Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
You know why it's called the mtn and not the MWC TV Network?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #21
 
NuMexAg Wrote:Extending that very sound logic a bit further, I have never really understood the MWC vs WAC battle (and maybe it's just from us fans and not the conference offices - in which case it does make some sense) and the general lack of cooperation. The real battle is BCS vs non-BCS and by working together non-BCS conferences have way more power than they do trying to go it alone and battling each other and the BCS.

We are talking about universities here - so theoretically we are not trying to put each other out of business or even maximize our returns to stockholders. The big business of college FB is driven by the BCS, and we non-BCS types are playing right along.

Seems to me a multi-conference, region-wide TV effort would be a great start.

I agree the fans make obersavtions about the conferences based on what we see not what really goes on sometimes. What we see is flavored by trolls, homers, and hometown media. I believe our assumptions are often wrong.

One issue is that the conferences seem to have very different focuses right now toward TV. The WAC seems driven to maximize exposure while the MWC wants control of its product in terms of game times and schedules. This MWC approach will limit exposure to some extent and the league presidents seem OK with that.

It is interesting to watch that is for sure
07-07-2006 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #22
Re: CSTV sucks and mtn will be worse
donkeyrider Wrote:Last nite CSTV was showing a paintball ...match...contest...shootout, whatever it is called. DII womens bowling has been shown. The whole thing just sucks to a point that it is worse than bad. The Outdoor Channel, which is the competition, shows all sorts of shows that bring content. Having to be college based like CSTV is bad enough.
.

Actually I prefer the CSTV paintball to the paintball championships on ESPN or wait the great ESPN poker sporting events (real athletes there). Don't forget the ever popular billliard championship on ESPN. ESPNU is even worse.

It is easy to pick out weak programming on any sports channel. It is a tough thing to keep interesting program all year long unfortunately. I saw some great college baseball on CSTV this year and am looking forward to volleyball in the fall. To each their own.
07-07-2006 02:43 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: #23
 
There's "no" doubt that the TV deal the WAC and the MWC have are totally different deals.

SPCoug - You're talking about the "freedom to chose". But is that really what the MWC has? You can't forget that MWC sports no longer belong to you. They belong to CSTV. They own "all" rights to "all" MWC sports. If there's a slave here...it's the MWC.

I remember our talks about football being meant to be played on Saturdays...and that's what CSTV was supposed to guarantee. But yet, in 2006, the MWC will be playing more "weekday" games than the WAC will. You're stuck playing more weekday games now...than you did when you were with ESPN.

...and as we've mentioned before, you can't compare CSTV's money deal with the WAC's ESPN deal.

CSTV "purchased" all rights to your "National", "Regional", and "local" coverage. They own it all.

The contract that the WAC has with ESPN is for "National" coverage only. It doesn't include "possibilities" of "National" coverage with ESPNU, It doesn't cover "Regional" coverage...and it definitely doesn't cover "local" coverage.

The WAC is "free" to negotiate with ESPNU, it's free to negotiate with "any" Regional carrier it sees fit, and each WAC school is free to negotiate with "local" networks that meet their needs.

Is the WAC worse off now that it still owns the majority of its product? Or is the MWC better off now that it own "none" of its product?

Who's free?

Would Hawaii be better off with CSTV and your current deal...or ESPN and the WAC's current deal?

The answer is: Hawaii could "pay" ESPN 500K to air our games...and still make more that each team in the MWC is making with CSTV. The choice is clearly ESPN.

I know that not all WAC schools make what Hawaii makes on local coverage. But the possibilities are there for them.

The WAC "didn't" make a mistake in staying with ESPN. The WAC made the right move.

http://www.hawaiiathletics.com/pr.html?prid=13575&p=100
07-07-2006 06:16 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: #24
 
jediwarrior Wrote:I remember our talks about football being meant to be played on Saturdays...and that's what CSTV was supposed to guarantee. But yet, in 2006, the MWC will be playing more "weekday" games than the WAC will. You're stuck playing more weekday games now...than you did when you were with ESPN.

Not true. The MWC knew that they could still have Thursday and Friday night games and had no problem with those. They didn't want Tuesdays and Wednesdays. When the CSTV contract came out, the MWC immediately acknowledged that. What they got was control of that Thursday and Friday night start time. Those games will not start before 6pm local time. This was something coaches railed against as they had games start at 5:30pm local time.

Quote:CSTV "purchased" all rights to your "National", "Regional", and "local" coverage. They own it all.

The contract that the WAC has with ESPN is for "National" coverage only. It doesn't include "possibilities" of "National" coverage with ESPNU, It doesn't cover "Regional" coverage...and it definitely doesn't cover "local" coverage.

That isn't any different than how the Big East's current ESPN contract works and the Big Ten's deal with current ESPN deal, not the one starting next year. ABC/ESPN own everything, including regional and local TV (basketball being a little different with CBS owning some games instead of ABC).

Quote:The WAC is "free" to negotiate with ESPNU, it's free to negotiate with "any" Regional carrier it sees fit.

How free are they? They aren't negotiating with ESPN, so they aren't negotiating with ESPNU. That should have been done already. The ESPN contract doesn't free them to take those games to another national outlet (FSN, CSTV, OLN or another party), so its negotiate with ESPN or don't negotiate at all.

The WAC may own the majority of the product, but who wants it on a regional level? The MWC clearly had a willing bidder and they wanted control of the on-field product. They clearly felt that getting control of the starting times might get them more people in the stands, and they got some extra cash on the TV side to boot. I don't know if anyone here honestly believes that they wouldn't take some of the items that CSTV threw at the MWC in terms of conrol over product and some of the new media items, not to mention the cash. Let's face it, it is all about the cash.

Who is bidding for the second-tier WAC product after ESPN? Right now, its unclear and it might not be anyone. Even the MAC and Sun Belt have limited regional TV deals. The WAC? Who knows, nothing's been actively pursued that we know of and I doubt many in the league's media know that SportsWest is gone.

I follow a conference that has a commissioner who has been "blindsided" by bowl deals struck behind his back (Big East). Benson needs to be upfront on the media deals, whether it is the conference making a deal to do their own web streaming or trying to solicit a regional TV deal. He done some good things and the conference's stature has improved and he's had some missteps too. IMO, the conference had its best season because they had four solid teams at the end of the year, vs. BSU or Fresno carrying the banner. The conference had depth for a change. He needs to step up and do right by the league membership or it will be a league continually looking for the next invitation from another conference.
07-07-2006 08:19 PM
Visit this user's website 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: #25
 
Mattsarz - The "meant to be played on Saturdays" phrase was not my creation. I think you'll find that a lot of people in the MWC community believed and verbalized those sentiments prior to the contract unfolding and their schedule publicized.

I'm not saying that CSTV or the MWC management deceived their fans into believing the "Saturdays" were the only days that they'd play football. But something gave the MWC fans that impression.

As far as the WAC negotiating with ESPNU and not having a "Regional" contract yet? Trust me. I am "no" fan of Karl Benson and his staff. I've called for his "ousting" for years on the Hawaii board. And I still think he needs to go.

The WAC is in a good position now, but Benson keeps coming up empty. Why didn't he start negotiating with ESPNU long ago? Simple. No matter how much he screws up, the WAC won't fire him. He's got job security.

Why don't we have a "Regional" contract yet? It's because Benson's job is safe...no matter what.
07-07-2006 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aggiesports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 186
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #26
from dumb and dumber
SJSdude Wrote:Ain't no mtn high enough.

"That John Denver was full of $hit!"

;-)
07-08-2006 12:44 AM
Visit this user's website 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: #27
 
Three points:

1. The WAC will quite possibly have games on ESPNU in 2006. No guarantees but I wouldn't be surprised.

2. You don't know what Benson and staff have or haven't been doing with respect to negotiating or renegotiating existing contracts, new contracts or a regional network for second tier games. They almost never announce what they are doing if for no other reason than results may not be visible for months or sometimes even years. I caution you against assuming that no announcements means no action.

3. Negotiations such as you want are usually conducted using media consultants -- people who estimate worth, evaluate contract offers, and estimate future value. Sometimes a deal can be made but the consultant may recommend against it -- for example, if the consultant thought that a better deal might be reached a little later.

You are making some assumptions that are incorrect.

Yoda out...
07-08-2006 01:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #28
 
jediwarrior Wrote:Mattsarz - The "meant to be played on Saturdays" phrase was not my creation. I think you'll find that a lot of people in the MWC community believed and verbalized those sentiments prior to the contract unfolding and their schedule publicized.

I'm not saying that CSTV or the MWC management deceived their fans into believing the "Saturdays" were the only days that they'd play football. But something gave the MWC fans that impression.

There were some MWC fans who thought this but they really weren't paying attention to what was going on and it was pretty worthless message board chatter. The Thursday/Friday option was out there from Day one. However, it was agreed week night games would be spread out among the teams and held to a minimum for any one team.

The football is meant to be played on Staurdays was a response to ESPN and their desire to schedule Sunday, Tues, and Wed games in their proposed contract.

Getting control of game time was huge for Wyo. ESPN kept wanting us to play late night games in late November... stupid. I don't remember Wyo fans upset over an occasional Thursday game and most knew there would be some of those.

I think it shows the assumption we can get from message boards. They are often wrong and don't reflect what is really going on. I would even argue that some message boards do not even reflect the mainstream fan for many teams
07-08-2006 11:53 AM
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: #29
 
Ok, while "The Mtn" may not be an ideal choice--is anyone forgetting as of right now, WE HAVE NO REGIONAL TV DEAL?!?!?

Assuming that we can't negotiate with someone to be our regional carrier, "The Mountain" still beats having ZERO coverage whatsoever.
07-08-2006 12:44 PM
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: #30
 
WAC_FAN Wrote:Ok, while "The Mtn" may not be an ideal choice--is anyone forgetting as of right now, WE HAVE NO REGIONAL TV DEAL?!?!?

Assuming that we can't negotiate with someone to be our regional carrier, "The Mountain" still beats having ZERO coverage whatsoever.
Why do you say that?

First off, we don't have zero coverage. We have 90 million homes on ESPN, somewhat fewer on ESPN2 and we will hopefully have fewer still on ESPNU. They have 15 million homes with CSTV and, so far, 00.00 with the mtn.

In my view, it is critical that the WAC get better exposure than the MWC gets. They are our direct competitor for coverage and recruits generally. The mtn. is designed to highlight them, not us. It is designed to promote them with our recruits. It is another attempt to seperate them from us. You see a pattern here? Personally, I hope the mtn fails miserably and I hope that we can put something else together that has them trailing us, instead of the other way around.

If we sell our product to the mtn., we might be giving them just enough to survive -- survive at our expense. And keep in mind, they get all the Saturday dates. If they want to treat the relationship essentially as a joint venture -- where we are two equal partners sharing the choice timeslots equally -- then maybe. But I don't think that that is going to happen and that makes the mtn. the enemy -- not something that we can gleefully pronounce as being better than having no regional deal of our own.

You said, ""The Mountain" still beats having ZERO coverage whatsoever". Need I point out, that's what they want -- they have the mtn. and we have nothing at all. Why should we assist those who wish to defeat us?

Yoda out...
07-08-2006 01:14 PM
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: #31
 
What makes you think the MWC is out to get the WAC? Sounds to me like they took a risk for a much greater reward monetarily than they could get from ESPN. CSTV put up 82 million reasons why they think their network will succeed in that market. The MTN. seems like a natural offshoot and I am certain that nobody is risking 82 million bucks on something that is doomed to failure...

I hope the MWC and CSTV make this work because it will force ESPN to sweeten the pot to conferences to insure they can get the content they need.

Contrary to what we may imagine, the MWC doesn't think about the WAC much at all. If they wanted to destroy the WAC there would be three WAC schools in addition to TCU in the league right now..Losing 3 schools would be a death blow.

The WAC needs to rise and fall on what the WAC member schools do..Not on the hope that the MWC fails on a TV deal..
07-08-2006 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #32
 
Yoda would your opinion be different if you were not a Fresno/Boise/Hawaii and to some extent Nevada fan?

How many times will ESPN highlight LA TECH, Idaho, NMSU or USU? Can a regional network really help those schools with expoure? Sure is an easy position for you to take. You keep saying let's help the schoosl improve, well this be a way to help them recruit and get better exposure. A regional network may not be a big deal to some teams in the WAC but it sure could be to others.

I am sensitive to that since Wyo is often in the same boat as the above mentioned. Smaller markets underserved by the big media and a regional player in the Media can be a big help.

Just a thought.
07-08-2006 01:39 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: #33
 
One thing to remember is that the mtn isn't strictly TV but also internet streaming, so those who want those games will be able to seek them out. I tried out the C-USA video streaming from CSTV last year and it wasn't bad.

With that said, broadband internet is limited even more than cable television.

CSTV may not be the only place to see MWC games. There is still the opportunity to sell off a few games to national TV partners. I don't quite believe that Notre Dame-Air Force and Colorado-CSU will continue to remain on the CSTV schedule
07-08-2006 01:48 PM
Visit this user's website 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: #34
 
nvspuds Wrote:What makes you think the MWC is out to get the WAC? Sounds to me like they took a risk for a much greater reward monetarily than they could get from ESPN. CSTV put up 82 million reasons why they think their network will succeed in that market. The MTN. seems like a natural offshoot and I am certain that nobody is risking 82 million bucks on something that is doomed to failure...

I hope the MWC and CSTV make this work because it will force ESPN to sweeten the pot to conferences to insure they can get the content they need.

Contrary to what we may imagine, the MWC doesn't think about the WAC much at all. If they wanted to destroy the WAC there would be three WAC schools in addition to TCU in the league right now..Losing 3 schools would be a death blow.

The WAC needs to rise and fall on what the WAC member schools do..Not on the hope that the MWC fails on a TV deal..
I don't mean that the MWC lies awake at night figuring out how to take the WAC down. I don't think it is all that personal, nor should it be. But that doesn't mean that their potential success is unrelated to our potential failure. I don't lie awake at night imagining myself intentionally putting my competitors out of business -- or worrying about them intentionally putting me out of business.

I lie awake at night imagining ways that I may be able to improve our product and service and, while the objective isn't to put the other guy out of business, the reality is that if I am successful enough, I will on occassion contribute to someone going out of business. Likewise, I worry about my competitors improving their products and service at my expense and to my perhaps inadvertant but eventual bankruptcy.

As a conference, you either compete successfully on the field and on the business side, or you perish and make no mistake about it: A great deal of the future success that the MWC has will come at our expense -- as a great deal of the future success that the WAC has will come at the MWC's expense. We are competitors for the same television exposure and competitors for the same recruits.

If you own stock in Ford, you may not wish the bankruptcy of GM, but you sure wouldn't like it much if Ford's BOD act in such a way as to prevent it. The same concept holds here. As a conference, we must act to protect our own best interests. That means that we must put the best possible product on the field and it means that we must position ourselves on the business side such that we promote ourselves all we can while taking due care not to promote our competitors.

It's nothing personal -- it's just business.

Yoda out...
07-08-2006 01:51 PM
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: #35
 
Yoda you tend to imagine the worst every chance you get. If CSTV is successful, than ESPN has to step up to the plate or lose their content. Competition in the market place is a good thing.

Other than La Tech, the WAC is now structered exactly the same as the MWC. The league is regional, has long term and exciting rivalries and a better TV deal then they had before. The positives are in place and it appears the MWC has little or no interest in any WAC school for the forseeable future..

Message board posters are not tapped into the inner workings of the MWC or the WAC..They are just a bunch of guys guessing about what may or may not happen..Your guesses are always the most negative but they are guesses all the same.
07-08-2006 02:03 PM
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: #36
 
billings Wrote:Yoda would your opinion be different if you were not a Fresno/Boise/Hawaii and to some extent Nevada fan?

How many times will ESPN highlight LA TECH, Idaho, NMSU or USU? Can a regional network really help those schools with expoure? Sure is an easy position for you to take. You keep saying let's help the schoosl improve, well this be a way to help them recruit and get better exposure. A regional network may not be a big deal to some teams in the WAC but it sure could be to others.

I am sensitive to that since Wyo is often in the same boat as the above mentioned. Smaller markets underserved by the big media and a regional player in the Media can be a big help.

Just a thought.
No, my opinion would not be different. ESPN will always highlight those schools that are of greatest interest to a national audience. For football, right now, that means Boise State and Fresno State first. If other schools want increased television exposure, then they had better get their butts in gear on the field.

For basketball, Utah State and Nevada get broadcasting priority and if the other schools, including Fresno and Boise, want a piece of the action, then they had better get their butts in gear, the same way.

That said, I think that that is why getting games on ESPNU will be important to us. Because on the smaller networks, the bottom half of the conference (regardless of the sport) can get some much needed exposure that will help make them better. And understand, I have not said that the WAC is not working on it's own regional deal. I don't know that they are but even if they aren't, I suspect that they are at least considering it. So I don't think it's an either or situation really.

Yoda out...
07-08-2006 02:06 PM
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: #37
 
nvspuds Wrote:Yoda you tend to imagine the worst every chance you get. If CSTV is successful, than ESPN has to step up to the plate or lose their content. Competition in the market place is a good thing.

Other than La Tech, the WAC is now structered exactly the same as the MWC. The league is regional, has long term and exciting rivalries and a better TV deal then they had before. The positives are in place and it appears the MWC has little or no interest in any WAC school for the forseeable future..

Message board posters are not tapped into the inner workings of the MWC or the WAC..They are just a bunch of guys guessing about what may or may not happen..Your guesses are always the most negative but they are guesses all the same.
I'm not negative; I'm coldly realistic. I want to take an agressive approach and face the MWC challenge head on and you want to play Neville Chamberlain and hope for the best.

They are our financial enemy. Don't pretent otherwise. If they get the top recruit, then we don't. If we get the top recruit, then they don't. Aid our recruiting, not theirs.

Yoda out...
07-08-2006 02:14 PM
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: #38
 
Neville Chamberlain?? I am not relying on anything the MWC does to improve or hurt the WAC..The WAC has everything in place to succeed and it is entirely up to the WAC, not the MWC, to rise or fall.

Do you honestly think that if the CSTV works out, ESPN will shuffle off without a fight? Do you honestly think that WAC schools will stop trying to improve their product.

You are terrified of the MWC and what they might or might not do but you have absolutely zero faith in the WAC to compete..Tell that to Boise..Are they laying down and taking whatever scraps are left? Hardly.

I know you took it personally when the MWC schools left you behind but is has made you into a paranoid about their massive power. The MWC is a non BCS conference with a risky but fairly lucrative tv deal..They are not the Pac 10..

They do not control the fate of the WAC..

I realize it is a fruitless wish but just once I would like to see a positive comment from you about the league that has provided Fresno with a platform for national recognition.

Tough up dude..
07-08-2006 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
donkeyrider Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 20
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #39
Web broadcasting
Internet broadcasting can and should be handled by each university. If a university can't handle such a little task, they should take a look at themselves and see if they are really a university.

Each school in the WAC can broadcast any game it desires with any of its sports. Each school can charge whatever it wants for the service or give it for free. There is no need for a middleman like CSTV in internet broadcasting. The only advantage is for teams with few fans to suck off the popular teams in a sale of everyones rights. So the sucko teams still get a little revenue when no one watches them.
07-08-2006 11:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SPCoug Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 37
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #40
 
nvspuds Wrote:Neville Chamberlain?? I am not relying on anything the MWC does to improve or hurt the WAC..The WAC has everything in place to succeed and it is entirely up to the WAC, not the MWC, to rise or fall.

Do you honestly think that if the CSTV works out, ESPN will shuffle off without a fight? Do you honestly think that WAC schools will stop trying to improve their product.

You are terrified of the MWC and what they might or might not do but you have absolutely zero faith in the WAC to compete..Tell that to Boise..Are they laying down and taking whatever scraps are left? Hardly.

I know you took it personally when the MWC schools left you behind but is has made you into a paranoid about their massive power. The MWC is a non BCS conference with a risky but fairly lucrative tv deal..They are not the Pac 10..

They do not control the fate of the WAC..

I realize it is a fruitless wish but just once I would like to see a positive comment from you about the league that has provided Fresno with a platform for national recognition.

Tough up dude..

As I've read today's Yoda-grams, I can't decide whether to laugh or cry, whether I'm reading farce or tragedy.

Others have already stated that if the MWC wanted to kill the WAC, it could do so in one hour, with 1-3 phone calls, to the presidents of BSU, Nevada and FSU, asking them to join our clambake. Voila, the WAC is instantly reduced to Sun Belt West, assuming it even survives.

Fact: It's in the MWC's best interest to see that the WAC survives because both conferences need each other, for scheduling interconference games. That's not to say that we don't compete, any more than the Big-12 and Big-10 don't compete for network ratings, poll positions and bowl contracts. Not all competition is designed to be zero sum, aka, if one side wins the other side inevitably loses.

Rather, this is about enlarging the pie for everyone on the outside. Anyone who can't see that in CSTV is indulging in myopia, envy or self pity, if I may be a bit blunt. If CSTV succeeds, everyone wins because ESPN needs some competition, for all our sakes. Do you think for one minute that if CSTV had been in business for several years that ESPN would have offered the WAC only $1 million a year? That's a complete insult to the conference because you're better than that. However, in a monopolistic, plantation environment, what can anyone do but sign on the dotted line?

Next fact: Several years ago, someone asked Craig Thompson what his three top goals were. He replied (and I quote): "The BCS, the BCS, the BCS." Folks, that's the real competition, not this WAC vs. MWC vs. CUSA vs. MAC stuff. The MWC's main focus has been to secure a BcS autoinvite, period. Whether the conference succeeds remains to be seen. However, it's not about gutting or pillaging the WAC. That's part of the CSTV deal: An attempt to break through ESPN's "glass ceiling" that seems to say to the have nots, "this much and no more" (both compensation and positioning viz a viz the big boys).

Frankly, BYU isn't interesting in "stealing" FSU or other WAC recruits, as Yoda suggested elsewhere. Instead, BYU wants to steal Pac-10 or Big-12 (or even an occasional SEC) recruits, as the current list of 19 (and counting) commitments for next year illustrates. BYU doesn't schedule home and home with the big boys for body bag purposes or feelings of inferiority (or pity on their part). Rather, it plays the Notre Dames, USCs and Florida States because there's mutual respect and interest, coupled with the intention of joining their club someday. BYU didn't build its indoor practice facility and student athlete center so it could try to have the best non-BcS infrastructure. It did that so it could compete directly with the BcS schools. Ditto the rest of the MWC, which is one of the things I absolutely love about the conference: The shared perspective, vision and commitment. Has anyone seen the bucks that Wyoming and TCU are currently investing, just to name two? We're not doing it to crush the WAC. We're doing it to persuade BcS quality recruits to come to the MWC and better position the conference for a BcS invite.

Instead of laughing or crying, perhaps what I need to do -- for all of those who see the MWC as a big bogey man that's conspiring to crush the rest of the non-BcS leagues -- is share a Russian fairy tale I heard many years ago. Whether it actually originated in Russia, I don't know, though that doesn't diminish its relevance:

A peasant was plowing in a field and discovered a lamp. While rubbing it to get it clean, out popped a genie, who told him he could have one wish. The peasant's response was swift and certain: "My neighbor has a goat, and I don't. Kill my neighbor's goat."

Yoda, I don't what's happened to you of late. It's like you've adopted the adage "it's darkest just before the lights go completely out." Get your old pragmatic, insightful self out of its current blue funk.
07-08-2006 11:54 PM
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.