Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Sportsbow Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 51
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 1
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
LINK: http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/112121.html

WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Board of directors gambles that the league's value will continue to rise.

By Brian Murphy - bmurphy@idahostatesman.com
Edition Date: 07/20/07

The Western Athletic Conference, feeling good about itself in the wake of Boise State's Fiesta Bowl victory and a highly anticipated 2007 football season, is betting that its stock will only continue to rise.
Despite a contract extension offer from television giant ESPN this summer, the league did not agree to extend its deal, WAC commissioner Karl Benson said Thursday.

The WAC has three years remaining on the six-year, $6 million deal it signed with ESPN in 2004.

"The board of directors and the WAC athletic directors always have to evaluate what is best in the short term versus what is best in the long term," Benson said.

"We have confidence that we'll continue to grow the WAC, and its value in two years will be greater than it is today. ... The WAC has to make sure we get the best possible business deal we can."

The current contract represented a tripling of the WAC's previous deal with ESPN, but is far short of the seven-year, $48 million contract the Mountain West Conference signed with CSTV.

Benson said the inability to reach an agreement on an extension now does not mean that the league would be headed elsewhere after its contract expires.

"Right now, I don't sense that there is anyone else in the marketplace that we'd be interested in," Benson said.

The WAC has benefitted from the exposure provided by its deal with ESPN, which guarantees the league 46 nationally televised football games over six seasons. Eleven regular-season games involving WAC teams are scheduled for ESPN or ESPN2 this season, including five involving Boise State.

But in the past year there have been several points of contention between the league and ESPN:

• The lack of men's basketball games on the network. The network is required to show two men's games every year and the conference tournament championship game.

• The WAC's refusal to let ESPN show games on ESPNU without additional compensation.

• The WAC's refusal to change the date of last year's Boise State-Nevada game.

Benson said without a new agreement nothing will change regarding men's basketball and ESPNU.

Thanks to Boise State's increasing national profile and Hawaii's emergence as a possible Top 25 team with a Heisman contender in quarterback Colt Brennan, the WAC's visibility is as high as ever.

"It did stimulate ESPN to come back to the table with a better offer. … They did come to us with an extension offer that in their mind was a significant financial increase, looking at it as a reward," said Benson, who did not disclose details of the offer. "We couldn't come to terms with the financial piece."
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2007 03:28 AM by Sportsbow.)
07-20-2007 03:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


jediwarrior Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 18
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Too bad a deal couldn't be hammered out.

Oh well...maybe next time.
07-20-2007 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Yoda Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 51
I Root For: Fresno State
Location: Poulsbo, WA
Post: #3
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
You've got to respect the President's decision on this. The WAC of old would have caved in and accepted table scraps.

And who knows, perhaps ESPN will come back with something a little better than they have so far.

Yoda out...
07-20-2007 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ejmpalle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 927
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Utah State
Location:
Post: #4
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
jediwarrior Wrote:Too bad a deal couldn't be hammered out.

Oh well...maybe next time.

I think Karl Benson is looking to be a free agent, so to speak, and test the WAC's market value. I think this is a good idea as long as we sign with a tv network that has some national coverage, unlike the mtn.
07-20-2007 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nvspuds Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 441
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Though the implementation has been tough, I think the idea behind the MTN is really good. I would like to see the WAC thinking outside of the box as well. The MWC will eventually iron out the kinks on their deals and they will be in a good spot. The WAC shouldn't put their head in the sand and just do what ESPN tells them to do. Time to be proactive WAC presidents.
07-20-2007 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ejmpalle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 927
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Utah State
Location:
Post: #6
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
nvspuds Wrote:Though the implementation has been tough, I think the idea behind the MTN is really good. I would like to see the WAC thinking outside of the box as well. The MWC will eventually iron out the kinks on their deals and they will be in a good spot. The WAC shouldn't put their head in the sand and just do what ESPN tells them to do. Time to be proactive WAC presidents.

No sense in reinventing the wheel when ESPN has ESPNU and there are networks available like Fox Sports, CSTV and Versus. The WAC would put itself into a losing battle if it tried to do what the MWC is doing with the mtn. We need to ride a proven horse. ESPN would be a great horse to ride, but if that doesn't work out, then there are others out there who have a pretty good name.
07-20-2007 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #7
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Three years away from completion of the contract is a while to lock yourself in, especially for a non-BCS league where the quality of the league can fluctuate since the BCS isn't guaranteed.

There's something to be said for striking when the iron is hot, but Benson's right. This isn't the time to cave.

During the contract, number of WAC controlled games on ESPN/ESPN2 (for purposes of appearances, ABC or ESPNU games won't count).

2004 - 9
2005 - 8
2006 - 9
2007 - 11
07-20-2007 11:49 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nvspuds Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 441
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
To me, ESPN has never really been all that good to the WAC. I would prefer finding a new way to go.
07-20-2007 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #9
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
ejmpalle Wrote:
nvspuds Wrote:Though the implementation has been tough, I think the idea behind the MTN is really good. I would like to see the WAC thinking outside of the box as well. The MWC will eventually iron out the kinks on their deals and they will be in a good spot. The WAC shouldn't put their head in the sand and just do what ESPN tells them to do. Time to be proactive WAC presidents.

No sense in reinventing the wheel when ESPN has ESPNU and there are networks available like Fox Sports, CSTV and Versus. The WAC would put itself into a losing battle if it tried to do what the MWC is doing with the mtn. We need to ride a proven horse. ESPN would be a great horse to ride, but if that doesn't work out, then there are others out there who have a pretty good name.

You talk like the mtn. is the sole provider of the MWC, but you named off two of their primary outlets. The mtn. is only supposed to be regionally driven, not a national outlet. If the WAC doesn't want to go that route or isn't offered that opportunity, so be it. But the MWC didn't hitch itself to the mtn., it hitched itself to CSTV and, by proxy, Comcast/Versus. You don't want to be the MWC, but then name off their two national carriers as possible bidders.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2007 11:52 AM by mattsarz.)
07-20-2007 11:50 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WAC_FAN Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 892
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 10
I Root For:
Location:

Baseball Genius
Post: #10
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
matt -- got any inside info on what the ESPN extension offer to the WAC was?
07-20-2007 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ejmpalle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 927
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Utah State
Location:
Post: #11
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
mattsarz Wrote:You don't want to be the MWC, but then name off their two national carriers as possible bidders.

What percentage of their games are on CSTV and Versus, mattsarz? What is that percentage compared to the WAC's percentage of games on ESPN/ABC? How much more exposure do WAC teams get on ESPN than they would on CSTV and Versus which are often on extended cable packages? It's also my understanding that the mtn was never really intended to be local. It was intended to be seen accross the nation. Secondly, many cities within the MWC footprint can't even get the mtn.

Point being, I don't want the WAC to give up the ESPN exposure for CSTV exposure and limit our local exposure any more than it all ready is. At least we can watch our games via the internet, if all else fails.

Btw, once upon a time, the WAC had football games broadcasted over either WB or UPN. What ever happened to that?

This is my order of choices given equal $$ offers:
1. ESPN/ABC (national coverage) and ESPNU (limited/regional coverage)
2. Fox Sports Net (national coverage) and Fox Region (limited/regional coverage)
3. CSTV/Versus (national coverage) and, insert new WAC channel here, ______ (limited/regional coverage) It would be unacceptable to have the rights to WAC home games given to the mtn.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2007 12:14 PM by ejmpalle.)
07-20-2007 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #12
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
No I don't, that article was my first read about it so my comments were straight off what was written. Maybe it was to double the rights, and even that is far short. At a minimum, to me the WAC should be looking for $5 million per year.
07-20-2007 12:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nvspuds Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 441
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #13
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
I believe that ESPN wants WAC games on ESPNU for free..I am not sure why a conference would even want to talk to a network who wants them to give away their product..The WAC needs to look elsewhere..
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2007 01:03 PM by nvspuds.)
07-20-2007 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NVstudent4ever Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 9
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Nevada
Location:
Post: #14
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned regarding this is the Big Ten Network. If that works out for them, which is much more likely than the MTN, other big conferences are likely to take the plunge also. This would leave ESPN in much more need of the WAC than at present. Waiting out developments associated with the Big Ten Network seems like a very wise move at this stage in the game.[/align]
07-20-2007 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #15
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
You are confusing the Big Ten Network as being a national source exclusively for the conference. It isn't. The Big Ten Network is essentially the ESPN Plus syndicated games on a 24 hour channel.

The Big Ten still has their best content on ABC & ESPN/ESPN2 for football and CBS & ESPN/ESPN2 for basketball and roughly the same number of games for both sports. ESPN didn't lose anything in this case, the conference just took their extra games in-house.
07-20-2007 01:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NVstudent4ever Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 9
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Nevada
Location:
Post: #16
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Good point, but I still think it is a wise move to wait to see how the whole BTN thing plays out. It will affect what other conferences do or don't do in regards to their own networks. A year or two down the line, it is a very realistic possibility that ESPN is going to need the WAC more than it currently does. Instead of needing us solely as time fillers, they will need us for actual content purposes.
07-20-2007 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


erdaaggie Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 403
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 6
I Root For: USU
Location:
Post: #17
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
WAC_FAN Wrote:matt -- got any inside info on what the ESPN extension offer to the WAC was?

Says in the article that it would have tripled the current contract which would have been about $3 million per year. The MWC was just under $7 million when they were on ESPN. However it is much more with CSTV/Versus. (Originally it was 7 years for about $82 million I believe, but they have extended it to ten years I hear for $120 million or $12 million per year.)

Idaho Statesman Wrote:The current contract represented a tripling of the WAC's previous deal with ESPN, but is far short of the seven-year, $48 million contract the Mountain West Conference signed with CSTV.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2007 07:02 PM by erdaaggie.)
07-20-2007 06:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jediwarrior Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 18
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #18
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
So ESPN was willing to pay the WAC what they're paying C-USA now. That's definitely a move in the right direction by ESPN.

So...now the WAC is willing to get 1 mil a year for 3 more years...to get a better offer in 2010? Don't think I'm impressed.

...and the WAC may forego playing on ESPNU for 3 years as well? I guess Idaho, USU, and La. Tech don't need national exposure.

It's hard to judge this stuff when you're not privy to all the info...but what I'm hearing so far...I don't think we'll mistake the WAC presidents for rocket scientists.
07-20-2007 10:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nordo Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 3
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #19
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
Another way to look at this is that the leaders of the WAC are confident the league is going to stay together and get stronger over the next couple of years which would increase the value of its product.

If they had pocketed the $ ESPN threw on the table, it might have been an indication that expecting some defections that it woud be better to take the money and run.
07-21-2007 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jediwarrior Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 18
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #20
RE: WAC turns down ESPN's extension offer
From the Hawaii newspaper:

"The proposed package "would have included a greater number of basketball telecasts for men and it also would have represented women's volleyball and women's basketball programming," Benson said. ESPN has not carried WAC volleyball previously as part of its contract."

----

Not only more money, but an increased number of games aired. Women's volleyball?? Nice!

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/p...LUMNISTS06
07-21-2007 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.