tim
Bench Warmer
Posts: 81
|
Post by tim on Jul 17, 2010 8:24:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 17, 2010 8:31:56 GMT -8
The Bleacher Report is college football's version of the National Enquirer.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasaztec on Jul 17, 2010 8:39:14 GMT -8
The author has an interesting idea, and I like that he includes SDSU because of its BBall program, bowl tie in and market, but he is out to lunch on this aspect of it:
"To keep things financially simple, the 16 teams making up the Big East should receive two-thirds of the money from the network, due to the larger population base in the east and more teams to feed come basketball season. The eight teams of the MWCII should receive one-third of the money. Each group would then be responsible for splitting their respective “bounty” amongst their member schools as they felt best. "
|
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Jul 17, 2010 8:57:41 GMT -8
Interesting, but no different than our many speculative blog posts. Here are some reasons why this will never work. -The Superconference is "football only" and that cannot sustain a network for 365/year. -You can't give more revenue to East than West. -Not convinced there will be more $$$ divided by 16, than there is in curretn structure by 9. -Are WYO and CSU out of MWC or just for FB to the WAC? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2010 11:35:03 GMT -8
The Bleacher Report is college football's version of the National Enquirer. Yes. If you Google the names of any of the writers, you will find nothing of note they have done. Not only that but it's no exaggeration to say they have zero sources. Seems to me their entire approach is to try to say something outlandish to get people to notice them via Google and then they make their money from links to eye candy on the right of every page. They must be reasonably successful to have stayed in business for several years but my guess is the writers receive next to nothing for what they submit and do it mainly as recent journalism grads who are looking to have something to put on their resume. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 17, 2010 12:54:23 GMT -8
No way should the MWC accept such a disparity in revenue. It's one thing if it's 55/45 (the extra to cover the BE BB teams), but 67/33 is way too large to sustain a stable conference.
But it's bleacher report, most of what they say is trash. So this is no different than you or I coming up with some random scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 17, 2010 12:56:26 GMT -8
the national inquirer acctually breaks stories form time to time; the bleacher report is a silly blog with a silly name
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2010 13:32:21 GMT -8
the national inquirer acctually breaks stories form time to time; the bleacher report is a silly blog with a silly name Good point about the Enquirer. The Bleacher Report is therefore not even close in value. I have to disagree on the name, however. Seems really apropos to me since the dorques writing there don't have any info not already privy to the rest of us sitting in the proverbial bleachers. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 18, 2010 9:38:04 GMT -8
Bleacher Report may be less than reliable, but there's no denying that this topic ought to be good for about 100 responses!  The real question is not whether True Blue's hypothesis is valid. Rather, the question is whether the major conferences will indeed continue to wheel and deal in an effort to end up with four mega-conferences. If the answer to that question is "yes," then we need to keep our eyes open and our fingers crossed. I say that because SDSU, compared with many other players in the game, has limited cards to play. We have a great location and a decent sized media market. Beyond that. . . ? SDSU might end up better off than we are in the current MWC or, and this is what worries me, we could end up one of the odd men out when the music stops playing. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 18, 2010 10:22:11 GMT -8
Bleacher Report may be less than reliable, but there's no denying that this topic ought to be good for about 100 responses! The real question is not whether True Blue's hypothesis is valid. Rather, the question is whether the major conferences will indeed continue to wheel and deal in an effort to end up with four mega-conferences. If the answer to that question is "yes," then we need to keep our eyes open and our fingers crossed. I say that because SDSU, compared with many other players in the game, has limited cards to play. We have a great location and a decent sized media market. Beyond that. . . ? SDSU might end up better off than we are in the current MWC or, and this is what worries me, we could end up one of the odd men out when the music stops playing. AzWm The powers that be snapped it back to the status quo this year - I don't think the television networks, bowls and other power brokers have an interest in 64 teams in 4 leagues, they like 5 or 6, with them spread out. |
|
|
|
Post by kozy on Jul 18, 2010 10:31:31 GMT -8
Would have read it but when you make up a logo why not use the MWC for the western part and the Big Est for the east. Stupid; article was probablu also.
|
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jul 19, 2010 12:20:06 GMT -8
Mountain West stays the same and affiliates with the Big East, who then changes their name to............
The Mountain EAST
the combined 2 conferences play for a Football championship game each year! A money generating 12th game. and an AUTO QUALIFIER FOR THE BCS.
I am a Genius!!!
Now on our THE MOUNTAIN NETWORK: schedule programing for the (former Big East) Mountain East in the morning (on the east coast 3 hour time diffrence) and in the evening schedule programing focused on the Mountain West.
Everybody wins, Lots of market share, Lots of network content.
I repeat, I am a Genius!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2010 14:25:28 GMT -8
Mountain East? Uh, no. Same for any merger of the two conferences or playoff between their champions to determine who goes to a BCS bowl since I foresee both of us being AQ conferences by 2012. However, I see no reason the MWC shouldn't approach the Big East about buying into the TV idea. There simply isn't enough quality sports in our conference to justify a 24/7 operation and the Big East doesn't have a network and could use one. And as you say, particularly in football, I think because they have only eight schools that things could be worked out where at least during conference season, every game could be televised. One game could be played on Thursday and another on Friday and then by placing one other game on Versus or CBSC, there would be just five games to televise on Saturday on The Mtn. and given the time difference between the conferences, probably all five could be televised without stepping on the starting times of any others. (Might have to change The Mtn. to The Mtn. East, however.  ) Basketball would of course require a huge shift but IIRC, the Big East already has a lucrative deal with ESPN for that sport so the MWC-Big East deal would probably be restricted to football. But its football where the real money is and I actually think such an approach would bring in a lot more money for both of us. Easily enough that splitting it 50-50 would still be a net gain for both. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 19, 2010 15:55:15 GMT -8
Mountain East? Uh, no. Same for any merger of the two conferences or playoff between their champions to determine who goes to a BCS bowl since I foresee both of us being AQ conferences by 2012. However, I see no reason the MWC shouldn't approach the Big East about buying into the TV idea. There simply isn't enough quality sports in our conference to justify a 24/7 operation and the Big East doesn't have a network and could use one. And as you say, particularly in football, I think because they have only eight schools that things could be worked out where at least during conference season, every game could be televised. One game could be played on Thursday and another on Friday and then by placing one other game on Versus or CBSC, there would be just five games to televise on Saturday on The Mtn. and given the time difference between the conferences, probably all five could be televised without stepping on the starting times of any others. (Might have to change The Mtn. to The Mtn. East, however. ) Basketball would of course require a huge shift but IIRC, the Big East already has a lucrative deal with ESPN for that sport so the MWC-Big East deal would probably be restricted to football. But its football where the real money is and I actually think such an approach would bring in a lot more money for both of us. Easily enough that splitting it 50-50 would still be a net gain for both. Big thumbs up to the partnering on a conference TV package for football. Especially if it includes as part of the deal some good crossover-OOC matchups every year. BYU vs Pitt, SDSU vs Syracuse, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 19, 2010 17:38:44 GMT -8
The question is what value will ESPN put on big east football, they surely will want the basketball part, will they basically throw a bunch of money at basketball and demand football as basically free, or will they pay appropriately for basketball and leave the big east to bargian for football and secondary basketball coverage?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2010 18:09:57 GMT -8
The question is what value will ESPN put on big east football, they surely will want the basketball part, will they basically throw a bunch of money at basketball and demand football as basically free, or will they pay appropriately for basketball and leave the big east to bargian for football and secondary basketball coverage? None of the other so-called Big 6 conferences would consider a TV partnership since their would be no benefit to them, just to the MWC. I don't think that's true of the Big East. At a minimum, partnering with the MWC on a network would give them greater visibility west of the Mississippi. Oh and Hoobs, thanks for the props but I'm not at all optimistic. Craig Thompson has done a good job on virtually everything except the conference's TV deal. Examples: absolutely no evidence that selling part of The Mtn. to CBS has result in CBS publicizing that investment; Versus being completely off DirecTV for six months while they engaged in a pissing contest last BB season; The Mtn. spokesman who showed up at the AAF meeting and was described by attendees as the epitome of a beancounter; failure to get The Mtn. on a number of key cable systems even as part of the sports add-on premium purchase, to say nothing of the basic package; The Mtn. being broadcast for months without being in HD, then being in HD during the 2009 football season, then not being broadcast in HD since. Now that expansion is over, Thompson better being busting his butt to do something about all that even if he isn't thinking out of the box to do even more. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 19, 2010 18:35:13 GMT -8
SGF, I think I nominated you to replace Hair as Commish a while ago...  |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 19, 2010 18:56:52 GMT -8
The question is what value will ESPN put on big east football, they surely will want the basketball part, will they basically throw a bunch of money at basketball and demand football as basically free, or will they pay appropriately for basketball and leave the big east to bargian for football and secondary basketball coverage? None of the other so-called Big 6 conferences would consider a TV partnership since their would be no benefit to them, just to the MWC. I don't think that's true of the Big East. At a minimum, partnering with the MWC on a network would give them greater visibility west of the Mississippi. Oh and Hoobs, thanks for the props but I'm not at all optimistic. Craig Thompson has done a good job on virtually everything except the conference's TV deal. Examples: absolutely no evidence that selling part of The Mtn. to CBS has result in CBS publicizing that investment; Versus being completely off DirecTV for six months while they engaged in a pissing contest last BB season; The Mtn. spokesman who showed up at the AAF meeting and was described by attendees as the epitome of a beancounter; failure to get The Mtn. on a number of key cable systems even as part of the sports add-on premium purchase, to say nothing of the basic package; The Mtn. being broadcast for months without being in HD, then being in HD during the 2009 football season, then not being broadcast in HD since. Now that expansion is over, Thompson better being busting his butt to do something about all that even if he isn't thinking out of the box to do even more. What options did he have then (and it has been speculated that the Presidents forced his hand on the deal anyways for a. not playing mid week and late night, and b. twice as much cash)? We could have played on tuesday night football or midnight monday basketball for half the dough. I'm sure we'd all like to wave a magic wand and be on regular tier and all cable stations and dish, but not sure how much more can be done. For better or worse we're with the MTN deal for a few more years. But, my pondering still remains, the only way it is even something to ponder about a big east/mwc network is if espn doesn't tie up exclusivity (which they have been doing since the big 10 network showed up and threatened their 3+ buck a month subscriber fees. We also need to see what the PAc12 does - if they go fox or own network and take more content of ESPN, espn is likely going to gobble up the big east (and maybe us down the road). (I have sinking suspicion that they were the big driving force behind the Big12 staying together when you look at the dearth of their coverage of the whole affair, and what it would mean for them to lose not only 2nd tier Big10 programming(and maybe all of it once their deal expires) and losing the pac16 -they'd have nothing really west of the Miss.) The ACC got a huge deal basically for basketball and football thrown in; the same is going to happen to the Big East. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 7:39:42 GMT -8
Monty, I'm not saying The Mtn. shouldn't have been formed. Only that those negotiating its contracts with other entities seem incompetent. The Pac-10 has hired a Hollywood distribution company to do that for their impending network. Maybe the MWC should fire the beancounter and spend his salary on hiring some professionals like that to replace him. (Knowledge is power. Those Hollywood professionals know intimately how the system works. Seems to me the beancounter doesn't.)
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 20, 2010 13:05:27 GMT -8
Monty, I'm not saying The Mtn. shouldn't have been formed. Only that those negotiating its contracts with other entities seem incompetent. The Pac-10 has hired a Hollywood distribution company to do that for their impending network. Maybe the MWC should fire the beancounter and spend his salary on hiring some professionals like that to replace him. (Knowledge is power. Those Hollywood professionals know intimately how the system works. Seems to me the beancounter doesn't.) I think the pac16 had plans on owning all aspects of its content, production, distribution, marketing, etc. that is why a major time talent agency was brought in, also, we're talking at least 10x the money of the mwc (if they went 16 and owned everything maybe more like 50x). (it will remain to be seen what the pac12 does, I would guess they are going with fox, over the air fox game of the week, fox sports net game of the night, and the other fox properties filling in, i.e. no network. I'm not sure the amount of work that would be required to get 10percent or so of 12 million would be worth it to a hollywood agency to sign the MWC. I also don't think ESPN is going to let the big east walk to the point it is feasible of us forming a partnership with them |
|
)
