008-Present - Kicker Conditioning Coach, Team Apology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BSU?Oregon game will most definitely be televised. FSN.

Again you BSU fans keep comparing BSU's exposure to MWC mid-pack/cellar-dwellers...

You are BSU fans but, try to deal with the issue at hand... The non-headline teams in the MWC have a MUCH better TV deal than the non-headliners in the WAC.

If you want to compare BSU's TV package this year why don't you compare it to a "high-exposure" MWC team?

2008 Utah Football Schedule

Date Opponent TV

Aug. 30 Michigan-----ABC/ESPN2 mirror coverage.

Sept. 6 UNLV*----------The Mtn.

Sept. 13 Utah State-----KJZZ local over the air.

Sept. 20 Air Force*-----VERSUS

Sept. 27 Weber State---- No TV

Oct. 2 Oregon State-----VERSUS Thursday night.

Oct. 11 Wyoming*---------The Mtn.

Oct. 18 Colorado State*--The Mtn.

Oct. 25 open

Nov. 1 New Mexico*------The Mtn.

Nov. 6 TCU*----------------CBS C Thursday night.

Nov. 15 SDSU*-------------The Mtn.

Nov. 22 Brigham Young*--The Mtn.

Granted the ABC network coverage is mostly about Michigan and very little about Utah but, that game alone will have more viewers than any two (maybe three) BSU games. The only games that are not covered nationally are Weber State (which is good for ticket sales, I think) and the USU game that will probably do quite well with local (State of Utah) TV viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...