|
|
Post by Borg on Jun 18, 2010 18:06:38 GMT -8
I've been pondering the collegiate activities as of late...and I think we've entered a whole new realm when it comes to college sports.
We know there are the "Have's" ....and there are the "Have-Nots". We are about to see the "Have-a-Little's" pretty soon.
While the MWC has been scrambling to do all they can to get a BCS invite...I think the new battle front is where all the BCS conferences are scrambling...TV contracts worth mega millions.
Let's compare the best scenario with Utah now...and the best scenario of the Aztecs now.
Utah - by conference affiliation with their TV contract will garner $15 mil per year; plus their bowl revenue sharing plan for their conference - add another $2 mil? + if Utah were to make it to a BCS bowl themselves, they would get half of $18 mil? So...being conservative Utah could be making $26 million per year. Take away the BCS bowl, and they are near $20 million per year.
Aztecs - by conference affiliation, with their TV contract will garner $1 mil per year; plus bowl revenue sharing plan for the conference - add another $500k? ...if the Aztecs were to make a BCS bowl this year...they 'may' get half, but have to split the other half with the other 52 non-AQ teams? Maybe add another $6 mil? So, at best, this year, the Aztecs could maybe pull in $7.5 million. Take away the BCS bowl game and it's $1.5ish million.
See the crap we are now up against?
Even if the MWC were to get a token BCS bowl, Auto-bid league name...AND we were to keep all the BCS money within the conference itself...we are a "Have-a-little" conference.
We can not demand the MTN pay us all $15ish million per school per year. The Auto-Bid BCS bowl that we could get, would only be half, and the other half to the other 8 MWC schools.
Our best take, would be somewhere between 7-9 million even if we were an auto-bid league.
The MWC is scrambling for a bid...while the rest of the power conferences are scrambling for the mega-conference networks.
...and to think the MTN started it all. Depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jun 18, 2010 18:31:14 GMT -8
Are you saying that BYU is a have-a-little team in a have-a-little conference? I hardly think that that is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Borg on Jun 18, 2010 18:34:39 GMT -8
It's true for all of us in the MWC. We all would be a "Have-a-little".
A BCS bid...a BCS bowl....but the money discrepancy is widening still.
The new battle front is the TV network deals.
Now I see how ever more important it is for SDSU, TCU, Vegas to become kick butt powerhouses.
We can not get there without you. The TV's in Provo, Laramie, Ft. Collins, Boise .....aint gonna cut it.
You guys need to go Incredible Hulk on all your foes...preferrably now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 18, 2010 18:46:03 GMT -8
Borg You got it. Most people approach this from the perspective of an opportunity to be in the BCS bowl scene and the relative merits of their teams. They think the monetary reward is related to their teams--the Aztecs are lousy so they do not deserve it. Yet what is really at issue is capturing the TV market. Once you have the market tied up you let the have nots/somes play your team on TV and lose. That reinforces your market position, you almost always win as you have the kids who want to play for the BCS prestige and then when you win you further wipe out the market excluded competitors from the recruiting market. What follows is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Sound like classic restraint of trade except they have it designed so you root for them? Can you imagine if the robber barons set it up so you would root for the Southern Pacific as a fan against the B&O? They have taken anti-competitive behavior to a new level. They have the victims as fans rooting for them. Too much. But, you are so on the money--note the word chosen here--about the driving force of market control and TV. To think, when my Dad bought our first TV in 1948 that Howdy Doody would do this to us. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jun 18, 2010 19:03:18 GMT -8
Borg and Fred Noonan, Fantastic posts! The irony of it all. The architects are brilliant. Borg You got it. Most people approach this from the perspective of an opportunity to be in the BCS bowl scene and the relative merits of their teams. They think the monetary reward is related to their teams--the Aztecs are lousy so they do not deserve it. Yet what is really at issue is capturing the TV market. Once you have the market tied up you let the have nots/somes play your team on TV and lose. That reinforces your market position, you almost always win as you have the kids who want to play for the BCS prestige and then when you win you further wipe out the market excluded competitors from the recruiting market. What follows is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Sound like classic restraint of trade except they have it designed so you root for them? Can you imagine if the robber barons set it up so you would root for the Southern Pacific as a fan against the B&O? They have taken anti-competitive behavior to a new level. They have the victims as fans rooting for them. Too much. But, you are so on the money--note the word chosen here--about the driving force of market control and TV. To think, when my Dad bought our first TV in 1948 that Howdy Doody would do this to us. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. |
|
|
|
Post by Borg on Jun 18, 2010 19:12:33 GMT -8
We've been "Howdy Doodied".
...stinkin' puppet.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasaztec on Jun 19, 2010 7:29:06 GMT -8
Anyone know what is going on with the MTN gaining market share and getting on know more cable distributors?
|
|
choop
Bench Warmer
Posts: 52
|
Post by choop on Jun 19, 2010 7:53:06 GMT -8
Certain things you have to live with. There are no teams out there that could bring TV markets to the MWC in the 1 to 40 top market share except for two. One is Houston, which has the #10 market, but it would be a shared market with Houston getting the lower end of that share. The other is San Jose State, which shares the #6 market, SF, Oak, San Jose. Due to a very poor football team, I don't know what penetration they get in that market, but its low. When the MWC formed it took on teams on the very low end of market size, AFA (92), and CSU and Wyoming (150's plus). To make up for it they have shared markets in San Diego (28), and SLC (31), along with So.Nevada Market (42) and Albur/Santa Fe market (44). Taking on Boise State added the #112 market. The MWC needs markets in the top 60's at least to off set their current market average. Here's a list of TV markets. See who you think the MWC can take that has a decent football program plus good market size. www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp |
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Jun 19, 2010 8:08:13 GMT -8
Let's face it. We are the Padres and they are the Yankees of college football. It sucks. The Golden rule, the people with the gold make the rules.
Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries.
Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Jun 19, 2010 9:17:13 GMT -8
Borg and Fred Noonan, Fantastic posts! The irony of it all. The architects are brilliant. This is very true. SDSU has to get great at FB and start putting butts in Qualcomm and retake the TVs of the #28 TV market. Frankly the pacfudge assumes they own the SD area due to the # of douchebag $C, ucla, AU & ASsU alums residing in SD. Hell even UW & Wazzu worry about getting to SoCal so they can reach out to their alums. After all who wants to live in Pullmyfinger, WA??  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 9:43:57 GMT -8
Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. On your second point, there is a political forum on this board so please kindly confine such comments to that. On your first point, whether or not you said that tongue in cheek, I think it's the only thing that's going to save DIA college football in its present form. See Ivan Maisel's succinct comments: espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23269/three-point-stance-knight-commissions-impactThe Knight Commission has been complaining about the over-emphasis on money for two decades now and while its visibility has decreased, the TV money thrown at the big boys of college football has increased exponentially. Borg is correct. The MWC is composed of Have-a-Littles and I think the Have-Nots are headed toward Be-Not status. That is certainly true of SJSU, which but for Jon Wilner of the Mercury-News and one of the hosts on KNBR would be completely ignored by the Bay Area media. I will say this about the comment by somebody on another thread that all gaining AQ status will do is get each conference member an additional $1M per year. While that might be true in the immediate term, it will be more valuable long term. That's because gaining such status would mean additional growth for a conference which it shouldn't be forgotten has only been in existence for 11 years. Will the MWC always be just a Have-a-Little? Probably. However, since its creation its actually been a Have-a-Little-More and I think it's going to continue to be so. |
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Jun 19, 2010 9:53:08 GMT -8
Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. On your second point, there is a political forum on this board so please kindly confine such comments to that. On your first point, whether or not you said that tongue in cheek, I think it's the only thing that's going to save DIA college football in its present form. See Ivan Maisel's succinct comments: espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23269/three-point-stance-knight-commissions-impactThe Knight Commission has been complaining about the over-emphasis on money for two decades now and while its visibility has decreased, the TV money thrown at the big boys of college football has increased exponentially. Borg is correct. The MWC is composed of Have-a-Littles and I think the Have-Nots are headed toward Be-Not status. That is certainly true of SJSU, which but for Jon Wilner of the Mercury-News and one of the hosts on KNBR would be completely ignored by the Bay Area media. I will say this about the comment by somebody on another thread that all gaining AQ status will do is get each conference member an additional $1M per year. While that might be true in the immediate term, it will be more valuable long term. That's because gaining such status would mean additional growth for a conference which it shouldn't be forgotten has only been in existence for 11 years. Will the MWC always be just a Have-a-Little? Probably. However, since its creation its actually been a Have-a-Little-More and I think it's going to continue to be so. the disparity has grown since the BCS was formed. The BCS has created greater access for teams like S. Florida etc, but schools like Fresno, San Diego State...everybody in the WAC have suffered. Should be illegal for publicly funded institutions to shut out other publicly funded institutions for profit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 10:10:39 GMT -8
the disparity has grown since the BCS was formed. The BCS has created greater access for teams like S. Florida etc, but schools like Fresno, San Diego State...everybody in the WAC have suffered. Should be illegal for publicly funded institutions to shut out other publicly funded institutions for profit. The fallacy in what you say is the implicit argument that the disparity is solely the result of direct income from the BCS when in reality, that revenue has been responsible for only a minority of it. The great majority of the income disparity has been created by TV revenue. How is a lawsuit going to stop that? I'll answer my own question. It won't. Ergo, the income disparity growth won't end until Congress and/or the federal Department of Education steps in and establishes some kind of cap on the amount of money public universities can spend on their football programs. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 19, 2010 10:32:57 GMT -8
I think the Have-Nots are headed toward Be-Not status. That is certainly true of SJSU, It's sad (I suppose), but nothing is more powerful than the law of supply and demand. It's why midgets don't excel in the NBA no matter how hard they "try." Of course, a good midget basketball player might do well in the MBA (the Midget Basketball Association). We shouldn't pretend that San Jose and Louisiana-Lafayett have any business playing DI football, because they are unable to follow its unspoken off-the-field rules. While I concede that the supply of collegiate football teams exceeds the demand I would not agree that the immutable law of economics is responsible for the current situation. Although Louisiana-Lafayette might not have any business playing D1 football that is not the point some of us are trying to make. We do not have an open competitive market place in which supply/demand operates. We have an artificial market place, one where certain institutions have combined with others to divide that market place based on their competitive strength. The effect, if not the design, is to impact the competitive capabilities of their competitors to the point where they can no longer effectively compete. The allocation of money and TV exposure has had a couple of obvious impacts. First, the division has led to massive disparity in revenues and ability to compete. Second the raw resources necessary to compete in the market place--in our case underage talented males instead of something like copper--have been likewise gone to where the money and TV is more plentifully available. What we are seeing is not a natural consequence of an open market place, it is just the opposite. It is a controlled market. Were this an allocation of the copper market, or any other market for that matter, I suspect one's views might be altered. As I said earlier, these folks have managed to combine fan loyalty with their activities in such a manner that even the victims such as SDSU support their efforts and view it as a failure of their team to perform on the field as the cause of their woes. Yes, SDSU's on field performance and dismal recent record is an important factor but its ability to grow and prosper to the level it might in an open market has been severely curtailed. Although certainly not the only factor, I do not think it accidental that the rise of the BCS has been met by a decline in SDSU fortunes. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. Oh, and PS--no matter what the implication of certain other posters might be, Fred's Navigation school is not located in some Pinko European Socialist Commie Left Wing Anti-Religious Unamerican Puppy Kicking Nail Polishing Soccer Loving dark corner of the Beachcomber in South Mission--we're next door on the Pennant Deck. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 19, 2010 11:10:52 GMT -8
The antidote for the have and have not situation is supposed to be the antitrust law. The problem is these universities use that slimy non-profit bull$#!+ so it doesn't apply to them.
Uncle Sam will have to find a way of taxing the hell out of them. My bet is he will before these "chosen few" destroy the have nots. Cutting off money supply has always been the Fed's controlling mechanism when someone or something gets too corrupt in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 19, 2010 13:00:15 GMT -8
I would agree with JYP that the gap has always been there and that it probably isn't much different. My thought, however, is that "back in the day" with St. Don we were really making progress and knocking on the doors. We had a shot. But, then along came the Associated Students revocation of football pre-registration and Mary Alice Hill. After that it's all in the history books. Even if the field were indeed level we would still have failed miserably. I am not saying SDSU has been particularly competent itself. The difference is that "back then" our competence gave us a chance. We could climb the ladder. Today, not so. We are artificially restrained. And, yes, your points that for SDSU and its lack of competence it doesn't seem as if artificial restraints or open market would make a difference is more accurate than I care to remember. And, before you say Utah rose through competence let me just say that in my thought process it wasn't their "competence" as a football team that turned the tide. Utah gives the PacWhatever a great chance to enter another TV market, lock up the BCS bucks, further secure the SD recruiting grounds and confirm that they have their foot on our neck. So, I guess I'm the guy who simply wants to play on the level field, even if I don't play very well. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. |
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Jun 19, 2010 13:25:22 GMT -8
the disparity has grown since the BCS was formed. The BCS has created greater access for teams like S. Florida etc, but schools like Fresno, San Diego State...everybody in the WAC have suffered. Should be illegal for publicly funded institutions to shut out other publicly funded institutions for profit. The fallacy in what you say is the implicit argument that the disparity is solely the result of direct income from the BCS when in reality, that revenue has been responsible for only a minority of it. The great majority of the income disparity has been created by TV revenue. How is a lawsuit going to stop that? I'll answer my own question. It won't. Ergo, the income disparity growth won't end until Congress and/or the federal Department of Education steps in and establishes some kind of cap on the amount of money public universities can spend on their football programs. there is no fallacy in my statement, but there is a quite a bit of assumption in yours. Revenue generated by the Bowl games themselves is just a small part, yet one full BCS member share would have had great impact on a school such as San Diego State. BCS effects recruiting, marketing, public and campus perception....is in itself is INVALUABLE. The San Diego Padres exist in an Organization with no Media Revenue sharing along side a giant, the New York Yankee's that generate Millions and Millions more in Media Revenue. and yet they are both considered MLB teams. While the Padres could be considered a "Small Market Team" The San Diego Padres are not effected in the same way the Aztecs are in public perception. Mid Majors imply that your not even in the major leagues, but your in the Minors. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Jun 19, 2010 15:04:59 GMT -8
Although certainly not the only factor, I do not think it accidental that the rise of the BCS has been met by a decline in SDSU fortunes. I see your point; I just think that the gap has always been just about the same as it is now. The differences are a) Information technology has "improved" so much that we know almost everything that happens b) The BCS now has a name. It has always existed, though, if not by a semantic term. Totally disagree. Before the BCS came into being anyone could go most bowls. They didn't have all these bowl tie-ins. SDSU was better than teams like Oregon, Oregon, WSU, and other PAC 10 schools. In case you forgot, Akili Smith said he picked Oregon because they went 6-5 the last 2 years and went to a bowl game while SDSU was 8-3 and went no where. |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jun 19, 2010 18:59:47 GMT -8
It's true for all of us in the MWC. We all would be a "Have-a-little". A BCS bid...a BCS bowl....but the money discrepancy is widening still. The new battle front is the TV network deals. Now I see how ever more important it is for SDSU, TCU, Vegas to become kick butt powerhouses. We can not get there without you. The TV's in Provo, Laramie, Ft. Collins, Boise .....aint gonna cut it. You guys need to go Incredible Hulk on all your foes...preferrably now. Perhaps you should send us Bronco Mendenhall. Back in the days of "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken s___" BYU was a have-a-little team but not now. Not with sold out games and a national title. |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jun 19, 2010 19:12:32 GMT -8
Let's face it. We are the Padres and they are the Yankees of college football. It sucks. The Golden rule, the people with the gold make the rules. Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. The name of the party is the DemocraTIC Party. You can't vote Democrat. You could, however, vote Democratic. Or, you could vote for a Democrat. I did not realize that this is a political board. Obama is no one's savior and is not trying to be. A reasonable distribution of income is hardly socialist. It just makes sense and creates a stronger society. Or, we could have one person with everything and everyone else with nothing. I guess you would like that. |
|
