Jump to content
Bruininthebay

American Athletic and ESPN do not reach agreement during exclusive negotiations for new TV deal

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Broncos4Ever said:

Perhaps, mostly due to geography.  However that doesn’t make them the top G5 which was your original assertion. History has shown us that on-field performance has little or nothing to do with conference realignment.  Rutgers comes to mind...

I wonder how pissed off the big10 is about inviting Rutgers. Sold themselves to get into New York-jersey market and ended up with dead weight in athletics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

I wonder how pissed off the big10 is about inviting Rutgers. Sold themselves to get into New York-jersey market and ended up with dead weight in athletics. 

Looking at their most recent TV deal I would say they aren’t pissed off at all; they probably are pretty happy with their decision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Broncos4Ever said:

Perhaps, mostly due to geography.  However that doesn’t make them the top G5 which was your original assertion. History has shown us that on-field performance has little or nothing to do with conference realignment.  Rutgers comes to mind...

It's ok, little fella.  You guys are still a prominent mid-major when it comes to on-field performance, just not as much as you were a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 9:13 AM, Bruininthebay said:

Currently the floor is the MW current deal and the ceiling is the Pac 12's deal.  If the AAC reaches a deal before the MW does, it is completely reasonable to expect the total value of the MW's deal to be comparable to that of the new AAC deal.  I would include the value of the new bowl game deals hosted by MW schools as well. 

Don't forget that the owner of the MW's tv rights will earn a significant additional revenue stream from sports bars in the east and central time zones of the US who must pay a lot more than the price of a home cable subscription to show Boise State games - when Aresco says that Friday night games are important, it's partially because of the value to sports bars who want to broadcast a football game on Friday night.  A 7 PM Pac kickoff usually means that a college football game will play until last call/2 AM throughout the eastern and central time zones.

This is a good time for the MW to compare itself to the Pac 12.  The Pac 12's men's basketball has better overall depth but the MW and the WCC have the teams with national rankings and prominence that aren't UCLA/Arizona (both schools are down due to coaching issues).  The most prominent and well paid Pac 12 football coach made his reputation at Boise State, - not his present job.  It's probably the case that Fresno State is the best football team in California because the Bulldogs are better than USC and Stanford right now.  My impression from Sports Media Watch is that when both teams aren't ranked the Pac 12 and the MW get comparable ratings in Window 4 on ESPN2 and ESPNU.  A MW game on ESPN beats a Pac 12 game on Fox Sports every single time.

If the price to put Pac 12 games on ESPN is $24 million per year, then the MW's close but not quite equal ratings for a lot of broadcasts is undervalued.  If you get ~80% of the ratings, it seems unfair to pay less than 10% of the price for an FBS football game.  A value of $8 million per school (~33% of the Pac 12 value) is not unreasonable if the AAC is able to get a deal that is ~ 25% of the SEC and ~33% of the ACC.

Sitting here in San Diego, finding and watching AAC content is much easier than finding and watching MWC content. I think we're kidding ourselves if we think the two leagues are comparable in the eyes of the networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, RSF said:

except ESPN didnt replace many of those let go at all.  Their intent was to cut head count, not turn it over.  They changed focus.  They originally wanted reporters in every city, covering every team.  For a period of time, it worked.  But eventually it became overkill because the whole media industry changed, and many of those people became superfluous.  Rights fees is still the biggest cost, and in many cases they overpaid.  They may still overpay down the road, because now they actually need MORE content in order to fill both the channels, but ESPN+ as well.  But what they overpay for may change.

Appreciate the logic in your argument.  While I somewhat agree, cutting veteran high-paid talent and NOT replacing them may be a change of focus, but it's still IMHO more directly related to cost-cutting than an epiphany of how their new business model should look in a changing media landscape. 

I further agree that they overpaid for their rights fees and at some point will have to find additional savings there.  ESPN may be ramping up their own digital platforms, but when you still have to have cable and/or satellite to access all but their lowest tier streaming, many (me being one!) will find other platforms that don't mandate needing outdated technology to access, so that those specific and growing customers (like me!) are truly and completely "cutting the cord".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 1066 said:

 

TV viewership and attendance along with geographic location make UCF the top prospective add for the B12. Cincinnati, Houston, BYU are all next in line. But that occurs only if Texas leaves the B12. Texas will block any new adds to the league. I would hope SDSU would also have a chance to join the B12 but I detect there is not much interest in San Diego.

Cincinnati is a stretch and BYU I don't ever see getting an invite.  To me, only UCF and Houston have realistic shots at being promoted to a P5 conference, most probably through a reconfiguration of the Big 12.  Media market, geography and potential financial support for those two programs all meet the standard in my opinion.  The real question will be whether any of the next rounds of conference TV negotiations "tip the cart" to get realignment non-hypothetically rolling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Cincinnati is more of a stretch than Houston, Memphis or UCF/USF but given that my Bruins already have lost in fb and bb to the Bearcats this season and have them scheduled for the upcoming season, I am trying to avoid adding to our already negative juju with that school.

I think that UCF/USF would join the Big 12 together because if a conference is convinced they could add one of these schools, adding both makes even more sense.  In six years it is possible both institutions could be of the Boise State/Fresno State/San Diego State quality and be located much closer to each other than those MW schools in a state with a growing population so a Big 12 without Texas is likely choosing Florida for expansion around 2025.

Just in case this comes up again - the ACC has a grant of rights until 2035 along with an agreement with Notre Dame that if they join a football conference before 2035, it will be the ACC.  Any speculation about changes to the ACC before 2035 are misinformed unless they are about Notre Dame plus #16.

If the remaining Big 12 members are TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State (?), and Iowa State (theoretically Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas and West Virginia could be attractive to the Big Ten or SEC in six years) BYU may find a new home in the Big 12.  As much as I find it unlikely, if Arizona State were to set the dominos falling because Texas stays and the Pac 12 tv deal sucks then BYU could wind up in the Big 12.

Honestly it would be fine because the Big 12 would be just as easy to ignore as it is now and the Pac 12 would either expand or reform with ten schools as a 'new' league, and  the MW would likely be streamlined too as it was in the conference's good ol' days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, slappy said:

Gonzaga does not keep the MW up.  Football conference.  Football is first second and third.  Hoops is 4th sorry 

Don't you mean fourth behind wrastlin' and women's volleyball or whatever else your school excels at?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 1066 said:

TV viewership and attendance along with geographic location make UCF the top prospective add for the B12. Cincinnati, Houston, BYU are all next in line. But that occurs only if Texas leaves the B12. Texas will block any new adds to the league. I would hope SDSU would also have a chance to join the B12 but I detect there is not much interest in San Diego.

I must disagree with that. Although UT would have to approve of additions to the B12, its leaving is not a prerequisite. In fact, I doubt UT will ever want to leave because it enjoys being the king bee. However, if OU exits (for the B1G or the SEC) and KU leaves for the B1G, adding additional members will be a foregone conclusion. Assuming WVU hasn't managed to get itself into the ACC, you're correct that Cincinnati would be logical. If I was the B12, it would also be obvious to me that UCF and Houston should be added because those schools have been dumping major bucks into athletics. However, in the event WVU goes to the ACC, Cincinnati would make little sense. Like SDSU, Cincinnati has only a minimal national footprint. However, the city's population is only 1/10 that of SD county. Regarding your final sentence, if you mean residents of SD, it's not them that matter, it's the university and SDSU representatives have said a number of times they would love to be added to the B12.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Looking at their most recent TV deal I would say they aren’t pissed off at all; they probably are pretty happy with their decision. 

Well, the B1G certainly can't be pleased with how awful Rutgers is at the only sports which matter to TV viewers, football and men's basketball. They also can't be very happy with the paucity of great athletes coming out of NJ. And anybody ever wonder why the hell Rutgers isn't called the University of New Jersey?

Rutgers is an AAU school which participated in the first college football game ever. Nevertheless, it's athletics hell and I therefore think witha"s" (great grammar btw) is correct that although the B1G didn't expect much from adding that school, it expected more than it's been getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Don't you mean fourth behind wrastlin' and women's volleyball or whatever else your school excels at?

Ofcourse.  Never liked the partial member stuff.  I think it sends a Big East/AAC desperate message.  I would like to just keep building our brand.  Stick to football first schools and try to get back to full members only.  Yes I understand why we had to add schools like San Jose and Hawaii but we should push to either bring them up to speed or cut ties.  1/2 in 1/2 really hurts us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slappy said:

Ofcourse.  Never liked the partial member stuff.  I think it sends a Big East/AAC desperate message.  I would like to just keep building our brand.  Stick to football first schools and try to get back to full members only.  Yes I understand why we had to add schools like San Jose and Hawaii but we should push to either bring them up to speed or cut ties.  1/2 in 1/2 really hurts us. 

Regarding Hawaii, I'm curious. I get the travel problems for your teams but Wyoming managed to deal with that for about two decades in the WAC. As such, I have to wonder why Hawaii shouldn't be allowed to become a full member of the MWC now. Has the resistance been from the schools who were never in the WAC with Hawaii when that conference was at its height in the late seventies to late nineties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason Hawaii prefers the Big West to the MW is that the Big West has men's volleyball and the mountain west doesn't.

Also, the amount Hawaii pays for flight subsidies is currently larger to the Big West than the Mountain West.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slappy said:

Ofcourse.  Never liked the partial member stuff.  I think it sends a Big East/AAC desperate message.  I would like to just keep building our brand.  Stick to football first schools and try to get back to full members only.  Yes I understand why we had to add schools like San Jose and Hawaii but we should push to either bring them up to speed or cut ties.  1/2 in 1/2 really hurts us. 

I agree that a partial member is an inconvenience but the AAC also has a partial member and it has not done them any harm. In fact it seems to have been a plus to that league. Are you suggesting that the distance is a problem?  If so I agree but I don't see an easy answer to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Regarding Hawaii, I'm curious. I get the travel problems for your teams but Wyoming managed to deal with that for about two decades in the WAC. As such, I have to wonder why Hawaii shouldn't be allowed to become a full member of the MWC now. Has the resistance been from the schools who were never in the WAC with Hawaii when that conference was at its height in the late seventies to late nineties?

I think it was half thought of and executed in a pinch.  I have no doubt if we were to add them today it would likely be a NO.  If YES it would be all or nothing.  Just unfortunate decision we live with now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 1066 said:

 Are you suggesting that the distance is a problem?  If so I agree but I don't see an easy answer to that.

Yes.  They are struggling financially and can not send the oly sports.  Distance and $.  We are not really a good fit for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Regarding Hawaii, I'm curious. I get the travel problems for your teams but Wyoming managed to deal with that for about two decades in the WAC. As such, I have to wonder why Hawaii shouldn't be allowed to become a full member of the MWC now. Has the resistance been from the schools who were never in the WAC with Hawaii when that conference was at its height in the late seventies to late nineties?

 

Slappy got to it first as to why Hawaii isn't a full member here.  But is it possible that the chancellors and presidents don't want them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

 

It's not that Hawaii isn't allowed to become a full member here.  It's either because the presidents and chancellors can't afford to bring them in, or they don't want them.  

I prefer to think that you're all a bunch of bitches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VandalPride97 said:

I prefer to think that you're all a bunch of bitches.

 

2vDU5CR.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jdgaucho said:

 

2vDU5CR.gif

Precisely. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×