Jump to content

Archived

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

Yoda

So what does it all mean???

Recommended Posts

First off, congrats (damn you) on your recent success with the mtn. All references to the molehill can now be retired.

Random thoughts as follows:

1. Dish will follow toot-sweet. No way they risk their subscriber base in your footprint.

2. This deal is going to really hurt the WAC's recruiting efforts in the west. The MWC can offer every western recruit's family the opportunity to watch every game the kid plays in his college carreer. That's not just football or basketball, but with most other sports as well.

3. The WAC is now better positioned than we have ever been to negotiate a better television deal. There are clearly two players out there now -- ABC/ESPN and CBS/CSN (or whatever it is -- I guess I'd better plan on learning it.) It is not that the WAC is that hot a property, although it does have some teams that are attractive. But ESPN won't want to see CBS/CSN get an image as new, fresher, the coming thing and CBS/CSN will do all it can to foster that image. So I can see both networks fighting over every property. I wouldn't even be surprised to see the WAC try and put together their own version of the mtn. -- although we would probably have to tie up our teams on a long term basis for it to have much of a chance of success.

4. This has been the number one item on the MWC agenda and now that it is more or less handled, I think expansion will once again move to the forefront. The uncertainty over television distribution was a hinderance to expansion -- now it is a plus that could drive up the entry fee for whatever schools are eventually invited in. The MWC is on a roll -- I can see them expanding this year or next at the latest. Take the WAC's top teams, drop the rest of the conference to a Sun Belt level (killing their television plans) and make a push for autobid status. Or take some from the WAC and others from CUSA. Hard to say.

Who will they take? I don't know. But if they want into the BCS, then they had better take the three strongest programs out there (and they are not all necessarily in the WAC).

Yoda out...

I'm skeptical about your "part 4". We realize that the MWC has a very tough road ahead, and expansion at this time or next year would not help the bottom lines. A healthy WAC is good for business, good for all non-AQ fans. Good luck to you and the WAC. Smile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that I think that the MWC might go to 12 schools now -- or a year from now -- is that they are on a roll and sometimes there can be a bit of a stampede effect when that happens.

At this juncture, you've got a huge victory in that you will soon have nationwide distribution on satellite and cable. That makes you big time in a "Big Six" conference kind of way. If you take the WAC's top teams, then there is basically nobody left with a legitimate claim to a BCS autobid. CUSA has no strength at the top and its overall strength is low. The MAC doesn't cut it and hasn't had a highly ranked team for several years.

I think that, if you expand to 12 schools, then between the television distribution and the added schools, you will see commentators callng for your inclusion and CBS being in your court won't hurt any either. I think other Big Six conferences will want you to play a playoff game -- so as to lessen the chance that you will get to the championship game, and that means expansion by 3 schools.

And that is all conjecture.

Understand that I am not promoting this idea -- frankly I fear it. I am by no means convinced that Fresno will be among the chosen three. We should be -- but then would should have been among the chosen 8 when you folks first left. A lot of this is relationships at the Presidential level and we've got the same guy we had back when you dumped us.

I'm just saying that, like the idea or not, I think that the chances of MWC expansion to 12 school later this spring or next, have gone way up.

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

Guest Cowboy Junky

We'll learn more when we see what areas were on the basic DirecTV package in. If were on basic in the whole states of Texas and California right off the bat, we won't expand. However, if we have a smaller part of Texas and California that were available in, expect to see more teams from Texas and California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

It does make you think about different expansion scenarios. Should we expand with an emphasis on teams that are good in football and baseball so we can increase the value of the product we're selling in April and May(Boise, Fresno, Rice)? Should we expand to maximize basketball tournament revenue(Boise, Nevada, Fresno)? Should we expand to fix our bowl scenario(Utep, Boise, Fresno)? Should we expand to add another valuable energy college to the Western Governors Association(Houston, Fresno, Boise)?

I don't think there's a reason to go past ten right now. I would like to see ten, but I would hold at ten for a number of years, before even considering 12. The only way to think about 12 is because someone made you an offer you couldn't pass up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

IMO it doesn't matter what tier it is on. No matter what, I would have to spend more for gameplan. Great news all the way around. I'm really opposed to expansion--at least the addition of bsu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll learn more when we see what areas were on the basic DirecTV package in. If were on basic in the whole states of Texas and California right off the bat, we won't expand. However, if we have a smaller part of Texas and California that were available in, expect to see more teams from Texas and California.

CJ, I don't follow you on that one. If its on in all of Cali and Texas, I think it makes it easier to expand. There isn't a contract to be renegotiated with DirecTV at that point and the network is somewhat familiar to all those markets at that point.

Many times when an RSN picks up new rights to a major sports team or increaases the markets available, they have to go back to the negotiating table, figure out a new rate card and negotiate new subscriber fees and places where the in-market and out-of-market rates can be charged.

Couple examples I can think of:

1) Cleveland Indians had 75 games on FSN in 2001, then decided to go completely over to FSN and doubled that in 2002. When they did that, FSN had to renegotiate all its contracts to reflect an increase in the rate. All except Dish Network accepted the increased rate, so in 2002 Dish Network was only allowed to broadcast 75 Indians games.

2) MSG Network purchased the rights to the Buffalo Sabres in 2004 during the NHL lockout. When the league came back, MSG had to renegotiate with both DIrecTV and Dish to reflect the addition of Sabres games in most of NY state. Dish got a deal done during the preseason, DirecTV missed the first two Sabres games while wrapping up negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the likelihood of expansion:

With everyone playing 12 games now, and how hard it is to fill in that 12th game with a D1A opponent, I expect expansion by 1 will be seriously considered soon. Who knows if they will consider going to 12 at the same time? Expanding by 3 to get to 12 is less likely but possible.

One reason that finalizing the Mtn / DirecTV deal may speed this up is our expansion candidate will not be near as nervous about TV exposure now. The question is will it be Boise, Fresno or a Texas team?

"If you can't answer a man's argument all is not lost you can still call him vile names" Elbert Hubbard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CJ, I don't follow you on that one. If its on in all of Cali and Texas, I think it makes it easier to expand. There isn't a contract to be renegotiated with DirecTV at that point and the network is somewhat familiar to all those markets at that point.

Many times when an RSN picks up new rights to a major sports team or increaases the markets available, they have to go back to the negotiating table, figure out a new rate card and negotiate new subscriber fees and places where the in-market and out-of-market rates can be charged.

Makes you wonder if expansion has already been negotiated out.

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

I think that, if you expand to 12 schools, then between the television distribution and the added schools, you will see commentators callng for your inclusion and CBS being in your court won't hurt any either. I think other Big Six conferences will want you to play a playoff game -- so as to lessen the chance that you will get to the championship game, and that means expansion by 3 schools.

Hogwash... You are basing expansion on BCS Inclusion, not a safe bet my friend... Last time this was brought up, the BCS gave a window of 2004-2008 performance standards to meet for consideration.. The MWC did not take the steps to jump through the hoops.. Thank god.. It's fool's gold..

The playoff idea was shot down again after another proposal from Florida's President.. After coming off a NC in football and hoops, not to mention being in the most powerful football conference does not hold weight, I don't think adding BSU, Fresno and Utep will swing some votes...

Can someone please show us(with examples and facts) why expansion is the answer right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes you wonder if expansion has already been negotiated out.

Yoda out...

Everything we heard from both sides suggested that a national deal was based on showing enough value for price. I'm assuming they're also talking about current value..

I think most conferences require a departure notice, which would either have some behind closed door meetings going on to add schools for timing purposes or your theory is off.

Don't you think MWC presidents would give even the slightest glimmer of hope that expansion was realistic even in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoda...

1. So far we have: BCS Inclusion... Nope

2. Better scheduling and less OOC headaches..Maybe but is this enough to add a team?

3. More TV sets. Not enough to make a difference.

4. Travel partners in hoops. Again, enough to add a program?

5. Add another break even bowl. Why? 4 seems worthy.

What else CJ, you're a big expansion guy.. Why should we add a program that will just take from the limited resources we have now or at least carry their own weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

1. So far we have: BCS Inclusion... Nope

2. Better scheduling and less OOC headaches..Maybe but is this enough to add a team?

3. More TV sets. Not enough to make a difference.

4. Travel partners in hoops. Again, enough to add a program?

5. Add another break even bowl. Why? 4 seems worthy.

What else CJ, you're a big expansion guy.. Why should we add a program that will just take from the limited resources we have now or at least carry their own weight?

The only reason is to increase our per team payout on our t.v. contract. If that isn't going to happen, we can wait. I would rather get paid for expanding.

I hate to link you to another board having the same discussion, but you have to read this post....Scroll down: it's the big one...

http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=451&...2087599&p=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or would they just get a cut of the current contract pro-rated? I didn't see anything on this..

My main arguement to go to 10 is to fix the BB and minor sports schedules. This Wednesday, Saturday stuff really sucks for out of town fans. I think 12 is stupid without BCS guarentees.

I also like the PAC 10 model of 9 conference games and 3 quality OOC opponents and not some of the 1-AA fillers we see now with 4 OOC games.

I doubt this is enough to offset another mouth to feed at the table but BB would sure run better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also like the PAC 10 model of 9 conference games and 3 quality OOC opponents and not some of the 1-AA fillers we see now with 4 OOC games.

I like the P10 model but I think we can still schedule a balance of OOC with 9. Sometimes the terms get messed up and you see a D1AA team in there but our OOC was solid this year overall and we performed well. It's safe to say, we have the best performance against the BCS year in and out compared to any other Non AQ conference..

It would be easier to go to 10 but is it worth everything? I'm not even opposed to expansion but all to often IMO this board is completely reactionary with expasnion...Until there is a golden reason to do it, I don't think hasty decisions are worth it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

My main arguement to go to 10 is to fix the BB and minor sports schedules. This Wednesday, Saturday stuff really sucks for out of town fans. I think 12 is stupid without BCS guarentees.

I also like the PAC 10 model of 9 conference games and 3 quality OOC opponents and not some of the 1-AA fillers we see now with 4 OOC games.

I doubt this is enough to offset another mouth to feed at the table but BB would sure run better.

This is pretty much my feeling as well. I have heard some comments around WYO (it would take too much digging to find a link, so take it or leave it) about the difficulty of scheduling 4 OOC games--particularly with our new motto of home and home only. If the powers that be at WYO felt strongly enough about, I would support a move to 10----as long as it is not bsu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could perhaps the influencing force behind expansion now be CBS and television program scheduling. They might want to see yearly match-ups of teams not now together with their eye towards pushing for a future BCS inclusion. Money seems to control the college sports world these days and we are now their property. It might be easier for them to promote the MWC who they already own than to steal, for example, the Big East from ESPN. I think we might soon see if the conference is a puppet on a CBS string.

2me1q87.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could perhaps the influencing force behind expansion now be CBS and television program scheduling. They might want to see yearly match-ups of teams not now together with their eye towards pushing for a future BCS inclusion. Money seems to control the college sports world these days and we are now their property. It might easier for them to promote the MWC who they already own than to steal, for example, the Big East from ESPN. I think we might soon see if the conference is a puppet on a CBS string.

If this is the case, the MWC should help which ever team load up the moving van... Fresno would be and has always been my first choice.. If we can get some games on CBS or a revamped CSTV, this is a whole new ballgame..

But like Celeritas has always said, what stops a bigger conference from pushing us out of the way? ESPN is loaded with big 6 programming already.. Maybe a chance for a bigger conference to steal our pie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...