B12 Expansion - Carpe Diem for MWC?

[SleepingGiantFan]

15 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?

Houston is a fine school and a very good possibility for the B12. However, with due respect, you need to get a clue about other options. Your school isn't an AAU member so will never be considered for B1G membership on that basis alone. And since your academics are no better than my school's, SDSU, just why in the world would the Pac, which also cares about academics although somewhat less than the B1G, consider sending 100+ non-revenue sports teams all the way down to Houston when they could add us? For Texas, the Pac would do that but for Houston? Not a chance.

 

[GoCoAztec]

1 hour ago, HighNTight_SD said:

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?

 

 

 

1.  You only give a special deal, like BSU's, if the school brings in more money overall, which is what the BSU deal accomplished.  Remember that the CBS deal, before the selling of BSU's rights to ESPN, was only $1M per year per school.  Every MWC school has done better than that every year post the BSU deal.  Some have done much better, including SDSU.

2.  Houston's deal would be based on what the MWC can sell Houston's rights for -- just as was done for BSU.  Therefore Houston's deal might be more (unlikely) or less than BSU's.  BSU's deal is based on how many guaranteed bonus games they get (4, I believe).  Houston's deal might be 2 guaranteed games based completely on how much a network is willing to pay for the rights to those games.

3.  A 14 team conference can go 5/3 instead of 6/2 -- you just don't play everyone in your division every year.  Of course, 6/3 is an option that would probably be OK with every MWC team except AFA.  You seem to be saying that no conference should ever be larger than 12 because of the scheduling issues.  The P5 conferences have all figured out it's about locking in as many quality teams as possible -- hence a conference called the Big 10 has 14 members and would go to 16 in a heartbeat if they could add 2 quality schools like Notre Dame and Texas.

4.  The Bowl contracts are with the MWC.  Assuming the MWC would still exist after the western school broke away, the bowls would either have to honor their contracts with the MWC or buy them out (unlikely).

5.  There can be no reasonable comparison between the WAC situation and the current MWC adding quality teams like Houston and BYU.  Let me ask you -- if either Houston or BYU petitioned to join the MWC do you think that even one MWC school would object to adding either one?  We know the answer -- they would be welcome additions to the conference because both would add VALUE -- a concept that you seem to be struggling with.

[Billings]

20 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.

 

 

You understand it was UNLV driving the TV deal right?  not the front range?

[Billings]

16 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! 

 

ROFL

[East Coast Aztec]

17 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! 

 

PAC doesn't need UH, it only will take Texas and Oklahoma.  So No.

Big Ten, you need to be AAU to qualify, and really you need to absolutely own your market.  So No.

ACC, they don't care about Texas, and they are an olympic sport conference.  So No.

 

None of those conferences care about Texas recruiting all that much, they cherry pick who they want, when they want.

[HighNTight_SD]

1 hour ago, GoCoAztec said:

1.  You only give a special deal, like BSU's, if the school brings in more money overall, which is what the BSU deal accomplished.  Remember that the CBS deal, before the selling of BSU's rights to ESPN, was only $1M per year per school.  Every MWC school has done better than that every year post the BSU deal.  Some have done much better, including SDSU.

2.  Houston's deal would be based on what the MWC can sell Houston's rights for -- just as was done for BSU.  Therefore Houston's deal might be more (unlikely) or less than BSU's.  BSU's deal is based on how many guaranteed bonus games they get (4, I believe).  Houston's deal might be 2 guaranteed games based completely on how much a network is willing to pay for the rights to those games.

3.  A 14 team conference can go 5/3 instead of 6/2 -- you just don't play everyone in your division every year.  Of course, 6/3 is an option that would probably be OK with every MWC team except AFA.  You seem to be saying that no conference should ever be larger than 12 because of the scheduling issues.  The P5 conferences have all figured out it's about locking in as many quality teams as possible -- hence a conference called the Big 10 has 14 members and would go to 16 in a heartbeat if they could add 2 quality schools like Notre Dame and Texas.

4.  The Bowl contracts are with the MWC.  Assuming the MWC would still exist after the western school broke away, the bowls would either have to honor their contracts with the MWC or buy them out (unlikely).

5.  There can be no reasonable comparison between the WAC situation and the current MWC adding quality teams like Houston and BYU.  Let me ask you -- if either Houston or BYU petitioned to join the MWC do you think that even one MWC school would object to adding either one?  We know the answer -- they would be welcome additions to the conference because both would add VALUE -- a concept that you seem to be struggling with.

Your speculation is weak and you are bending over backwards to accomodate special terms for a team like Houston & it's tag-along SMU that are unproven financial investimets ... keep your dream of a 14-team conference with a 5/3 conference schedule and unequal revenue sharing that will generate enough revenue to make happy teams getting $1.08M now instead of $1.67M with equal media revenue distribution, while simultaneously taking a smaller share of NCAA credits.

You base much to much of your speculation on the revenue generated in a single year of the CFP. Last Year the AAC was 3rd, behind the MWC & C-USA. This year the MWC is 3rd, behind the AAC & MAC.

The Bowl Contracts expire and they are free to follow the teams that best support they success and future earnings ... The Hawaii Bowl will follow UH (Hawaii) & the Poinsettia will follow SDSU. The Las Vegas bowl will do what is best for itself, as will the Arizona bowl.

Your dream of destroying the AAC will only result in the splitting of the MWC.

 

 

 

[Crommy50]

Did I miss it somewhere earlier in this thread where SMU or UTEP actually had interest in joining the MWC?  

 

SMU, Tulsa, Rice, and UTEP already left the MWC/WAC schools 10 years ago for a more eastern conference and to get away from the west coast.  Why exactly would they want to come back?  I agree it would be nice for the MWC to get a foothold in Texas, I apparently missed the boat on the feeling being mutual or even beneficial to those schools.

[SleepingGiantFan]

2 hours ago, Billings said:

You understand it was UNLV driving the TV deal right?  not the front range?

That's completely news to me. Gotta link?

[SleepingGiantFan]

1 hour ago, Crommy50 said:

SMU, Tulsa, Rice, and UTEP already left the MWC/WAC schools 10 years ago for a more eastern conference and to get away from the west coast.  Why exactly would they want to come back?  I agree it would be nice for the MWC to get a foothold in Texas, I apparently missed the boat on the feeling being mutual or even beneficial to those schools.

Gawd there are some uninformed posters here. None of those schools left any of us. Instead, Wyoming, CSU, AF, UNM, UNLV and SDSU all left them in 1999.

Having done so, we took Prince's recommendation and partied.

[RAMification]

HiNTight... GoCoAztec is far closer to being "correct" in his narrative & analysis.  I too believe that you're speaking from EMOTIONs gen'd up from "unequal Rev sharing"... not from a pure business perspective looking at such additions (UHo & BYU) on an "Incremental Revenue/Profit" basis.  For all other MWC teams, even after the New Adds get some type of Boise "Pay-For-Performance" deals.  (If they don't Perform real well... they don't earn as much.).  

Such incremental Rev/Pft would have to also include the # of incremental or new Nationwide Broadcasts that might/could//would emanate from SD, or CSU,  or AFA, or USU vs.  BYU or UHo... thus earning them Incremental Rev/Pft.    Then one would have to include the sellouts that would suddenly occur whenever BYU visits its old MWC Rivals -- CSU, SDSU, AFA, and possibly UNM, Fresno, UNR, etc. 

Every Fan Base loves to hate the Borg!!  

IMHO, there's an even larger reason to add "the Best of the Rest" type schools --- the MWC needs better competition, to generate better Champs!!  Our best Champs were produced when UU, TCU, BYU were all in the MWC... and were doing very well.   The MWC would greatly benefit from having Boise with BYU & UHo & AFA, along w/ the much improved &  resurrected SDSU, CSU, USU, UNR, UNM programs.

BTW, such "Pay-For-Performance" special deals, is an ADVANTAGE for the MWC to have in it's negotiation tools... not a detriment.  Heck, with this tool, we might even get the "Notre Dame of the East" to join the MWC !!!  

 

[Crommy50]

I am referring to 10 years ago not 16.  They most certainly left BSU, Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii, and Fresno behind for a more eastern conference.  10 years is along time and they may want to come back to greener pastures now but to figure them for a lock is a little premature.  (At least I haven't read anywhere that they were interested, only approached.)

[sactowndog]

On December 13, 2015 at 7:08 AM, GoCoAztec said:

AFA looked at a better deal with the Big East and turned it down.  Travel costs more than offset any increase in gross revenue, resulting in a net loss. 

You're missing the point.  When the B12 takes Cinci and Memphis, the MWC becomes the better conference and is closer for Houston, SMU and Tulsa.

 

AFA wasn't CBS Sports personal ++++ at the point they turned it down.