Jump to content

Archived

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

Bruininthebay

Mountain West exclusive negotiations with CBS

Preferred primary partner for Mountain West media rights  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Which media partner do you prefer the Mountain West agree to a new media rights contract with ?

  2. 2. How should the MW address 'tier 3' rights?



Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

Every school in this conference is earning more tv money than they ever have because of Bsu. You should just say thank you and be on your way. 

Actually, it seems that Boise & UH's ESPN TV tie-ins have been a great blessing to the MWC in more ways than just $$$$'s... the National Exposure to ESPN watchers has IMHO helped significantly to keep the MWC in the minds of Football Fans far outside of our footprint.  

I suggest that whatever the MWC may have lost in BSU's semi-Indy stance... it has more than made up for to the rest of the MWC that gets shown when playing @ BSU.  Kinda like a Win-Win.  An unpopular opinion on here, but it's how I see things from a pure business stand-point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RAMification said:

Actually, it seems that Boise & UH's ESPN TV tie-ins have been a great blessing to the MWC in more ways than just $$$$'s... the National Exposure to ESPN watchers has IMHO helped significantly to keep the MWC in the minds of Football Fans far outside of our footprint.  

I suggest that whatever the MWC may have lost in BSU's semi-Indy stance... it has more than made up for to the rest of the MWC that gets shown when playing @ BSU.  Kinda like a Win-Win.  An unpopular opinion on here, but it's how I see things from a pure business stand-point.

OH THE ARROGANCE! 

Oh wait, naw, just a rational perspective. 

lamb-with-human-face-150331-670.jpg?itok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

Every school in this conference is earning more tv money than they ever have because of Bsu. You should just say thank you and be on your way. 

Here you go...now GFY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Yea I have subscribed in the past, but probably won’t since they changed the pricing structure since I don’t use it enough. But the service itself is pretty good; I like the user interface better then ESPN+.

Anyways, I could see them having interest if CBS and/or ESPN lowballs the MWC. For them it would be a much smaller investment then they made with Canelo, Joshua, and Bellator, so they may figure it’s worth a shot. It’d probably be a shortish 3-5 year contract though. 

I like the pricing change since the overall price actually went down. 100 a year is 8.33 a month.  Plus $100 for a year with weekly content blows away paying 75 for one ppv. Considering for 100 I will likely get 2 Canelo, 2 Joshua, 2 GGG fights per year on top of the weekly cards.  Haha yeah Canelos contract alone would be bigger than they would pay the MW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

Does Stadium even have the coverage of CBSSports ?? 

Lulz. Watch a Stadium game sometime with their realtime viewer tracker and see all the hundreds - as many as thirteen hundreds when shit gets crazy - all tuning in to watch at the same time.

:coffeecomputer:

 

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wyo 1 said:

Wyoming AD Tom Burman has said he expects between 2 and 3 times more than our current deal. Take that for what it’s worth.

I think this would be a huge disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Stadium will be the way to go.

Its Going to be hard to drive value if the MWC goes to the open market after only getting offered the same amount of money.

ESPN won’t bid themselves up. 

Boise has really hurt the MWCs position by always failing to get to the NY6 after the Arizona game. Their value is nowhere close to such an inflated figure vs the league shares.

In the AAC, Tulsa makes what UCF makes. That’s really the only way to do it.

If Boise wouldve bought into equal revenue sharing, they would’ve been making 7 million minimum. Their greed has relegated their brand to getting half that. 

The MWC shouldn’t allow them to get even that much.

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 1066 said:

This is not a very auspicious or optimistic post. If this happens we may be worse off than we are now. The only thing I would agree about is Boise going independent.  In order to stay in the MWC they should agree to the same deal we must abide by and with the same money.

We, we, we. Jeeze, Louise. When is it going to sink in for you that you're an Aztec and the chances of SDSU still being in this dying conference a decade from now are slim and none with none being the favorite?

Until then, "we" should just hope that the MWC doesn't sell its soul to some streaming outfit just so games can start earlier and the members of the conference can earn half of what AAC schools will be paid plus an additional buck fitty.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

How much does the current MWC TV deal with CBS and ESPN pay out?

I think the MWC is way underpaid right now..... And I think that is because they did such a long deal with CSTV back in the day.

 

This is a great point and a trap that I hope Hair doesn't fall into again this time. You can't get locked into these long term deals and expect to come out on top. So much has changed in TV money (the current going rate for rights) and even the conference membership since the last deal was signed that it made zero sense and resulted in massive underpayments over the last half of the deal.

There is no reason the MWC should not be demanding the same money as the AAC. Also, even with BSU having their sweetheart deal, they are still underpaid and the 1M-2M difference we are all quibbling about is just not enough to make any serious difference to any of our AD's. That being said, the conference needs to be presented and sold as a package - no one team getting more than another. There are plenty of positives and facts to sell it that way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
14 hours ago, edluvar said:

Good question.  How did the AAC decide their tier 3 rights?

The AAC signed over all of their rights (including what would be called "tier 3") to ESPN and ESPN+, in exchange for a higher payout.

Right now the MWC has a deal with CBS Sports, who sells some games to ESPN.  Tier 3 rights are then sold by the conference to Root and Stadium, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RSF said:

And for those pushing the drop somebody and go to 11 plan keep in mind that that means dropping the conference Championship game or playing a 10 game conference schedule.

It absolutely does not mean dropping the title game as evidenced by the Big 12 (sic). And why in the world would it mean having to have a 10-game intra-conference schedule?

Are you actually a fan of a MWC school? I ask because that stuff is pretty basic, my friend.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

It absolutely does not mean dropping the title game as evidenced by the Big 12 (sic). And why in the world would it mean having to have a 10-game intra-conference schedule?

Are you actually a fan of a MWC school? I ask because that stuff is pretty basic, my friend.

That's the rule - in order for a conference with less than 12 members to have a CCG, they are required to play a full round robin schedule.  Just like the Big 12.  If you have 12, no requirement for a round robin.  it's pretty basic stuff.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14564702/rule-change-allows-big-12-hold-title-game

 

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.

 

 

To answer you question, I am a fan of a former MWC school, which knows all about said rule because we benefit from the increased revenue while dealing with the somewhat questionable logic of playing the required round robin conference schedule THEN playing a conference title game.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wyo 1 said:

Wyoming AD Tom Burman has said he expects between 2 and 3 times more than our current deal. Take that for what it’s worth.

In other words, between $2.2M and $3.3M.

I've been thinking slightly more than half what the AACs are going to earn which would be the latter figure. Even that sucks horse schlong. But $2.2 million only? :bananasex:

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RSF said:

That's the rule - in order for a conference with less than 12 members to have a CCG, they are required to play a full round robin schedule.  Just like the Big 12.  If you have 12, no requirement for a round robin.  it's pretty basic stuff.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14564702/rule-change-allows-big-12-hold-title-game

 

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.

Thanks for the education.

Just more reason why if anybody leaves voluntarily, San Jose State needs to go too. And to repeat what's become my mantra, SJSU could be encouraged to leave by one, giving tier 3 money back to each conference school (because SJSU basically has none or may literally have none) and two, having each other school kick in $1M so the Spartans would get an immediate cash influx of $10M which would allow that athletically impoverished school to upgrade its basketball and baseball facilities to help persuade the Big West to take SJSU back.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RSF said:

That's the rule - in order for a conference with less than 12 members to have a CCG, they are required to play a full round robin schedule.  Just like the Big 12.  If you have 12, no requirement for a round robin.  it's pretty basic stuff.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14564702/rule-change-allows-big-12-hold-title-game

 

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.

 

 

To answer you question, I am a fan of a former MWC school, which knows all about said rule because we benefit from the increased revenue while dealing with the somewhat questionable logic of playing the required round robin conference schedule THEN playing a conference title game.

That is not actually correct.   You no longer need to have a minimum of 6 teams in each division.  You can split into 2 (and no more than 2) divisions regardless of how large or small your conference is.  The rule DOES require you to play a round robin within each division.  If you dont divide into divisions---then you have to play a round robin within the conference to hold a CCG.  

 

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2016-01-13/college-football-fbs-conferences-fewer-12-members-now-able-hold

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, edluvar said:

Somebody hasn’t read bullet point #3 on the term sheet between the mwc and BSU.   Another year another fantasy by sactown on BSUs tv monies.  

Boise's Term Sheet point #5d says about streaming:

Quote

The MWC understands and agrees that Boise State has already entered in to a multi-year agreement for its website, streaming video and webhosting with a third party until April 1, 2018. As such, the MWC will not have such rights from Boise State. After April 1, 2018 the rights shall revert back to the MWC on the same terms as other members.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RAMification said:

Actually, it seems that Boise & UH's ESPN TV tie-ins have been a great blessing to the MWC in more ways than just $$$$'s... the National Exposure to ESPN watchers has IMHO helped significantly to keep the MWC in the minds of Football Fans far outside of our footprint.  

I suggest that whatever the MWC may have lost in BSU's semi-Indy stance... it has more than made up for to the rest of the MWC that gets shown when playing @ BSU.  Kinda like a Win-Win.  An unpopular opinion on here, but it's how I see things from a pure business stand-point.

That's among the reasons I hate being with CBSSN rather than ESPN.

What fans of the big boy conferences ever watch CBSSN? Answer: Next to none unless they just happen to stumble onto them while channel surfing. And last I looked, ESPN's bottom of the screen crawler ignores the scores of games broadcast on CBSSN. As such, not being on CBSSN makes the Molehill Worst even more of a national non-entity than it already is.

But if it's all about money, maybe Craig Thompson can find a network in Canada in need of additional football programming which would pay our conference $3.5 million each and we can all fly up to the Great White North to watch the games up there!

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

You no longer need to have 6 team in each division.  You can split into 2 (and no more than 2) divisions regardless of how large or small your conference is.  The rule does require you to play a round robin within each division.  

What exactly are you disputing?  The Big 12 discussed splitting into 2 5 team divisions, but since the full round round was required anyways, it was decided to stay with a single table and have the CCG between the top 2 teams rather than division winners.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...