Over the last month or two there has been a lot of talk about what direction the MAC should pursue. IMO, here is what needs to be done:

1. Eliminate the 2 divisions in everything except football. Or, at they very least, eliminate them in men's bball. We are one of only 4 conferences that still employs 2 divisions in bball, and the other 3 should be well below us in name recognition. Having 2 divisions is hurting us overall. The MAC West should be better if the ho-hum division winner is removed. A 2nd or 3rd place finish in the West means you are likely in the bottom 6 or 7 teams in the league. Would a harsh reality check in the standings have prompted positive coaching changes sooner at some West institutions? Probably. If we want to get back to a 2 bid league in the NCAA, we need to improve all 12 teams.

2. Return to an 18 game league schedule. I'm sorry but our programs can't be trusted to schedule 14 competitive non conference foes. Being a one bid league means we have no business scheduling a "patsy" at home that is a guaranteed win. It's obvious the selection committee does not care if we have a 26 win team that loses in the semi's or finals of the MACC. We need to schedule properly and make every game count. Otherwise, we are gonna be complaining about being on the outside looking in for another 10+ years. The 18 game schedule means every team plays 7 opponents in a home and away series. Rotate these opponents while keeping the home and away series with every rival. BG and Toledo need to play twice every year. Same with WMU vs CMU, Akron and Kent, and any others I missed.

3. Stop babbling about who the MAC should add to our conference. I'm sorry but nobody is knocking on our door begging to be an all sports member. Our conference has limitations right now. I don't like them, but it's reality. The fact of the matter is that bball conferences like the MVC, A10, etc, all look down on the MAC. There isn't a single school that sees the value in joining the MAC right now. The reason for this is our ridiculous performances in bball. Fix our bball rep and all of the sudden, it makes sense. We can talk about "expanding our footprint" all we want. We aren't a BCS school that has access to a major tv market that pays big bucks for our product right now. Adding FCS schools in all sports weakens us right now. It dilutes our football which is our strength.

4. We need to strengthen our own brand first! This will make these teams want to join us. That's a novel concept! Ever date a girl because you didn't have any other options? Well, its because you weren't attractive enough (your personality, don't be so shallow)! Let's make our conference attractive thru hardwork and results. I vote for holding out for a babe or two that really bring something to the table rather than settling for the drunk girl who already has a boyfriend and you know it's gonna be a one night thing. No more one sport only deals! We need to stop acting like pimps and whores.

5. All 12 of our teams need to be committed to basketball. It cannot be an afterthought. And football cannot lose it's momentum in the meantime. This starts by 1. A commitment by all members to increase their bball budgets. It won't be easy, but it needs to be done. and 2. our MAC leadership needs to AGGRESSIVELY explore ways we can generate revenue thru tv contracts. This will help with the budget increases.

6. We need to explore the idea of a MAC TV Network. We have a secondary product in MI, IL, Ohio, IN, and PA. We provide the product on the field and others reap the advertising $$$$! We need to partner with a network (Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN, or ABC) and allow them 49% ownership in the whole deal. Some may think this is farfetched, but I don't. We need to think bigger. In ten years, you will see every BCS conference with their own tv network. This type of thing doesn't happen overnight. We need to start now so the future does hit us with a slap in the face.

Good talk!

All good points. I'm not sure that administrations are committed to winning though.

Sounds good.

Also all the MAC FB fans need to support your schools basketball team. Every little bit will help. A few more hundred people (non students) at every home Friday night/weekend game will go a long way in attracting more students. More student could add another few hundred. Then all of the sudden those games could have a thousand more people than you have now. All of that would make a more enjoyable atmosphere.

Agree on all points.. Especially the TV deal.. Being in Buffalo, I constantly see Niagara and Canisius have their product on the ESPN Networks because the MAAC has a much better television deal than we do. This past Friday, the MAAC had games on ESPN2 and ESPNU.

(02-27-2012 09:54 AM)EA3 Wrote:  6. We need to explore the idea of a MAC TV Network. We have a secondary product in MI, IL, Ohio, IN, and PA. We provide the product on the field and others reap the advertising $$$$! We need to partner with a network (Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN, or ABC) and allow them 49% ownership in the whole deal. Some may think this is farfetched, but I don't. We need to think bigger. In ten years, you will see every BCS conference with their own tv network. This type of thing doesn't happen overnight. We need to start now so the future does hit us with a slap in the face.

Good talk!

Use Temple's exit $$ to launch what you have described. It will benefit all. Would the current ESPN contract allow this? Also, with Temple leaving, UMass new, and talks of adding 1-3 new teams, at what point can the ESPN contract be re-opened for negotiations?

(02-27-2012 01:00 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 09:54 AM)EA3 Wrote:  6. We need to explore the idea of a MAC TV Network. We have a secondary product in MI, IL, Ohio, IN, and PA. We provide the product on the field and others reap the advertising $$$$! We need to partner with a network (Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN, or ABC) and allow them 49% ownership in the whole deal. Some may think this is farfetched, but I don't. We need to think bigger. In ten years, you will see every BCS conference with their own tv network. This type of thing doesn't happen overnight. We need to start now so the future does hit us with a slap in the face.

Good talk!

Use Temple's exit $$ to launch what you have described. It will benefit all. Would the current ESPN contract allow this? Also, with Temple leaving, UMass new, and talks of adding 1-3 new teams, at what point can the ESPN contract be re-opened for negotiations?

No clue what the logistics are, but it needs to happen.

(02-27-2012 12:45 PM)BullBoy Wrote:  Agree on all points.. Especially the TV deal.. Being in Buffalo, I constantly see Niagara and Canisius have their product on the ESPN Networks because the MAAC has a much better television deal than we do. This past Friday, the MAAC had games on ESPN2 and ESPNU.

Not that special, the majority of the MAAC's ESPN deal are ESPN3 games that ESPN produces. The MAC has ESPN/ESPN2/U deals but our ESPN3 games are not counted in our deal because we have other outlets, rather than having ESPN produce then.

Canisius didn't have a single game broadcast above ESPN3 this season, and Niagara had only 3 ESPN3 matchups and 1 ESPNU game, and only because they were playing @ Iona. UB has better exposure with 1 on the U, many on ESPN3, 4 STO games and the Dayton game on FS Ohio.

So you want to stop the insanity by keeping the insanity going?

(02-27-2012 02:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So you want to stop the insanity by keeping the insanity going?

I suppose that depends on what part you think is insane.

A MAC TV network wouldn't even get off the ground floor.

Currently we have two examples of Conferences/Teams having their own network, with the PAC-12 to begin sometime this year.

The Big Ten network got nowhere until they took all the Ohio State-Indiana and Michigan-Purdue type games off the ESPN "extra" channels that picked up syndicated games in the midwest. Then they waited for sidewalk alumni to call their cable companies screaming that they want their Michigan/OSU football back. Given that they had the vast majority of the games, the cable/satellite companies caved. The PAC-12 setup is similar, though regionalized so it will probably have more fits and sputters getting everywhere in their footprint.

The Longhorn network is on Verizon FIOS and about 3 cable companies. Neither satellite company is interested. They only get 1-2 football games a year, and even as big a name as Texas is, there isn't enough interest in having the channel for 3 hours once or twice in the fall.

MAC schools can't even get 20,000 on average to come to football games that by and large are dirt cheap to attend. There's no way you're going to create enough demand for cable companies to pick up the channel, which is why FOX/ESPN/CBS/NBC will laugh when you call them offering 49% ownership and hang up.

(02-28-2012 06:31 PM)bronconick Wrote:  A MAC TV network wouldn't even get off the ground floor.

Currently we have two examples of Conferences/Teams having their own network, with the PAC-12 to begin sometime this year.

The Big Ten network got nowhere until they took all the Ohio State-Indiana and Michigan-Purdue type games off the ESPN "extra" channels that picked up syndicated games in the midwest. Then they waited for sidewalk alumni to call their cable companies screaming that they want their Michigan/OSU football back. Given that they had the vast majority of the games, the cable/satellite companies caved. The PAC-12 setup is similar, though regionalized so it will probably have more fits and sputters getting everywhere in their footprint.

The Longhorn network is on Verizon FIOS and about 3 cable companies. Neither satellite company is interested. They only get 1-2 football games a year, and even as big a name as Texas is, there isn't enough interest in having the channel for 3 hours once or twice in the fall.

MAC schools can't even get 20,000 on average to come to football games that by and large are dirt cheap to attend. There's no way you're going to create enough demand for cable companies to pick up the channel, which is why FOX/ESPN/CBS/NBC will laugh when you call them offering 49% ownership and hang up.

I refuse to believe this can't be done. Starting this project now means it will take years before it is a reality.

The Mountain West has/had their own network. It's up in the air now that membership is in limbo. It's only a matter of time until all BCS conferences have one. If it makes sense for a network to pump some obscure bball matchup between 2 schools in the northwest into my television package, then it can be done.

ESPN pays for our football. STO carries bball games. I pose the question, if there was a MAC station, and it paid only for itself, but didn't pay out to the schools, would it be worth it? My answer would be yes. We need our product on tv as much as possible.

(02-28-2012 07:52 PM)EA3 Wrote:  I refuse to believe this can't be done. Starting this project now means it will take years before it is a reality.

The Mountain West has/had their own network. It's up in the air now that membership is in limbo. It's only a matter of time until all BCS conferences have one.

ESPN pays for our football. STO carries bball games. I pose the question, if there was a MAC station, and it paid only for itself, but didn't pay out to the schools, would it be worth it? My answer would be yes. We need our product on tv as much as possible.

I think this can be done. Interesting article about the PAC-12's new network that they are just now launching. They are going the Digital Network route just like the MAC and then a regional traditional cable network but sounds like it will just cover the western part of the country.

In the article it says this:
"Both options would take several million dollars in start up capital which might make the school presidents pause a bit. "

I have no idea how much any of this costs, but we already have 1/2 of this already launched and this article says "several million" for both. NOT "tens of millions". If it really is in that ballpark, there is no reason we can't launch a Network similar to the PAC-12's. We already have the MAC Digital Network which is not only 1/2 of what they are trying to launch, but is nearly the SAME. Both are run by XOS Digital. See their logo next to ours http://www.xosdigital.com/SportsNetwork.aspx

We just need to strengthen the quality of production.


Now, for the other half.

PAC-12 is also creating an old-school cable network to compliment the new media one by:
"This would involve taking an existing channel (such as league partner Fox Sports's Los Angeles-based Prime Ticket channel) and rebranding it, with new offices and studios"

Why can't we do the very same thing with STO, Fox Sports Ohio, or somebody else ? STO has the added bonus of having a DirecTV, Dish, and ATT-Uverse channel so beyond the regional MAC footprint with cable, it would go national.

all for "several million" ?? Where do we get "several million"? Temple.

Here is the referenced article:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...8/30281603


This seems very doable and we actually have the resources and connections to pull it off. Needs to be done.
.

No doubt it would be a nice middle finger to Temple...taking their money and building something that helps our conference make money and provide better product. The verdict is out on whether or not Temple was able to do that for us.

The Mountain West is merging with CUSA in part to get out from under their own network and get a new TV contract.

That's hardly a glittering endorsement. So five years after this disaster, we'll beg the Sun Belt to merge with us so we can get our games off of MACTV.

(02-28-2012 08:29 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The Mountain West is merging with CUSA in part to get out from under their own network and get a new TV contract.

That's hardly a glittering endorsement. So five years after this disaster, we'll beg the Sun Belt to merge with us so we can get our games off of MACTV.

Not that I think our own network is really feasible but the big problem with the MWN is the lack of people in their area especially after losing Utah, BYU, and TCU.

(02-28-2012 08:29 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The Mountain West is merging with CUSA in part to get out from under their own network and get a new TV contract.

That's hardly a glittering endorsement. So five years after this disaster, we'll beg the Sun Belt to merge with us so we can get our games off of MACTV.

I think that the MW Network, MWC and CUSA will all dissolve and start from scratch. The new "Alliance" will then be free to get the biggest Tier 1 TV Contract it can get and will be out from the 1.3MM or so the MWC was getting before.

After the Merger and TV deal is settled, I think the core of the MountainWest Sports Network will re-launch under a new name and new contract with the new schools and will air the Tier 2 and Tier 3 games.

My understanding is that the MW Network had to do this the same as the conferences had to dissolve. It is likely that a new TV deal will pay more than the old MW Network, but that doesn't mean it will not exist and be a strategic media platform in the future.

(02-28-2012 08:29 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The Mountain West is merging with CUSA in part to get out from under their own network and get a new TV contract.

That's hardly a glittering endorsement. So five years after this disaster, we'll beg the Sun Belt to merge with us so we can get our games off of MACTV.

A new tv contract for the leftover schools is the result, not the cause of merging conferences. If the Mountain West wants off their network creation, it is because their product is a shell of what it was 5 years ago. How many marquee schools can they lose and still have demand? Why would advertisers pump money into such a volatile situation? The one thing the MAC has that they didn't is stability.

The MAC needs to sell/broadcast as many MAC games as they can for the most revenue it can get to TV partners. All other games need to be broadcast on the MAC Channel to as wide of audience as possible for extra exposure and revenue. That's why the MAC needs it's own network.

Demand is increasing.


"XOS Digital, Inc., announced that during a period of increased sponsorship demand for online sports programming, it has added former IMG executive Brian Florko as director of strategic digital partnerships.

XOS Digital has advertising opportunities with multiple high-profile partners including the BIG EAST, Mid-American and Southeastern conferences"

http://www.xosdigital.com/Corporate/XOSA...s-pro.aspx


.

Even if you had the MAC network, who would watch it? Like someone said, look at our attendance numbers. Yes we need as much exposure as possible but a MAC network isn't going to give us that because people aren't going to go there to watch games. The games need to be on ESPN in order to reach the masses and to get people to watch it. I think MAC sports to most people are like the nonessential items that are on sale for a great price at the grocery store. You go there to get your Tide, bread, milk, and meat and while you're there you see this nice little item that looks inexpensive and you may be able to use it so you buy it. But you don't go to the store in the first place looking for that item.

(02-28-2012 09:31 PM)Beckman4President Wrote:  Even if you had the MAC network, who would watch it? Like someone said, look at our attendance numbers. Yes we need as much exposure as possible but a MAC network isn't going to give us that because people aren't going to go there to watch games. The games need to be on ESPN in order to reach the masses and to get people to watch it. I think MAC sports to most people are like the nonessential items that are on sale for a great price at the grocery store. You go there to get your Tide, bread, milk, and meat and while you're there you see this nice little item that looks inexpensive and you may be able to use it so you buy it. But you don't go to the store in the first place looking for that item.

This is a good point.

Keep in mind that IF it can be done, it should be done on the appropriate scale. I do think we underestimate the number of casual fans of the MAC are out there. They may not pay money to attend games and/or choose BCS products over ours, but given a non conflicting option to watch semi local products, I believe the choice would be good for us.