Yoda Wrote:I kind of doubt that the WAC will offer content but I will say this. If we do, that MWC schedule had better not be set in stone. I would demand that we get half the Saturday games -- which means that they will have to move MWC games to other than Saturday nights if they want to broadcast them live or show them on a tape delay basis during the week. No way that we start scheduling games midweek so that some other non-BCS conference can schedule their games for television on Saturdays.
Whoa there Yoda, help me out. Isn't the WAC doing precisely that already, scheduling games midweek?
Furthermore, the mantra I've heard out here for months is that "exposure is everything, compensation is (relatively) nothing." ESPN says play on Tuesday night at 9 p.m.? No problem and we'll do it for $1 million/year. So along comes the mtn with an offer for more exposure. All of a sudden I'm hearing that timing and price are the sine qua non.
That seems to fly at variance with what I've heard previously.
You've stated elsewhere that you want to be treated as an equal with the MWC in any potential mtn negotiations. Unfortunately, that's highly unlikely to occur for several very valid reasons:
1. The old adage that "possession is 9/10 of the law." The MWC's contract is already signed, sealed and delivered. Like corporate buyouts, the MWC signed up first and got the best compensation package and time slots (Corporate Buyout Rule 1: If you're thinking of leaving, do so ASAP because the longer one waits, the worse the parachutes become.). It's also a bit like seniority in some industries: Six months can make a huge difference in one's job for a long time. It reminds me of my dad talking about how he would have had a much better position in his career, had he hired out at the beginning of a hiring boom, rather than midway through (which put him way down the seniority chart). Someone higher up told him "son, too bad you stayed on the farm to plow that last furrow."
2. Risk/reward. Every one of us probably wishes we had bought Microsoft stock 25 years ago. Problem is we either dallied or didn't want to take the risk. In any business venture, the earlier one gets involved, the greater the risk of failure, due to more uncertainty. However, for ventures that succeed, the early birds do much better than the johnny-come-latelys. Had the WAC signed with CSTV when the MWC did, we'd be looking at an equal division of the prime slots. It didn't happen. As Jeffrey Holland, who was president of BYU when I was there frequently stated, "the opportunity of a lifetime has to be taken during the lifetime of the opportunity."
3. Precedent. The numbers, unfortunately, speak for themselves: MWC schools will get about 12 times as much from their TV deal as the WAC. Although I'd like to think that my conference is the better of the two, speaking collectively, it's not 12 times better, not by a long shot. So did the WAC buy too heavily into the "exposure is all that matters" mindset and sell itself short? Alas, I think so. Even more unfortunate is the reputation and precedent it sets, which will hurt in not just CSTV negotiations but everywhere else. It's sort of like an outsourcing firm in India, suddenly thinking it can demand the same price as a firm is paying its current workforce.
Actually, that's arguably a valid analogy: CSTV and the mtn are, in effect, offering to "out source" some of their bandwidth to various conferences. Since they won't be getting the WAC's best games, which belong to ESPN, it can't ever be a relationship of equals, sadly. But is it better than nothing? That's for the WAC powers that be to decide.
I suspect that someone, be it the WAC, Big Sky, Big West or a combination, will fill those slots. The only question is who and when.
![[Image: mhlnew.jpg]](http://jmcz.com/mhlnew.jpg)
