|
Post by rick7g on Jan 7, 2013 11:12:29 GMT -8
And yet not a single rumor from the Big East and not a single rumor from the Big West. And why would we not wait---going along with you now---until the last minute, January 31? Why do it now?[/quote]
This is why you would do it now. If you are going to stay in the MWC, you do it now, so that the conference will be stronger and have better chance of getting Houston/SMU to also join. This would permanently put MWC the #6 conference ahead of the Big East. You wait until January 31 and chances of getting those schools decrease.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 7, 2013 11:14:49 GMT -8
The only caveat is the MWC gets to decide which games, not the individual schools, if I am not mistaken. And CBS gets first shot at the games, so other than the ability to in reality sell other games, it's exactly the same. Boise's separate deal will eat up some appetite for additional MWC games on national networks. NBCSports doesn't earn a bonus, only the over the air networks plus ESPN. Like UNLV, it looks great on paper but reality is different. Show me the money! Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by cpslograd on Jan 7, 2013 11:34:47 GMT -8
The only caveat is the MWC gets to decide which games, not the individual schools, if I am not mistaken. And CBS gets first shot at the games, so other than the ability to in reality sell other games, it's exactly the same. I give up. I have tried to explain it 10 different ways to people, but they either get it or don't get it. For the record I hate the idea of SDSU in the Big West and think it phucks up my favorite basketball conference, and I would be very happy with the membership of the MWC12, my motivation is not that I am a proSDSU in the Big East/West guy. But the reality is that under the TV deal, Boise will be on ESPN almost all the time, and SDSU and FSU will be on CBSsports all the time. And Boise will make 4 times as much money. And none of it will be performance based because the system is rigged. Fresno or SDSU could go undefeated and would still be on national tv less and get paid less than a 6 and 6 Boise team. The front range schools don't care because they are still getting over, because the CBS money is split evenly even though it will be Fresno/SDSU/Hawaii/Reno earning that money. AFA will get a game on over the air CBS so they are taken care of that way. The only thing I don't get is why Fresno would have agreed to it. They should have had some leverage because they were a potential flight risk. So I will withhold my final judgement until I hear Fresno admin talk about it. I haven't heard them say anything about the deal yet.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 7, 2013 11:40:21 GMT -8
And CBS gets first shot at the games, so other than the ability to in reality sell other games, it's exactly the same. I give up. I have tried to explain it 10 different ways to people, but they either get it or don't get it. For the record I hate the idea of SDSU in the Big West and think it phucks up my favorite basketball conference, and I would be very happy with the membership of the MWC12, my motivation is not that I am a proSDSU in the Big East/West guy. But the reality is that under the TV deal, Boise will be on ESPN almost all the time, and SDSU and FSU will be on CBSsports all the time. And Boise will make 4 times as much money. And none of it will be performance based because the system is rigged. Fresno or SDSU could go undefeated and would still be on national tv less and get paid less than a 6 and 6 Boise team. The front range schools don't care because they are still getting over, because the CBS money is split evenly even though it will be Fresno/SDSU/Hawaii/Reno earning that money. AFA will get a game on over the air CBS so they are taken care of that way. The only thing I don't get is why Fresno would have agreed to it. They should have had some leverage because they were a potential flight risk. So I will withhold my final judgement until I hear Fresno admin talk about it. I haven't heard them say anything about the deal yet. I agree. One school decides where their games go, CBS ostensibly decides the rest. Fresno didn't have to agree to it for it to go through, there is enough of a block to force it through. Oh well, SDSU and Fresno, just gotta fill seats, win, increase academics and get out
|
|
|
Post by aztecx on Jan 7, 2013 12:18:21 GMT -8
The only thing I don't get is why Fresno would have agreed to it. They should have had some leverage because they were a potential flight risk. So I will withhold my final judgement until I hear Fresno admin talk about it. I haven't heard them say anything about the deal yet. Has it been reported that Fresno voted for the Boise deal? I would be real interested to see who voted in favor.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 7, 2013 12:24:05 GMT -8
The only thing I don't get is why Fresno would have agreed to it. They should have had some leverage because they were a potential flight risk. So I will withhold my final judgement until I hear Fresno admin talk about it. I haven't heard them say anything about the deal yet. Has it been reported that Fresno voted for the Boise deal? I would be real interested to see who voted in favor. You need 6 votes, so wyo, csu, afa, unm, unr, hawaii would be enough
|
|
|
Post by aztecx on Jan 7, 2013 12:34:11 GMT -8
You need 6 votes, so wyo, csu, afa, unm, unr, hawaii would be enough If Fresno and UNLV actually voted no, I would imagine they would not be very happy with the new deal.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 7, 2013 12:38:35 GMT -8
You need 6 votes, so wyo, csu, afa, unm, unr, hawaii would be enough If Fresno and UNLV actually voted no, I would imagine they would not be very happy with the new deal. Not saying they did or didn't, I'm sure they could do a straw poll as well as I and voted yes regardless of how they feel since it was going to pass.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 7, 2013 12:41:31 GMT -8
are they saying - on a " favorable BSU" game where there may be a 1 million TV payout, BSU gets, 50%, $500,000. and regular conference teams , say 11 divide the $500,000 = $45,455. Do 4 of those games BSU gets 2 million dollars and a regular conference team would get $181,820. Gross payout only $500,000, BSU gets $250,000, again after 4 games, BSU gains 1 million dollars and an average conference team gets $90,909 after the 4 games. Is it the same type of break down for Mens Basketball. Definitely need a complete thorough explanation of those details.
|
|
|
Post by socialsdsu on Jan 7, 2013 12:43:02 GMT -8
And yet not a single rumor from the Big East and not a single rumor from the Big West. And why would we not wait---going along with you now---until the last minute, January 31? Why do it now? This is why you would do it now. If you are going to stay in the MWC, you do it now, so that the conference will be stronger and have better chance of getting Houston/SMU to also join. This would permanently put MWC the #6 conference ahead of the Big East. You wait until January 31 and chances of getting those schools decrease.[/quote] No there is 0 chance Houston/SMU turns down a all sports invitation from the superior big east to play in the MWC.
|
|
|
Post by mens fashion on Jan 7, 2013 12:51:04 GMT -8
MWC: Not sure about SDSU. We think there might be better options. SMU: Not a chance. UH: What SMU said. BYU: We already left you losers. UTEP: OH, ME ME ME ME MWC: We'll be moving on SDSU soon. ..Sent from my GS3.. I chuckled
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Jan 7, 2013 13:30:56 GMT -8
Something's been clarified for me, and I'm thinking that this TV deal is actually a pretty good one in retrospect: Read the contract, section (4) Division of Conference Revenue: media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2013/01/02/11/28/S3EZp.So.36.pdfALL of the TV revenues go into the MWC coffers to be divvied up equally, with the exception of the "National Exposure Bonuses." Boise St. does not get a 50/50 split of the TV revenues like its been assumed here. They'll simply get a bonus for appearing on national TV, which is fair. There is still some dispute over whether OOC road games will qualify for the bonus. Something that will be settled at a later date. ALL MWC teams get that same deal. ALL MWC teams will have the same opportunity to go out on the open market and see if they can get ESPN/NBC/Fox to bite. The only difference is that Boise St.'s home games are automatically packaged separately, which is fine. So, assuming that, say, Oregon St. @ SDSU can be sold for more than $500k, then the conference still makes money on the deal. It really just depends on how much the networks are willing to pay to broadcast those types of games. And if you look at Boise St.'s schedule next year, they really don't have the kind of home schedule that's likely to bring in the big bucks. SDSU's is much more marketable, assuming home dates with Oregon St., Boise St., CSU Fresno, and Nevada. Next year's Boise St. schedule is unlikely to generate a huge windfall for them. For next year, at least, SDSU is in a pretty good spot under the current terms of the MWC contract.
|
|
|
Post by some_aztec on Jan 7, 2013 14:32:12 GMT -8
Something's been clarified for me, and I'm thinking that this TV deal is actually a pretty good one in retrospect: Read the contract, section (4) Division of Conference Revenue: media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2013/01/02/11/28/S3EZp.So.36.pdfALL of the TV revenues go into the MWC coffers to be divvied up equally, with the exception of the "National Exposure Bonuses." Boise St. does not get a 50/50 split of the TV revenues like its been assumed here. They'll simply get a bonus for appearing on national TV, which is fair. There is still some dispute over whether OOC road games will qualify for the bonus. Something that will be settled at a later date. ALL MWC teams get that same deal. ALL MWC teams will have the same opportunity to go out on the open market and see if they can get ESPN/NBC/Fox to bite. The only difference is that Boise St.'s home games are automatically packaged separately, which is fine. So, assuming that, say, Oregon St. @ SDSU can be sold for more than $500k, then the conference still makes money on the deal. It really just depends on how much the networks are willing to pay to broadcast those types of games. And if you look at Boise St.'s schedule next year, they really don't have the kind of home schedule that's likely to bring in the big bucks. SDSU's is much more marketable, assuming home dates with Oregon St., Boise St., CSU Fresno, and Nevada. Next year's Boise St. schedule is unlikely to generate a huge windfall for them. For next year, at least, SDSU is in a pretty good spot under the current terms of the MWC contract. While I think that some people are bashing the MWC for reasons that aren't fair, I do think that the TV contract is rigged against the non-Boise teams. Basically, CBS Sports gets to pick their favorite games from the MWC to broadcast, with the exception of the Boise Home Games. CBS then has the option of showing those games on CBS (over the air) or on CBS College Sports network. CBS is eligible for the bonus, CBS College Sports is not eligible. Since regular CBS currently shows SEC games (and Army/Navy), it's unlikely that any MWC game would be on that channel. Boise gets to sell their home games to whatever channel is mutually agreed upon by the MWC & Boise St. That channel will likely be ESPN. So Boise will have 7 games that are eligible to be shown on ABC, ESPN or ESPN2 that are eligible for the bonus. (Likely they will get on ESPN 5 or 6 of their home games, with one or two on Saturdays...they like playing Wednesday football in Boise) The remaining MWC games are able to be sold to _one_ other network (and ESPN, assuming that ESPN & Boise sign an agreement). This arrangement means that NBC, Fox or ESPN gets the remaining scraps from the MWC football program. Maybe it's possible that SDSU & UNLV are doing surprisingly well in football one year, and thus an extra game is picked up on TV, however, the odds are against that... Also, for those who say "just wait 3 years...things might be better", I disagree. Today, more and more people are dropping Cable/Satellite TV due to the extra costs. Currently, I pay about $100/month to Directv, and I get tons of channels I don't watch. Every month, part of my cable bill goes to pay the Big 10 network, NBC Sports Network, CBS College Sports and a bunch of other channels I don't watch unless the Aztecs are playing on those networks. I have to think that people are getting towards the tipping point thinking that they are paying too much for TV, and some sort of a digital distribution model might take hold...if that happens, the Big TV contracts are gone...
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Jan 7, 2013 14:51:35 GMT -8
My reading of the term sheet is that pursuant to Section 3 the MWC will retain exclusive TV broadcast rights to all BSU games, however, the BSU home games will be packaged seperate from the league wide contract with CBS. The rights can then be sold to a provider that is mutually agreed upon between the MWC and BSU. (ie ESPN, NBC) THE INFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE REST OF THE LEAGUE'S HOME GAMES ARE SUBJECT TO THE MWC/CBS CONTRACT.
This issue of what broadcasting entity controls the braodcast rights is extremely important when analyzing Section 4(a) of the term sheet. Under Section 4(a) of the term sheet, a conference member is eligble for a bonus if they participate. in a nationally televised regular season broadcast appearing on ESPN, ABC, NBC etc. It is clear that this bonus applies to all MWC members that meet the prescribed conditions.
While it is clear that all MWC members will eligible for the bonus provisions offered to BSU, what isn't clear is how much opportunity each school will have to collect on the bonus and how the MWC will pay for it. Since CBS controls the broadcast rights to all games played in the MWC, except for those of BSU, they other members will only have a chance to get the bonus if CBS elects to not televise the game and then another entity decides to televise it. This is unlikely. If the game had any national merit or interest CBS would have elected to televised it. Therefore, it appears that the only opportunity that the rest of the league will get to participate in the bonus is when the play at BSU, in a game exempt from the MWC/CBS contract.
Second, it is not clear how the MWC plans to pay for the bonus structure. Suppose BSU and CSU play in a nationally televised Saturday game. They would both qualify for $500k bonus or $1million total. The term sheet calls for the BSU broadcast rights to be sold and split evenly amoungst all members. There is no mention of withholding any money out to pay the bonus. Or what if the game will not sell for $1million? In addition, as BSU has pointed out, the Term sheet simply states that a member is eligible for a bonus if they appear on a nationally televised reg. season contest, with no language limiting the bonus structure to a home contest or a contest with in the MWC's control. This could subject the MWC to pay millions of dollars a year with out any reimbursement.
At the worst, this Term Sheet could bankrupt the MWC, at the best it will cause inequal distrubution and most likely potential conflict.
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Jan 7, 2013 14:55:06 GMT -8
Anyone should be weary of any deal that devotes more attention to what could be possible, rather than focusing on what a typical/average payout would be.
I have to keep reminding myself this is college sports and not some late light, get rich quick, infomercial with, "Results Not Typical" plastered across the bottom of the screen.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 7, 2013 15:03:39 GMT -8
My reading of the term sheet is that pursuant to Section 3 the MWC will retain exclusive TV broadcast rights to all BSU games, however, the BSU home games will be packaged seperate from the league wide contract with CBS. The rights can then be sold to a provider that is mutually agreed upon between the MWC and BSU. (ie ESPN, NBC) THE INFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE REST OF THE LEAGUE'S HOME GAMES ARE SUBJECT TO THE MWC/CBS CONTRACT. This issue of what broadcasting entity controls the braodcast rights is extremely important when analyzing Section 4(a) of the term sheet. Under Section 4(a) of the term sheet, a conference member is eligble for a bonus if they participate. in a nationally televised regular season broadcast appearing on ESPN, ABC, NBC etc. It is clear that this bonus applies to all MWC members that meet the prescribed conditions. While it is clear that all MWC members will eligible for the bonus provisions offered to BSU, what isn't clear is how much opportunity each school will have to collect on the bonus and how the MWC will pay for it. Since CBS controls the broadcast rights to all games played in the MWC, except for those of BSU, they other members will only have a chance to get the bonus if CBS elects to not televise the game and then another entity decides to televise it. This is unlikely. If the game had any national merit or interest CBS would have elected to televised it. Therefore, it appears that the only opportunity that the rest of the league will get to participate in the bonus is when the play at BSU, in a game exempt from the MWC/CBS contract. Second, it is not clear how the MWC plans to pay for the bonus structure. Suppose BSU and CSU play in a nationally televised Saturday game. They would both qualify for $500k bonus or $1million total. The term sheet calls for the BSU broadcast rights to be sold and split evenly amoungst all members. There is no mention of withholding any money out to pay the bonus. Or what if the game will not sell for $1million? In addition, as BSU has pointed out, the Term sheet simply states that a member is eligible for a bonus if they appear on a nationally televised reg. season contest, with no language limiting the bonus structure to a home contest or a contest with in the MWC's control. This could subject the MWC to pay millions of dollars a year with out any reimbursement. At the worst, this Term Sheet could bankrupt the MWC, at the best it will cause inequal distrubution and most likely potential conflict. bingo, but I'm sure some battered wives in the mountains and a couple of p-soters will continue to say this deal applies to all even though cbs owns their rights an only boise has a say in where their games go. As orwell said: All mountain animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 7, 2013 15:04:35 GMT -8
My reading of the term sheet is that pursuant to Section 3 the MWC will retain exclusive TV broadcast rights to all BSU games, however, the BSU home games will be packaged seperate from the league wide contract with CBS. The rights can then be sold to a provider that is mutually agreed upon between the MWC and BSU. (ie ESPN, NBC) THE INFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE REST OF THE LEAGUE'S HOME GAMES ARE SUBJECT TO THE MWC/CBS CONTRACT. This issue of what broadcasting entity controls the braodcast rights is extremely important when analyzing Section 4(a) of the term sheet. Under Section 4(a) of the term sheet, a conference member is eligble for a bonus if they participate. in a nationally televised regular season broadcast appearing on ESPN, ABC, NBC etc. It is clear that this bonus applies to all MWC members that meet the prescribed conditions. While it is clear that all MWC members will eligible for the bonus provisions offered to BSU, what isn't clear is how much opportunity each school will have to collect on the bonus and how the MWC will pay for it. Since CBS controls the broadcast rights to all games played in the MWC, except for those of BSU, they other members will only have a chance to get the bonus if CBS elects to not televise the game and then another entity decides to televise it. This is unlikely. If the game had any national merit or interest CBS would have elected to televised it. Therefore, it appears that the only opportunity that the rest of the league will get to participate in the bonus is when the play at BSU, in a game exempt from the MWC/CBS contract. Second, it is not clear how the MWC plans to pay for the bonus structure. Suppose BSU and CSU play in a nationally televised Saturday game. They would both qualify for $500k bonus or $1million total. The term sheet calls for the BSU broadcast rights to be sold and split evenly amoungst all members. There is no mention of withholding any money out to pay the bonus. Or what if the game will not sell for $1million? In addition, as BSU has pointed out, the Term sheet simply states that a member is eligible for a bonus if they appear on a nationally televised reg. season contest, with no language limiting the bonus structure to a home contest or a contest with in the MWC's control. This could subject the MWC to pay millions of dollars a year with out any reimbursement. At the worst, this Term Sheet could bankrupt the MWC, at the best it will cause inequal distrubution and most likely potential conflict. It says that Bonus will be paid first, so yes the Boise money goes into the Reveu Pot with every other source of revenue. The Bonuses are paid and then the rest divided up between the members, wich means that for football Boise will double dip and if the revenue from the Boise Contract does not cover the cost of the bonuses, it will eat into the CBS TV money, NCAA Credits, and other sources. What is not to like, unless State get's a similar deal.
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Jan 7, 2013 15:18:44 GMT -8
Look at Boise's home schedule for next year: There's not a whole lot there that would be all that desireable. At best they'll maybe get one national TV game (Nevada maybe), and maybe ESPNU will pick up a couple, and that doesn't qualify for the bonus. The SDSU game will be here in SD. They play CSU Fresno in Fresno. Their OOC slate has games @washington and @byu. I don't think Southern Miss will be a huge draw, unless they put it on a Wed. or Thurs. night.
In 2014, thus far they only have BYU at home. Kill the UT St. game since it'll be a conference game now anyway. And then Washington at home in 2015.
They may see a big payday in 2014, but not next year and not in 2015 given where they play their conference games those years.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 7, 2013 15:22:51 GMT -8
Look at Boise's home schedule for next year: There's not a whole lot there that would be all that desireable. At best they'll maybe get one national TV game (Nevada maybe), and maybe ESPNU will pick up a couple, and that doesn't qualify for the bonus. The SDSU game will be here in SD. They play CSU Fresno in Fresno. Their OOC slate has games @washington and @byu. I don't think Southern Miss will be a huge draw, unless they put it on a Wed. or Thurs. night. In 2014, thus far they only have BYU at home. Kill the UT St. game since it'll be a conference game now anyway. And then Washington at home in 2015. They may see a big payday in 2014, but not next year and not in 2015 given where they play their conference games those years. more naivete Boise could stonewall and say we're playing on ESPN or we're not turning our key of the dual keys that allow the contract to go forward. They could even take less than the bonuses payout to achieve that. Just wait until they announce that boise games are being sold for the next 8 years, which will be coming.
|
|
|
Post by rick7g on Jan 7, 2013 16:59:50 GMT -8
No there is 0 chance Houston/SMU turns down a all sports invitation from the superior big east to play in the MWC. [/quote]
Far from 0, and if BYU joins MWC (a long shot), much closer to 100
|
|