|
Post by campanile on Sept 21, 2021 6:15:41 GMT -8
With completion of SDSU West coming along; SDSU will soon top out enrollment at 50,000 students (up from 35,000). Shouldn’t that also interest any power conference looking to potentially add San Diego State?
|
|
|
Post by moctezumaii on Sept 21, 2021 6:43:40 GMT -8
With completion of SDSU West coming along; SDSU will soon top out enrollment at 50,000 students (up from 35,000). Shouldn’t that also interest any power conference looking to potentially add San Diego State? THis makes us the biggest school west of the Rockies? I think?
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Sept 21, 2021 7:08:26 GMT -8
With completion of SDSU West coming along; SDSU will soon top out enrollment at 50,000 students (up from 35,000). Shouldn’t that also interest any power conference looking to potentially add San Diego State? THis makes us the biggest school west of the Rockies? I think? UCSD will b just as big?
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Sept 21, 2021 12:16:33 GMT -8
MW contract was average not good. The Mtn TV was bad. Hell half of San Diego couldn’t watch it. It was the same goes with other schools. Thompson marketing the MW was and is still is mediocre. Not adding Wichita State Could have add Boise St earlier. Giving Boise St perks and not BYU that add fuel for them to leave the MW. MWC was innovative in being the 1st to have their own TV station. It may not have succeeded, but being innovative & trying to up the ante for their members is important. Look at the P12N - many of their members can't get those channels, and they're a P5 conference. He's marketed the conference just fine. Being a blowhard who claims crowns that don't exist doesn't make Aresco good at marketing. As Thompson correctly states, who listens to that rhetoric? Adding Wichita St wouldn't work - too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC). There's no way they'd go with the MWC over the AAC, even if we begged them, given the cost of travel for their Olympic sports (& even basketball). Instead, we reached out to Gonzaga which made 100% more sense, but they managed to weasel a better contract out of the WCC & stayed. That may not be the case now that BYU has left. Expansion is a league-wide decision, not just Thompson's. It's actually driven by the Presidents & their TV partners. And I don't necessarily agree with adding Boise earlier - very debatable. We added them a year after the Fiesta Bowl, when they really hit their stride and when rumors of Utah going to the P12 surfaced. The TV partners help dictate when & whom to add - the Boise market & following didn't make sense until after the Fiesta Bowl. We didn't give Boise perks but not BYU. BYU left 2+ years prior to that even happening, and left to go independent. It's not like they were getting poached. There was nothing the MWC could have done to prevent that. As a counter move, the MWC added Fresno & UNR to replace BYU, and then added Hawaii when TCU left for a power conference. As for the Boise perks, from the perspective of the full membership it made sense. Boise was the lynchpin of the conference at the time and Thompson & his membership needed to keep them, and expected if they did SDSU would be forced to fall in line. They gave them the perks, it WORKED, saving the top 2 teams in the conference from leaving. Offering the same perks to SDSU, while nice for us, wasn't necessary nor prudent at the time. His membership would have been more pissed. The decision to give Boise the media concessions wasn't made in a vacuum. The only mistake with that contract is not having it expire when that contract expired, but it's not like Thompson didn't try. He doesn't like the deal - he's pulled their bonus $ during the last negotiations only to be threatened with a lawsuit (which Boise was likely to win). The MWC membership, including Thompson, doesn't want Boise to get the extra $$ but at this point they're screwed, although I've heard that won't be the case with the next contract. Their current TV deal is as good if not better long-term than the AAC's, and definitely better given the fact the AAC is losing it's 3 most attractive draws. The gap between the 2 conferences is expected to be around $1-$2 per program per year, BUT that doesn't account for the fact they have to produce their own Olympic sports for broadcast (about $1M/year) and also ignores the fact the MWC will have the ability to renegotiate twice, when more players could be involved, before the AAC can renegotiate theirs again. Booking a 12-year TV contract in this day & age when things are evolving all the time was just plain STUPID. The MWC was much smarter. That is something that's basic and can't be brushed aside. That was a major costly FU on his part. The only way out is Boise leaving for another conference or the MWC kicks them out. Both which are unlikely to occur. Didn't that fool consult with a lawyer about the deal?
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Sept 21, 2021 14:29:28 GMT -8
MWC was innovative in being the 1st to have their own TV station. It may not have succeeded, but being innovative & trying to up the ante for their members is important. Look at the P12N - many of their members can't get those channels, and they're a P5 conference. He's marketed the conference just fine. Being a blowhard who claims crowns that don't exist doesn't make Aresco good at marketing. As Thompson correctly states, who listens to that rhetoric? Adding Wichita St wouldn't work - too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC). There's no way they'd go with the MWC over the AAC, even if we begged them, given the cost of travel for their Olympic sports (& even basketball). Instead, we reached out to Gonzaga which made 100% more sense, but they managed to weasel a better contract out of the WCC & stayed. That may not be the case now that BYU has left. Expansion is a league-wide decision, not just Thompson's. It's actually driven by the Presidents & their TV partners. And I don't necessarily agree with adding Boise earlier - very debatable. We added them a year after the Fiesta Bowl, when they really hit their stride and when rumors of Utah going to the P12 surfaced. The TV partners help dictate when & whom to add - the Boise market & following didn't make sense until after the Fiesta Bowl. We didn't give Boise perks but not BYU. BYU left 2+ years prior to that even happening, and left to go independent. It's not like they were getting poached. There was nothing the MWC could have done to prevent that. As a counter move, the MWC added Fresno & UNR to replace BYU, and then added Hawaii when TCU left for a power conference. As for the Boise perks, from the perspective of the full membership it made sense. Boise was the lynchpin of the conference at the time and Thompson & his membership needed to keep them, and expected if they did SDSU would be forced to fall in line. They gave them the perks, it WORKED, saving the top 2 teams in the conference from leaving. Offering the same perks to SDSU, while nice for us, wasn't necessary nor prudent at the time. His membership would have been more pissed. The decision to give Boise the media concessions wasn't made in a vacuum. The only mistake with that contract is not having it expire when that contract expired, but it's not like Thompson didn't try. He doesn't like the deal - he's pulled their bonus $ during the last negotiations only to be threatened with a lawsuit (which Boise was likely to win). The MWC membership, including Thompson, doesn't want Boise to get the extra $$ but at this point they're screwed, although I've heard that won't be the case with the next contract. Their current TV deal is as good if not better long-term than the AAC's, and definitely better given the fact the AAC is losing it's 3 most attractive draws. The gap between the 2 conferences is expected to be around $1-$2 per program per year, BUT that doesn't account for the fact they have to produce their own Olympic sports for broadcast (about $1M/year) and also ignores the fact the MWC will have the ability to renegotiate twice, when more players could be involved, before the AAC can renegotiate theirs again. Booking a 12-year TV contract in this day & age when things are evolving all the time was just plain STUPID. The MWC was much smarter. That is something that's basic and can't be brushed aside. That was a major costly FU on his part. The only way out is Boise leaving for another conference or the MWC kicks them out. Both which are unlikely to occur. Didn't that fool consult with a lawyer about the deal? Agreed, but lawyers write all the deals & all the membership reviews it. It wasn't just his FU. But again, there's hope it'll go away with the next renegotiation. Not sure how that is, but that's what i was told.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Sept 21, 2021 15:11:34 GMT -8
MWC was innovative in being the 1st to have their own TV station. It may not have succeeded, but being innovative & trying to up the ante for their members is important. Look at the P12N - many of their members can't get those channels, and they're a P5 conference. He's marketed the conference just fine. Being a blowhard who claims crowns that don't exist doesn't make Aresco good at marketing. As Thompson correctly states, who listens to that rhetoric? Adding Wichita St wouldn't work - too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC). There's no way they'd go with the MWC over the AAC, even if we begged them, given the cost of travel for their Olympic sports (& even basketball). Instead, we reached out to Gonzaga which made 100% more sense, but they managed to weasel a better contract out of the WCC & stayed. That may not be the case now that BYU has left. Expansion is a league-wide decision, not just Thompson's. It's actually driven by the Presidents & their TV partners. And I don't necessarily agree with adding Boise earlier - very debatable. We added them a year after the Fiesta Bowl, when they really hit their stride and when rumors of Utah going to the P12 surfaced. The TV partners help dictate when & whom to add - the Boise market & following didn't make sense until after the Fiesta Bowl. We didn't give Boise perks but not BYU. BYU left 2+ years prior to that even happening, and left to go independent. It's not like they were getting poached. There was nothing the MWC could have done to prevent that. As a counter move, the MWC added Fresno & UNR to replace BYU, and then added Hawaii when TCU left for a power conference. As for the Boise perks, from the perspective of the full membership it made sense. Boise was the lynchpin of the conference at the time and Thompson & his membership needed to keep them, and expected if they did SDSU would be forced to fall in line. They gave them the perks, it WORKED, saving the top 2 teams in the conference from leaving. Offering the same perks to SDSU, while nice for us, wasn't necessary nor prudent at the time. His membership would have been more pissed. The decision to give Boise the media concessions wasn't made in a vacuum. The only mistake with that contract is not having it expire when that contract expired, but it's not like Thompson didn't try. He doesn't like the deal - he's pulled their bonus $ during the last negotiations only to be threatened with a lawsuit (which Boise was likely to win). The MWC membership, including Thompson, doesn't want Boise to get the extra $$ but at this point they're screwed, although I've heard that won't be the case with the next contract. Their current TV deal is as good if not better long-term than the AAC's, and definitely better given the fact the AAC is losing it's 3 most attractive draws. The gap between the 2 conferences is expected to be around $1-$2 per program per year, BUT that doesn't account for the fact they have to produce their own Olympic sports for broadcast (about $1M/year) and also ignores the fact the MWC will have the ability to renegotiate twice, when more players could be involved, before the AAC can renegotiate theirs again. Booking a 12-year TV contract in this day & age when things are evolving all the time was just plain STUPID. The MWC was much smarter. You can be innovative all you want but, it was not successful. Congrats Half of your fan base are not able to watch games. That is not successful it stupid. Ask the commissioner of the Pac12. Oh wait they fired his A$$. Thompson marketing sucks. Teams are scrambling and begging to get into bowls games. Hell last year we had two MWC team playing each other in a bowl that wasn’t televised. The MWC could have gotten Wichita State when they where in the MVC not the AAC BYU- There is more information to come out about why BYU left the Mountain West and it came down to broken promises that would allow BYU to rebroadcast games on BYUtv if those games were not on The Mtn. Dave Checketts who is the owner of Real Salt Lake and the St. Louis Blues was part of the negotiations with then-CSTV about a new Mountain West television deal said that this deal was full of lies. "Basically, we had the understanding that we'd be having what we have (beginning in 2011) with ESPN," said BYU athletic director Tom Holmoe. Games not telecast by The Mtn. would be available for BYUtv. And BYU would be able to rebroadcast games. Checketts said Comcast did, indeed, promise BYU those rights. "I was in the room when they told them this, but they didn't want to put it in writing," he said. - Several things the MWC has done have been innovative, including live tracking & shot tracker statistics during league games (1st nationally to do so) among other things. - 2 MWC didn't play in a bowl last year - that was 2015 - 6 years ago(!!) during the Arizona bowls inaugural season and since then a sponsorship & bowl affiliations have been worked out. We now have 6 tie-ins + options for 2 others. BTW, the MWC isn't the only conference where 2 teams played each other in a bowl. - Giving a program like BYU the entire rights to a separate revenue stream isn't the same thing as offering a bonus structure with one of the conferences actual media partners. Not even close. There's no way any MWC program should be able to have their own network. That's what held the B12 captive with Texas. The P10 wasn't going to allow that if Texas were to consider joining, which is just 1 of the reasons Texas stayed in the B12. It's not good for the entire conference which is a very simple concept to understand. - Yes, we could have asked Wichita St to join from the MVC, but what part of it's "too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC)" can't you understand? They were seeking a landing spot for ALL SPORTS, which wouldn't work for them or for the MWC. Not even close. Gonzaga was the better option & again, it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by ramrodd23 on Sept 21, 2021 18:48:07 GMT -8
You can be innovative all you want but, it was not successful. Congrats Half of your fan base are not able to watch games. That is not successful it stupid. Ask the commissioner of the Pac12. Oh wait they fired his A$$. Thompson marketing sucks. Teams are scrambling and begging to get into bowls games. Hell last year we had two MWC team playing each other in a bowl that wasn’t televised. The MWC could have gotten Wichita State when they where in the MVC not the AAC BYU- There is more information to come out about why BYU left the Mountain West and it came down to broken promises that would allow BYU to rebroadcast games on BYUtv if those games were not on The Mtn. Dave Checketts who is the owner of Real Salt Lake and the St. Louis Blues was part of the negotiations with then-CSTV about a new Mountain West television deal said that this deal was full of lies. "Basically, we had the understanding that we'd be having what we have (beginning in 2011) with ESPN," said BYU athletic director Tom Holmoe. Games not telecast by The Mtn. would be available for BYUtv. And BYU would be able to rebroadcast games. Checketts said Comcast did, indeed, promise BYU those rights. "I was in the room when they told them this, but they didn't want to put it in writing," he said. - Several things the MWC has done have been innovative, including live tracking & shot tracker statistics during league games (1st nationally to do so) among other things. - 2 MWC didn't play in a bowl last year - that was 2015 - 6 years ago(!!) during the Arizona bowls inaugural season and since then a sponsorship & bowl affiliations have been worked out. We now have 6 tie-ins + options for 2 others. BTW, the MWC isn't the only conference where 2 teams played each other in a bowl. - Giving a program like BYU the entire rights to a separate revenue stream isn't the same thing as offering a bonus structure with one of the conferences actual media partners. Not even close. There's no way any MWC program should be able to have their own network. That's what held the B12 captive with Texas. The P10 wasn't going to allow that if Texas were to consider joining, which is just 1 of the reasons Texas stayed in the B12. It's not good for the entire conference which is a very simple concept to understand. - Yes, we could have asked Wichita St to join from the MVC, but what part of it's "too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC)" can't you understand? They were seeking a landing spot for ALL SPORTS, which wouldn't work for them or for the MWC. Not even close. Gonzaga was the better option & again, it's not even close. Again you keep saying innovative. I say it again,you can be innovative all you want but, half the fan base couldn’t watch it.How dose that help the conference? It doesn’t. BYUTV was established in 2000. So they already had the network when they were in the MWC. They were asking for replays. Not actual games.
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Sept 21, 2021 20:07:22 GMT -8
- Several things the MWC has done have been innovative, including live tracking & shot tracker statistics during league games (1st nationally to do so) among other things. - 2 MWC didn't play in a bowl last year - that was 2015 - 6 years ago(!!) during the Arizona bowls inaugural season and since then a sponsorship & bowl affiliations have been worked out. We now have 6 tie-ins + options for 2 others. BTW, the MWC isn't the only conference where 2 teams played each other in a bowl. - Giving a program like BYU the entire rights to a separate revenue stream isn't the same thing as offering a bonus structure with one of the conferences actual media partners. Not even close. There's no way any MWC program should be able to have their own network. That's what held the B12 captive with Texas. The P10 wasn't going to allow that if Texas were to consider joining, which is just 1 of the reasons Texas stayed in the B12. It's not good for the entire conference which is a very simple concept to understand. - Yes, we could have asked Wichita St to join from the MVC, but what part of it's "too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC)" can't you understand? They were seeking a landing spot for ALL SPORTS, which wouldn't work for them or for the MWC. Not even close. Gonzaga was the better option & again, it's not even close. Again you keep saying innovative. I say it again,you can be innovative all you want but, half the fan base couldn’t watch it.How dose that help the conference? It doesn’t. BYUTV was established in 2000. So they already had the network when they were in the MWC. They were asking for replays. Not actual games. Replays and BYU should not be said in the same sentence on an Aztecs site, ever!
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Sept 22, 2021 3:17:37 GMT -8
With completion of SDSU West coming along; SDSU will soon top out enrollment at 50,000 students (up from 35,000). Shouldn’t that also interest any power conference looking to potentially add San Diego State? THis makes us the biggest school west of the Rockies? I think? Not even close to ASU.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Sept 22, 2021 5:57:24 GMT -8
THis makes us the biggest school west of the Rockies? I think? Not even close to ASU. ASU has become an absolute beast. They have one of the largest student bodies in the country. They have about 55k in-person students at their main campus in Tempe. They then have another 20k at their auxiliary campuses in and around Phoenix. On top of that, they have one of the largest online universities in the country, with about 45k students. Their total enrollment is about 120k. That's bonkers. Having said that, SDSU will soon have about 50k in-person students. It's important to know that of the Top 50 universities, enrollment-wise with D-1 football teams, only one or two aren't in a Power Conference. So with the addition of MV West, a 50k enrollment and a new on-campus stadium, SDSU will definitely be knocking on the door to that club. And, yes, the UCSD Chancellor stated in the media a couple weeks ago, that UCSD's enrollment will soon top 50k. It's already over 40k, which is nuts. And they have a new downtown campus/high-rise in the East Village that is either now open/operating or soon will be.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Sept 24, 2021 9:58:51 GMT -8
ASU has become an absolute beast. They have one of the largest student bodies in the country. They have about 55k in-person students at their main campus in Tempe. They then have another 20k at their auxiliary campuses in and around Phoenix. On top of that, they have one of the largest online universities in the country, with about 45k students. Their total enrollment is about 120k. That's bonkers. Having said that, SDSU will soon have about 50k in-person students. It's important to know that of the Top 50 universities, enrollment-wise with D-1 football teams, only one or two aren't in a Power Conference. So with the addition of MV West, a 50k enrollment and a new on-campus stadium, SDSU will definitely be knocking on the door to that club. And, yes, the UCSD Chancellor stated in the media a couple weeks ago, that UCSD's enrollment will soon top 50k. It's already over 40k, which is nuts. And they have a new downtown campus/high-rise in the East Village that is either now open/operating or soon will be. GCU is also in the mid to high 50's as well, but its a completely different beast.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Sept 24, 2021 10:11:49 GMT -8
GCU is also in the mid to high 50's as well, but its a completely different beast. Yes, there are about a half dozen online "universities" who have huge student bodies -- 50k+ -- and are trying to break into the sports world, but those are definitely horses of a different color.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Sept 24, 2021 10:45:25 GMT -8
- Several things the MWC has done have been innovative, including live tracking & shot tracker statistics during league games (1st nationally to do so) among other things. - 2 MWC didn't play in a bowl last year - that was 2015 - 6 years ago(!!) during the Arizona bowls inaugural season and since then a sponsorship & bowl affiliations have been worked out. We now have 6 tie-ins + options for 2 others. BTW, the MWC isn't the only conference where 2 teams played each other in a bowl. - Giving a program like BYU the entire rights to a separate revenue stream isn't the same thing as offering a bonus structure with one of the conferences actual media partners. Not even close. There's no way any MWC program should be able to have their own network. That's what held the B12 captive with Texas. The P10 wasn't going to allow that if Texas were to consider joining, which is just 1 of the reasons Texas stayed in the B12. It's not good for the entire conference which is a very simple concept to understand. - Yes, we could have asked Wichita St to join from the MVC, but what part of it's "too far for travel for all sports (they're members in all sports except football in the AAC)" can't you understand? They were seeking a landing spot for ALL SPORTS, which wouldn't work for them or for the MWC. Not even close. Gonzaga was the better option & again, it's not even close. Again you keep saying innovative. I say it again,you can be innovative all you want but, half the fan base couldn’t watch it.How dose that help the conference? It doesn’t. BYUTV was established in 2000. So they already had the network when they were in the MWC. They were asking for replays. Not actual games. Being innovating shows a commitment to helping their membership be competitive. Re: the broken TV deal, they were asking for the rights to broadcast games not shown on the mountain network & rebroadcast rights to the games that were ("Games not telecast by The Mtn. would be available for BYUtv. And BYU would be able to rebroadcast games.") You also failed to mention how that all came about, and how most of it was out of Thompson's hands. It was Comcast that actually broke the "promise", with a lot of that being impacted by a sale of the network with Comcast eventually holding 50% ownership and the guy who supposedly made the deal left to help start the MLB network. Comcast saw the "promise" as a threat to distribution sales, which is why they (not Thompson) pulled back: "The one big gripe I have had about the television deal is when games are passed on by the league. This past year Utah's football game against San Jose State and TCU's game against Tennessee Tech were not shown on any three of the leagues television partners. The television contract has loosened some (perhaps just for basketball) and has allowed New Mexico to show games on a local channel. However, BYU wants to show games on BYUtv which has six times the reach of The Mtn., but Comcast said they could show games on local channel for KBYU, because Comcast says that by putting a game on BYUtv is a threat to their distribution plan. The most recent attempt was when Fresno State traveled to BYU to open the season in basketball and BYU was told KBYU or nothing, so BYU chose nothing. Maybe if Comcast put The Mtn. on at least their own cable networks across the country the distribution would be much better." In other words, Comcast was OK with BYU broadcasting the game locally. What they weren't OK with was the ability to rebroadcast the game to a significantly larger audience, many of whom would have had to subscribe to the Mountain to get MWC coverage. Now they wouldn't need to. And in the process, adding more sports inventory to BYU TV which in turns increasing their revenue stream via advertising, etc. The perks provided to BSU were completely different than what BYU was asking for, and the situation was very different. Another thing Thompson did during this whole process is the MWC was about to implode with the loss of Utah, TCU & now BYU going independent, even though they'd added Boise. BYU was going to keep their other sports in the WAC, and the WAC thought Boise may back out of the move. However, Thompson went on the attack & added Fresno & Nevada to go with Boise, leaving USU hanging & the WAC completely crippled. He saved the MWC, and did so again later with SDSU & Boise decided to leave. That's what good commissioners do. I get the SDSU hate for Thompson, given that he a) focused on Boise, their bell cow, rather than SDSU when it came to perks to keep them, and b) many of his decisions are made for the betterment of the masses & not just SDSU. But that doesn't make him a bad commissioner by any means.
|
|