|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 3, 2010 2:36:22 GMT -8
Wait, how are folks taking this as a "leave the MWC for the WAC" situation?? No, *if* SDSU is talking to anyone in the WAC, it would be to cover the scenario of Utah, BYU, and TCU (& maybe others) leaving the MWC for other mega-conferences... at which point the WAC might actually be a better conference. It's a doomsday scenario, but one that you have to have a contingency plan for.
Ask BP about planning for worst-case scenarios...
|
|
|
|
Post by E31-Aztec on Jun 3, 2010 7:02:34 GMT -8
The WAC's deal with ESPN isn't as bad as you think. ESPN just reupped for another 7 years, with each program making roughly $900k a year. I've seen more Boise, Fresno, and Nevada games on ESPN2 this past year than I've seen of ANY MWC games.
Hell, even bars around town will sometimes have the WAC games on.
The Mtn. deal is for $120mil over 10 years, or about $1.1 mil a year for each program, which I feel is crap, because for $200k less, we could've gone with ESPN.
THAT BEING SAID, if the conference somehow manages to get the hell off of VERSUS/CSTV, all of this AQ talk and expansion would put us in a nice place to leverage a better deal.
Of course, if we keep being the dead weight in the MWC, all is null and we'll get to go back to the WACk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 8:35:09 GMT -8
The WAC's deal with ESPN isn't as bad as you think. ESPN just reupped for another 7 years, with each program making roughly $900k a year. I've seen more Boise, Fresno, and Nevada games on ESPN2 this past year than I've seen of ANY MWC games. The Mtn. deal is for $120mil over 10 years, or about $1.1 mil a year for each program, which I feel is crap, because for $200k less, we could've gone with ESPN. All true perhaps. But so is the fact that Boise moving from the WAC to the MWC will change that considerably. And you've only talked about income, not how many games one can watch if one is a DirecTV subscriber. Regarding the latter factor, consider this. Players' parents love to watch their kid but they generally aren't going to travel to every game to do so. Therefore, I have little doubt that The Mtn. helps recruiting. No better example of that than the fact that although Nevada finished second in the WAC in 2009 while SDSU finished seventh in the MWC, the two schools went head to head for four kids and three of them signed with us. And one of those three was from Sparks, NV just outside Reno. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 3, 2010 10:57:07 GMT -8
Rejoining the WAC is an invitation for Death to come knocking on our door. The combination of increased travel expenses and lower revenue is a recipe for disaster. If there's apathy amongst Aztec fans towards some of our MWC brethren, then The Q will definitely feel like a ghost town when New Mexico St., Idaho, Louisiana Tech, Utah St. and others comes to town. You exaggerate. Win and San Diego St. fans show up, regardless of the opponent. Me exaggerate? Perhaps you’re being too generous or overestimating our fans. Case in point is our basketball team which has been winning consistently and producing 20+ wins in the last 5 years. Yet, in a smaller venue, we consistently fail to generate sold out games against some of the top teams in our own conference. If I'm not mistaken, our game against a top 15 New Mexico last season wasn’t a sold out game. And yet you think that playing against lesser known schools will bring in more fans? Fans in general are becoming more sophisticated and demand more value for their entertainment dollars. Winning isn’t a cure-all anymore. You cannot consistently pull in the fair-weather fans to come to the games if you play less appealing teams. Why do you suppose a thread about which marquee teams we should include in our OOC schedule remains popular? |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 3, 2010 11:10:30 GMT -8
The WAC's deal with ESPN isn't as bad as you think. ESPN just reupped for another 7 years, with each program making roughly $900k a year. I've seen more Boise, Fresno, and Nevada games on ESPN2 this past year than I've seen of ANY MWC games. Hell, even bars around town will sometimes have the WAC games on. The Mtn. deal is for $120mil over 10 years, or about $1.1 mil a year for each program, which I feel is crap, because for $200k less, we could've gone with ESPN. THAT BEING SAID, if the conference somehow manages to get the hell off of VERSUS/CSTV, all of this AQ talk and expansion would put us in a nice place to leverage a better deal. Of course, if we keep being the dead weight in the MWC, all is null and we'll get to go back to the WACk I never could find a value for the WAC deal, do you have a link? Also, the deal is for something like 10 games on espn or espn2 for the whole conference, which means all boise all the time, with some other games on espn u, payperview or not televised. Basketball is the same sparse coverage. The best thing about the mtn is that almost every football and basketball game is on, were we on espn, sdsu would be televised a couple times a year. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 3, 2010 12:06:20 GMT -8
I would be surprised if Benson has contacted either school on behalf of the conference. I would not be surprised at all if Fresno's President had spoken with SDSU's President, and Nevada's with UNLV's. Nothing formal and the discussions have likely discussed movements both directions. In fact, I would be surprised if they hadn't had several such discussions. But discussions are not even close to being negotiations. Yoda out... I would also be surprised if Fresno and others have not been involved in discussions at some level about further expansion of the MWC to include Fresno and others to make two divisions and a playoff possible. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecx on Jun 3, 2010 19:46:13 GMT -8
The WAC's deal with ESPN isn't as bad as you think. ESPN just reupped for another 7 years, with each program making roughly $900k a year. I've seen more Boise, Fresno, and Nevada games on ESPN2 this past year than I've seen of ANY MWC games. Hell, even bars around town will sometimes have the WAC games on. The Mtn. deal is for $120mil over 10 years, or about $1.1 mil a year for each program, which I feel is crap, because for $200k less, we could've gone with ESPN. One of the main reasons for getting away from ESPN is that they were going to make the mwc play games on tues, wed, thur and friday. This would really hurt attendance. This would equate to lost $. Also the fans would not be as hip to going to games late on tuesday or Friday I would think. Money wasn't the only factor. The mwc is on the bleeding edge when it comes to the mtn. Soon every conference will have their own network. Unfortuately, the mwc was just early. Long term the mtn is good for the conference. |
|
|
|
Post by E31-Aztec on Jun 5, 2010 1:16:17 GMT -8
I never could find a value for the WAC deal, do you have a link? Also, the deal is for something like 10 games on espn or espn2 for the whole conference, which means all boise all the time, with some other games on espn u, payperview or not televised. Basketball is the same sparse coverage. The best thing about the mtn is that almost every football and basketball game is on, were we on espn, sdsu would be televised a couple times a year. According to Street and Smith via the Honolulu Advertiser: www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/122342 |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 5, 2010 2:37:44 GMT -8
I never could find a value for the WAC deal, do you have a link? Also, the deal is for something like 10 games on espn or espn2 for the whole conference, which means all boise all the time, with some other games on espn u, payperview or not televised. Basketball is the same sparse coverage. The best thing about the mtn is that almost every football and basketball game is on, were we on espn, sdsu would be televised a couple times a year. According to Street and Smith via the Honolulu Advertiser: www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/122342Found this yesterday when reading-up on Boise: www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/04/1216770/bsu-move-could-be-worth-millions.htmlThe WAC as an entire conference was getting 900k per your link, not per school, and now receives 4 million and boise, even on tv all the time and playing 4 or 5 games during the week, only got 500k, per the link above. Meanwhile, the moutain west programs have been getting over a million dollars the entire time, play on the weekend, and having all or 90+ percent of the games televised. ESPN offered the MWC something like 6 million bucks when we left, so the conf. was worth more 5 years ago to ESPN than the WAC is now. The WAC tv deal can only be justified if one is an ESPN sycophant |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2010 8:55:51 GMT -8
The WAC tv deal can only be justified if one is an ESPN sycophant Or a mental masturbator. To reiterate, once Boise leaves the WAC for the MWC - and it's expected that will be announced on Monday - one of the 1.5 reasons anyone outside that conference cares about the WAC will be removed (Fresno is worth half a reason). Add in such other factors as that NMSU just cut its athletics budget by $3M and that SJSU's football program is on a precipice with one foot over the cliff and it wouldn't surprise me at all if ESPN severs its relationship with the WAC once this contract expires. Strike that. I'll make a prediction right here and now that's exactly what will happen. Maybe when that happens ESPN will make the MWC a huge offer to return and replace the WAC by playing games on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays but whoring oneself out to the four letter network like that is a sign not of growth but of desperation. |
|
