B12 Expansion - Carpe Diem for MWC?

[GoCoAztec]

4 hours ago, bigd said:

Who? Other than SDSU fans, I don't think I've seen a single MW fan express desire to move to the AAC?

Air Force is the only school I could see making the jump if they're able to add Army. If that happens then we add UTEP and it's no big deal.

Humm...you may be right.  Perhaps the fact that I read "we should join the AAC" constantly on the Aztec sites has skewed my view.  Maybe someone should start a poll on this site?

[GoCoAztec]

3 hours ago, HighNTight_SD said:

 

Which conference is able to poach from the other will greatly depend on who offers the best revenue sharing model to their present/future members as well as which conference can negotiate the best media deal for their conference. Our unequal media sharing will be a barier to the MWC attracting AAC defectors and their lack of a substantially better media deal is a hinderance to them stealing from the MWC.

 

It depends.  The fact that the MWC made a special deal for BSU opens up the possibility that the MWC will make a special deal for Houston and/or BYU.  IF the MWC got Houston AND BYU to join via special deals, SMU and Tulsa would probably follow without special deals (like SDSU did).  The AAC minus Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, SMU, and Tulsa would be dead -- and the next MWC TV deal would be substantially better.

[HighNTight_SD]

20 minutes ago, GoCoAztec said:

It depends.  The fact that the MWC made a special deal for BSU opens up the possibility that the MWC will make a special deal for Houston and/or BYU.  IF the MWC got Houston AND BYU to join via special deals, SMU and Tulsa would probably follow without special deals (like SDSU did).  The AAC minus Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, SMU, and Tulsa would be dead -- and the next MWC TV deal would be substantially better.

No ... just, no

The Boise Deal needs to be eliminated, NOT reproduced for more conference additions.

If such an offer were to be made by the goats, I can guarnatee an airport meeting resulting in the schools of the West (LEAD by SDSU) breaking off and forming a new conference.

 

 

[SleepingGiantFan]

19 hours ago, jdgaucho said:

As our Aztec friend could tell you, that stadium is much closer in capacity to what SDSU needs.  And Tulane actually owns the place so they aren't treated like a second banana by another tenant.

We would probably need only 5K more seats than that place has. But if you check, you'll notice I didn't criticize its size but its seats. The majority are benches without seatbacks. Qualcomm might be a dump but every single one of its 71K seats is of the theater variety. I can't see SDSU paying for that degree of luxury but after sitting in those things for decades, no way in hell are SDSU fans going to settle for the kind of seating that is the norm at Tulane. My educated guess is if we ever actually do build a stadium like that, it would have theater seats with cup holders between the 20s and bench seats with seatbacks everywhere else.

[bigd]

35 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

We would probably need only 5K more seats than that place has. But if you check, you'll notice I didn't criticize its size but its seats. The majority are benches without seatbacks. Qualcomm might be a dump but every single one of its 71K seats is of the theater variety. I can't see SDSU paying for that degree of luxury but after sitting in those things for decades, no way in hell are SDSU fans going to settle for the kind of seating that is the norm at Tulane. My educated guess is if we ever actually do build a stadium like that, it would have theater seats with cup holders between the 20s and bench seats with seatbacks everywhere else.

This is exactly what Nevada is doing with Mackay. It will be interesting to see how season ticket sales respond to the increased pricing.

[HighNTight_SD]

 

42 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

We would probably need only 5K more seats than that place has. But if you check, you'll notice I didn't criticize its size but its seats. The majority are benches without seatbacks. Qualcomm might be a dump but every single one of its 71K seats is of the theater variety. I can't see SDSU paying for that degree of luxury but after sitting in those things for decades, no way in hell are SDSU fans going to settle for the kind of seating that is the norm at Tulane. My educated guess is if we ever actually do build a stadium like that, it would have theater seats with cup holders between the 20s and bench seats with seatbacks everywhere else.

Slight modification to say theater seats & cup holders between the 20's ...

Bench seats with seatbacks from 20's to the endline ...

Bench seating with no seatbacks in the endzones

 

[GoCoAztec]

2 hours ago, HighNTight_SD said:

No ... just, no

The Boise Deal needs to be eliminated, NOT reproduced for more conference additions.

If such an offer were to be made by the goats, I can guarnatee an airport meeting resulting in the schools of the West (LEAD by SDSU) breaking off and forming a new conference.

 

 

I know, none of us except the BSU fans, like the special BSU deal.  But what would have happened to the MWC if they didn't make the deal?  Sometimes you have to make lemonade.  Some "glass half full" ways to look at more special deals:

1.  BYU already has a special deal.  If any current BYU money went to MWC teams via bonus games it would be better than the current situation.

2.  Houston's special deal would be based on what their TV rights would add to the MWC TV contract.  It wouldn't take any money out of any schools pocket -- it would only add to the bonus opportunities.

3.  Boise's deal seems to be locked in even after the current TV agreement ends.  This might be a case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  There is no reason why the MWC can't offer the BSU deal to ANY MWC school if their  TV rights are worth a reasonable amount.  The conference could set definable goals (wins/TV audience/attendance) that a school would have to meet over a specified time.  Once that is met or exceeded, you get a Boise deal -- if any network is willing to pay for your games.

4.  More teams with bonus deals might actually even out the money. This year's minimum from the bonus pool was $80k.  With 3 bonus teams it would go up ($240K?) with lot's more bonus opportunities for the other teams.

5.  The addition of Houston and BYU would help attendance -- these games (especially BYU) would be very attended in San Diego and everywhere else.

6.  A split of the MWC would certainly result in less money for every team.  If the West had to negotiate it's own TV deal tomorrow it wouldn't be worth much.  I love SDSU and our FB championship is great, but as the marquee school of a new conference?  Sorry, but we don't have the gravitas.  Maybe in 5-10 years, after multiple championships, we might -- but not now.  And no school in the West is any better. 

The MWC may have to think outside of the box if it's going to win against the AAC.

[HighNTight_SD]

3 minutes ago, GoCoAztec said:

I know, none of us except the BSU fans, like the special BSU deal.  But what would have happened to the MWC if they didn't make the deal?  Sometimes you have to make lemonade.  Some "glass half full" ways to look at more special deals:

1.  BYU already has a special deal.  If any current BYU money went to MWC teams via bonus games it would be better than the current situation.

2.  Houston's special deal would be based on what their TV rights would add to the MWC TV contract.  It wouldn't take any money out of any schools pocket -- it would only add to the bonus opportunities.

3.  Boise's deal seems to be locked in even after the current TV agreement ends.  This might be a case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  There is no reason why the MWC can't offer the BSU deal to ANY MWC school if their  TV rights are worth a reasonable amount.  The conference could set definable goals (wins/TV audience/attendance) that a school would have to meet over a specified time.  Once that is met or exceeded, you get a Boise deal -- if any network is willing to pay for your games.

4.  More teams with bonus deals might actually even out the money. This year's minimum from the bonus pool was $80k.  With 3 bonus teams it would go up ($240K?) with lot's more bonus opportunities for the other teams.

5.  The addition of Houston and BYU would help attendance -- these games (especially BYU) would be very attended in San Diego and everywhere else.

6.  A split of the MWC would certainly result in less money for every team.  If the West had to negotiate it's own TV deal tomorrow it wouldn't be worth much.  I love SDSU and our FB championship is great, but as the marquee school of a new conference?  Sorry, but we don't have the gravitas.  Maybe in 5-10 years, after multiple championships, we might -- but not now.  And no school in the West is any better. 

The MWC may have to think outside of the box if it's going to win against the AAC.

you wanna think outside the box? Present teams need to invest in a better product on the field paying for facilities, coaches and training tables ... no more knee jerk reactions giving away more money to add individual teams exempted from the CBS contract that will only end up with teams like SDSU and AFA fulfilling tier 1 contract programming.

A 14-team conference with an 8 game conference schedule would result in less X-div games. AFA would never accept a 9-game conference schedule & 3 OoC games (2 being Army & Navy).

You want better attendance? Are fanbases that only show up for certain opponents really "fans"? This is a problem for individual schools that further dividing the conference revenue will not solve.

Your projections are faulty and your conclusions are erroneous. Attendance at SDSU will already increase with more Pac schools on the schedule without the need to offer more sweetheart deals to additional members. A split of the MWC-West may result in less money for each half, more than likely it will result in the same money, but equally distributed in the West and unequal in the Mtn.

[TrueCoog]

You guys are forgetting one important thing at good ol' UH. 

Who says the Big12 would be our only option to get into a P5?

Don't you think the B1G and the PAC might just want to have a presence in the Texas market?  What about the ACC? 

If the "grand plan" is to get to 14-16 teams in each P5 conference, other conferences will be looking to expand - and who doesn't want a presence in Texas for recruiting! 

 

[Jack Bauer]

41 minutes ago, TrueCoog said:

You guys are forgetting one important thing at good ol' UH. 

Who says the Big12 would be our only option to get into a P5?

Don't you think the B1G and the PAC might just want to have a presence in the Texas market?  What about the ACC? 

If the "grand plan" is to get to 14-16 teams in each P5 conference, other conferences will be looking to expand - and who doesn't want a presence in Texas for recruiting! 

 

It's adorable you think the Big 10 and PAC want your little commuter school.

[Guest #1Stunner]

44 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

It's adorable you think the Big 10 and PAC want your little commuter school.

PAC12 makes sense.   They added a commuter school (almost all students live with Mom and Dad) when they added Utah.   So why not Houston? 

B1G would never add Houston, though, I agree. 

[GoCoAztec]

2 hours ago, HighNTight_SD said:

you wanna think outside the box? Present teams need to invest in a better product on the field paying for facilities, coaches and training tables ... no more knee jerk reactions giving away more money to add individual teams exempted from the CBS contract that will only end up with teams like SDSU and AFA fulfilling tier 1 contract programming.

A 14-team conference with an 8 game conference schedule would result in less X-div games. AFA would never accept a 9-game conference schedule & 3 OoC games (2 being Army & Navy).

You want better attendance? Are fanbases that only show up for certain opponents really "fans"? This is a problem for individual schools that further dividing the conference revenue will not solve.

Your projections are faulty and your conclusions are erroneous. Attendance at SDSU will already increase with more Pac schools on the schedule without the need to offer more sweetheart deals to additional members. A split of the MWC-West may result in less money for each half, more than likely it will result in the same money, but equally distributed in the West and unequal in the Mtn.

1.  It's not either/or -- teams can improve whether the MWC adds new teams or not.  Better teams will bring in more money for the entire conference, even if it's not equal.  

2.  Good point about AFA -- but the MWC will probably go to 14 or 16 teams at some point so we might as well get the best 14 that we can.

3.  Are you really doubting that some teams bring out the fans better than others?  Your point about PAC games increasing attendance seems to bear out my contention.  I guess that if we get to the point of selling out every game, then it doesn't matter.  Until then, it does matter, as you've already pointed out.

4.  There is no way that we will know who is "erroneous", but I don't think that a conference of SDSU, Fresno, SJSU, Nevada, UNLV, and Hawaii will  bring in anything near what SDSU made this year in TV revenue.  Oh yeah, and with no conference championship and no bowl games -- I bet recruiting would be outstanding and the conference would blossom.  C'mon, you can't believe that any network would pay more than pennies for such a conference.

One of the worst things that any business can do is let emotion get in the way of making the hard business decisions needed to succeed. We've already gone down the road of special bonus plans, adding another one or two won't make it any worse and will probably help.  Bottom line -- there's no realistic way to get teams like Houston or BYU to consider joining the MWC without a special deal.     

 

 

 

.

[RisingPower]

Worthless Prediction:

BYU will be the great savior of the MWC.  

When Big 12 expands and AAC threatens to steal MWC schools.....BYU....yes BYU, will join.  That'll be enough to keep ALL current MWC schools and probably snag an AAC school (Houston, for fear of it being someone else).  If AAC holds after Big 12 raid, then UTEP or Rice would be it.

[Akkula]

Why in the hell would CSU and AFA want to join the AAC?

I would much prefer for CSU to get together with AFA, BSU, and BYU and just form a new conference.  Both conferences have way too much dead weight right now.  A lot of the schools don't seem to want to improve.  

I would probably try to pull in a team like SDSU, Houston, ECU, USF, UCF.

[RambleOn]

3 hours ago, Akkula said:

Why in the hell would CSU and AFA want to join the AAC?

I would much prefer for CSU to get together with AFA, BSU, and BYU and just form a new conference.  Both conferences have way too much dead weight right now.  A lot of the schools don't seem to want to improve.  

I would probably try to pull in a team like SDSU, Houston, ECU, USF, UCF.

Two reasons I can see CSU and/or AFA wanting to joing the AAC, 1) equal revenue sharing 2) better bowl tie-ins.  If not for the traditional rivalries, I'd be 100% on board w/ the AAC.

[RSF]

12 hours ago, TrueCoog said:

You guys are forgetting one important thing at good ol' UH. 

Who says the Big12 would be our only option to get into a P5?

Don't you think the B1G and the PAC might just want to have a presence in the Texas market?  What about the ACC? 

If the "grand plan" is to get to 14-16 teams in each P5 conference, other conferences will be looking to expand - and who doesn't want a presence in Texas for recruiting! 

 

 

That's a funny joke....I get it.....

 

 

 

[SparkysDad]

13 hours ago, Jack Bauer said:

It's adorable you think the Big 10 and PAC want your little commuter school.

The Pac wanted Texas and Oklahoma, period.  They were pre-emptive with Colorado and if they could get Texas and Oklahoma, the Pac would oblige by taking Oklahoma State and either Texas A&M or Texas Tech to follow. Texas A&M went SEC, Baylor started whining and the Pac blocked Baylor with Utah.  Then Texas got its network and they and Oklahoma "saved" the Big 12.

Houston to the Pac is a non-starter.  I do think that there is an outside chance that Houston could end up a Big 12 member however.

 

[HighNTight_SD]

12 hours ago, GoCoAztec said:

1.  It's not either/or -- teams can improve whether the MWC adds new teams or not.  Better teams will bring in more money for the entire conference, even if it's not equal.  

2.  Good point about AFA -- but the MWC will probably go to 14 or 16 teams at some point so we might as well get the best 14 that we can.

3.  Are you really doubting that some teams bring out the fans better than others?  Your point about PAC games increasing attendance seems to bear out my contention.  I guess that if we get to the point of selling out every game, then it doesn't matter.  Until then, it does matter, as you've already pointed out.

4.  There is no way that we will know who is "erroneous", but I don't think that a conference of SDSU, Fresno, SJSU, Nevada, UNLV, and Hawaii will  bring in anything near what SDSU made this year in TV revenue.  Oh yeah, and with no conference championship and no bowl games -- I bet recruiting would be outstanding and the conference would blossom.  C'mon, you can't believe that any network would pay more than pennies for such a conference.

One of the worst things that any business can do is let emotion get in the way of making the hard business decisions needed to succeed. We've already gone down the road of special bonus plans, adding another one or two won't make it any worse and will probably help.  Bottom line -- there's no realistic way to get teams like Houston or BYU to consider joining the MWC without a special deal..

No, better teams do not bring in more money for the ENTIRE conference, particularly if they have a guarantee of a larger share of conference revenue.

You assume that adding a team like Houston will move the needle in overall revenue, the AAC & MWC each have 11.5 members and each has a combined ESPN/CBS contract worth around $20M. Shifting teams from one conference to the other will not make a significant difference in the percieved media value of either confernce divided by a greater number of teams.

Less X-div games for team in the div without the "bonus" opportunity is the same as being in a different conference anyway. i.e. in a 14 team conference, with two 7-team divisions = 6 div games & 2 x-div games. The amonut of games that the conference will sell to its media partners will not change significantly. This will result in more years where Boise makes $1.6M in bonus money, SDSU makes half that at $800K while others make 10% of what SDSU does ($80K). Trickle down economics don't work.

You can schedule better in the OoC to bring out your fans, without increasing conference membership and feeding more mouths. Adding more members will not automatically increase the number of bowls or the amount of payouts it just divides the payouts further. Adding more schools to share in the NCAA credits will help nothing.

Splitting the conference could mean dividing the bowl games ... Las Vegas, Hawaii & Poinsettia will go with the West -- Potato, New Mexico & Arizona go with the Mtn. No CCG may not be that big of a loss seeing as CBS dropped it and ESPN picked it up ... the numbers over the last 3 years show it not to be a ratings or revenue boon.

One of the worst things a business can do is throw good money after bad on a scheme to get rich quick, ,only to alienate and short its present workforce resulting in a mass exodus. Have you learned nothing from the WAC/MWC split?

 

 

 

[Jack Bauer]

1 hour ago, SparkysDad said:

The Pac wanted Texas and Oklahoma, period.  They were pre-emptive with Colorado and if they could get Texas and Oklahoma, the Pac would oblige by taking Oklahoma State and either Texas A&M or Texas Tech to follow. Texas A&M went SEC, Baylor started whining and the Pac blocked Baylor with Utah.  Then Texas got its network and they and Oklahoma "saved" the Big 12.

Houston to the Pac is a non-starter.  I do think that there is an outside chance that Houston could end up a Big 12 member however.

 

I agree re: Houston/PAC12.

There is no way that the PAC12 is taking a program like Houston.  They're interested in big fish should they expand again.

[SleepingGiantFan]

18 hours ago, bigd said:

This is exactly what Nevada is doing with Mackay. It will be interesting to see how season ticket sales respond to the increased pricing.

Some people are always going to be dissatisfied. A lot of it has to do with where you are in your life. When I was young, I had no money and almost never got a backache under any circumstances so didn't want to have to pay for anything even halfway fancy. Now that I'm old but do have money, give me fancy. Because every fan school will have that kind of disparate fan base, it makes sense to have a combination of seating.

Good luck with the renovation to Mackay. As long as the MW exists, we're all in this together and therefore only as strong as the weakest link in the chain (do you feel me, Hairball?) so improvement in the facilities of everybody indirectly benefits us all.