(11-01-2013 12:16 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 08:09 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 04:03 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 01:35 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 11:46 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The difficult thing is that by shackling themselves to Boise State, the fate of the whole MW rises and falls with the Broncos...

Let's face it. Fresno State will NEVER capture the mystique of Boise State. The Bulldogs were a dominant team in the 90's and nothing about them...from their location (Fresno) to their mascot (the Bulldog) to their image of scrappy players...ever captured the national imagination. What Boise managed to do with the blue turf, to the winning a BCS bowl on a gimmick play (the Statue of Liberty), to the brawl after beating Oregon, to the image of the guy proposing to the cheerleader after winning the game...Fresno wasn't able to do any of them and probably wouldn't be able to recapture the magic even if they could do them now. And Fresno State is the cream of the MW crop, probably Hawaii is the only other team with a history of success and glamour.

Not saying that the MW had any other alternatives, but if Boise State falls off the table, they drag the whole conference with them.

Ok Bearcatjerry, thanks for replying back to me. But what I still don't understand is, how can a losing Boise still hurt the rest of the conference? The team that takes their place in the conference by winning it and going to the Access bowl will get most of the TV money and of course will get 50% of the access bowl money. Wouldn't Boise be the team screwed in this case? This was not a one way deal; this was a deal to reward the top team in the MWC with the most revenues and it looks like it could back-fire on Boise if they don't win the MWC. Some other team will arise and take Boise's place if they slip. A bad Boise does not drag the rest of the conference off with them. The winner of the MWC gets the spoils. Where are people getting that idea from? This deal actually could back fire for Boise who was a bit overconfident on how well they'd do in the MWC over the next several years. I've seen it written on here numerous times that if Boise sucks they still get the lion share of the conference money. That is not true.

I could be wrong, b/c I never cared enough to look up the details, but I seem to recall that Boise was able to sell its TV rights separately from the rest of the conference, so yes, they do get money that the other conference teams don't, and it hurts the other teams even further, by dragging down their value w/o Boise in the contract mix. Maybe Boise gives a portion of that back to the league pool, but they still get the lion's share, I think.

Beyond that, they negotiated a deal that allows the team on TV more to get a bigger share, so again, they benefit, b/c they are usually that team, regardless of their specific record in any specific year. And that won't change for the length of this contract, in all likelihood.

Beyond that, I think the conference champ does get a larger share than before, of whatever money it makes in the bowl game it attends, so Fresno could capture that part this year, but that's a bowl game with a small payout, unless Fresno becomes a BCS buster.

And even then, Boise, when they negotiated their deal, expected to be that team most, if not all, years, so they weren't doing anybody any favors there, either.

If someone w/ more knowledge of the specifics can verify or correct my impression, feel free to do so, since I'm not 100% positive. But that is what I recall.

I haven't looked at the details since they were announced, but I believe one of the big issues with the tv contract is that the conference takes the money in, and then redistributes the money based upon who was actually on national tv (ESPN, Fox, etc) and what day the game was on. If you're not on tv, you get no tv revenue. They will likely make the revenue up by filling their OOC schedules with as many buy games as they can; games in which they will get killed, which will drive down the SOS of the MWC as a whole, which likely means that the only shot the MWC has of the access bowl is for a team to go completely undefeated and the other G5 teams rack up multiple losses.

So if the SOS becomes a component of the new rankings, the MWC has basically set itself up for a death spiral. The only way the league can get it's hands on a bundle of cash is for a team to make the access bowl. (And even then, the team that makes the access bowl in the MWC gets half of that money.) There simply will be very little money for most of the teams in the MWC conference to share, which makes for a cluster of really bad teams (like they have now, but getting worse) and no way for those teams to get money in a way that can improve their programs. And if they don't make the access bowl at least fairly regularly, there's no interest in any MWC team for tv. It was really all dependent on Boise remaining nationally relevant. Without that, the tv revenue they were counting on will dry up. (It's not like it's a lot of money in the first place.)

(I believe 5 MWC schools are completely shut out of tv revenue.) Furthermore, the tv bonus payouts are guaranteed to the teams, even if the game does not generate that amount of revenue. For instance, if Boise is guaranteed $500K for a game, but the game only generates $300K in revenue, the additional $200K comes from the conference.

With this structure, most of the league will be starving for cash.
Thanks for replying. I have to say that I simply don't think you have your facts right about the contract though. I've never heard of a conference TV contract that completely shuts out one of it's members from any money at all.

For the part about 5 teams being shut out of tv revenue, I read that recently. (Still doesn't make it true, but it was at least reported recently to be the case.) Those 5 schools were not going to be on tv, and would miss out on the revenue altogether.

For the part about the guaranteed payouts, and the conference making up any shortfall to a team if a televised game does not generate the revenue amount of the payout, that was discussed back when the deal was first agreed to. The conference may have since clarified that, but it was reported as a possible issue early on.

I'm certainly no expert on what the deal currently is, but in general, unequal payouts don't usually bode well for conference stability.

How can you be upset with Boise? They saw that the Big East that they thought they were joining was crumbling, and didn't want to be stuck on a western island by themselves in an uncertain conference, so they gouged a very stupid MWC into letting them take their entire TV revenues, and ended up basically even with where our teams will be in 1 year.

I'm not mad at them. They did the best thing for Boise.

If I was another MWC team, however, I'd be looking for the exits ASAP. They were absolutely steemrolled by Boise and they're now playing 5th fiddle to them in the conference.

(11-01-2013 12:16 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 08:09 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 04:03 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 01:35 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 11:46 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The difficult thing is that by shackling themselves to Boise State, the fate of the whole MW rises and falls with the Broncos...

Let's face it. Fresno State will NEVER capture the mystique of Boise State. The Bulldogs were a dominant team in the 90's and nothing about them...from their location (Fresno) to their mascot (the Bulldog) to their image of scrappy players...ever captured the national imagination. What Boise managed to do with the blue turf, to the winning a BCS bowl on a gimmick play (the Statue of Liberty), to the brawl after beating Oregon, to the image of the guy proposing to the cheerleader after winning the game...Fresno wasn't able to do any of them and probably wouldn't be able to recapture the magic even if they could do them now. And Fresno State is the cream of the MW crop, probably Hawaii is the only other team with a history of success and glamour.

Not saying that the MW had any other alternatives, but if Boise State falls off the table, they drag the whole conference with them.

Ok Bearcatjerry, thanks for replying back to me. But what I still don't understand is, how can a losing Boise still hurt the rest of the conference? The team that takes their place in the conference by winning it and going to the Access bowl will get most of the TV money and of course will get 50% of the access bowl money. Wouldn't Boise be the team screwed in this case? This was not a one way deal; this was a deal to reward the top team in the MWC with the most revenues and it looks like it could back-fire on Boise if they don't win the MWC. Some other team will arise and take Boise's place if they slip. A bad Boise does not drag the rest of the conference off with them. The winner of the MWC gets the spoils. Where are people getting that idea from? This deal actually could back fire for Boise who was a bit overconfident on how well they'd do in the MWC over the next several years. I've seen it written on here numerous times that if Boise sucks they still get the lion share of the conference money. That is not true.

I could be wrong, b/c I never cared enough to look up the details, but I seem to recall that Boise was able to sell its TV rights separately from the rest of the conference, so yes, they do get money that the other conference teams don't, and it hurts the other teams even further, by dragging down their value w/o Boise in the contract mix. Maybe Boise gives a portion of that back to the league pool, but they still get the lion's share, I think.

Beyond that, they negotiated a deal that allows the team on TV more to get a bigger share, so again, they benefit, b/c they are usually that team, regardless of their specific record in any specific year. And that won't change for the length of this contract, in all likelihood.

Beyond that, I think the conference champ does get a larger share than before, of whatever money it makes in the bowl game it attends, so Fresno could capture that part this year, but that's a bowl game with a small payout, unless Fresno becomes a BCS buster.

And even then, Boise, when they negotiated their deal, expected to be that team most, if not all, years, so they weren't doing anybody any favors there, either.

If someone w/ more knowledge of the specifics can verify or correct my impression, feel free to do so, since I'm not 100% positive. But that is what I recall.

I haven't looked at the details since they were announced, but I believe one of the big issues with the tv contract is that the conference takes the money in, and then redistributes the money based upon who was actually on national tv (ESPN, Fox, etc) and what day the game was on. If you're not on tv, you get no tv revenue. They will likely make the revenue up by filling their OOC schedules with as many buy games as they can; games in which they will get killed, which will drive down the SOS of the MWC as a whole, which likely means that the only shot the MWC has of the access bowl is for a team to go completely undefeated and the other G5 teams rack up multiple losses.

So if the SOS becomes a component of the new rankings, the MWC has basically set itself up for a death spiral. The only way the league can get it's hands on a bundle of cash is for a team to make the access bowl. (And even then, the team that makes the access bowl in the MWC gets half of that money.) There simply will be very little money for most of the teams in the MWC conference to share, which makes for a cluster of really bad teams (like they have now, but getting worse) and no way for those teams to get money in a way that can improve their programs. And if they don't make the access bowl at least fairly regularly, there's no interest in any MWC team for tv. It was really all dependent on Boise remaining nationally relevant. Without that, the tv revenue they were counting on will dry up. (It's not like it's a lot of money in the first place.)

(I believe 5 MWC schools are completely shut out of tv revenue.) Furthermore, the tv bonus payouts are guaranteed to the teams, even if the game does not generate that amount of revenue. For instance, if Boise is guaranteed $500K for a game, but the game only generates $300K in revenue, the additional $200K comes from the conference.

With this structure, most of the league will be starving for cash.
Thanks for replying. I have to say that I simply don't think you have your facts right about the contract though. I've never heard of a conference TV contract that completely shuts out one of it's members from any money at all.

It was structured so that it is impossible for the cellar-dweller to be shut out of the money. Those on national TV will cash in ($300K per weekday game, $500K per weekend game), but there is a blanket pool of money that will help the bottom of the league...and the "floor" is comparable to TV deals of other G5 leagues.

As part of the deal to return to the MWC, Boise State's home games are in perpetuity excluded from being packaged with the rest of the league's TV deal. However, the proceeds from whatever TV deal that Boise State is able to strike are returned to the league. Boise State's current deal with ESPN goes through 2019, and includes guaranteed national TV apperances...which translates into guaranteed bonus money. As long as Boise State retains its national appeal, there will be a market for its home games. A down year or two is not going to destroy the national interest the Bronocos have been able to build...even this year our ratings are still good, even if our Win/Loss record is below our standard. It's kinda like the Lakers...whether you love 'em or hate 'em, you still watch 'em. And that's why networks love broadcasting the Broncos.

(11-01-2013 12:41 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  How can you be upset with Boise? They saw that the Big East that they thought they were joining was crumbling, and didn't want to be stuck on a western island by themselves in an uncertain conference, so they gouged a very stupid MWC into letting them take their entire TV revenues, and ended up basically even with where our teams will be in 1 year.

Yeah, I don't blame Boise and SDSU for backing out. Once the BCS bid was gone the arrangement really didn't make sense anymore.

The only way it could have been saved would be to go to a national conference model. When we invited ECU and Tulane instead of Fresno and UNLV it was clear that wasn't going to happen.

(11-01-2013 01:00 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 12:41 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  How can you be upset with Boise? They saw that the Big East that they thought they were joining was crumbling, and didn't want to be stuck on a western island by themselves in an uncertain conference, so they gouged a very stupid MWC into letting them take their entire TV revenues, and ended up basically even with where our teams will be in 1 year.

Yeah, I don't blame Boise and SDSU for backing out. Once the BCS bid was gone the arrangement really didn't make sense anymore.

The only way it could have been saved would be to go to a national conference model. When we invited ECU and Tulane instead of Fresno and UNLV it was clear that wasn't going to happen.

I still think that it's unfortunate that the western presence for the conference didn't work out, but I'm happy to have the programs that were invited. I'm just not yet buying the scenario that Boise is going to sink into a blue sunset never to be heard from again in the major bowl arena.

(11-01-2013 12:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 04:03 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 01:35 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 11:46 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The difficult thing is that by shackling themselves to Boise State, the fate of the whole MW rises and falls with the Broncos...

Let's face it. Fresno State will NEVER capture the mystique of Boise State. The Bulldogs were a dominant team in the 90's and nothing about them...from their location (Fresno) to their mascot (the Bulldog) to their image of scrappy players...ever captured the national imagination. What Boise managed to do with the blue turf, to the winning a BCS bowl on a gimmick play (the Statue of Liberty), to the brawl after beating Oregon, to the image of the guy proposing to the cheerleader after winning the game...Fresno wasn't able to do any of them and probably wouldn't be able to recapture the magic even if they could do them now. And Fresno State is the cream of the MW crop, probably Hawaii is the only other team with a history of success and glamour.

Not saying that the MW had any other alternatives, but if Boise State falls off the table, they drag the whole conference with them.

Ok Bearcatjerry, thanks for replying back to me. But what I still don't understand is, how can a losing Boise still hurt the rest of the conference? The team that takes their place in the conference by winning it and going to the Access bowl will get most of the TV money and of course will get 50% of the access bowl money. Wouldn't Boise be the team screwed in this case? This was not a one way deal; this was a deal to reward the top team in the MWC with the most revenues and it looks like it could back-fire on Boise if they don't win the MWC. Some other team will arise and take Boise's place if they slip. A bad Boise does not drag the rest of the conference off with them. The winner of the MWC gets the spoils. Where are people getting that idea from? This deal actually could back fire for Boise who was a bit overconfident on how well they'd do in the MWC over the next several years. I've seen it written on here numerous times that if Boise sucks they still get the lion share of the conference money. That is not true.

I could be wrong, b/c I never cared enough to look up the details, but I seem to recall that Boise was able to sell its TV rights separately from the rest of the conference, so yes, they do get money that the other conference teams don't, and it hurts the other teams even further, by dragging down their value w/o Boise in the contract mix. Maybe Boise gives a portion of that back to the league pool, but they still get the lion's share, I think.

Beyond that, they negotiated a deal that allows the team on TV more to get a bigger share, so again, they benefit, b/c they are usually that team, regardless of their specific record in any specific year. And that won't change for the length of this contract, in all likelihood.

Beyond that, I think the conference champ does get a larger share than before, of whatever money it makes in the bowl game it attends, so Fresno could capture that part this year, but that's a bowl game with a small payout, unless Fresno becomes a BCS buster.

And even then, Boise, when they negotiated their deal, expected to be that team most, if not all, years, so they weren't doing anybody any favors there, either.

If someone w/ more knowledge of the specifics can verify or correct my impression, feel free to do so, since I'm not 100% positive. But that is what I recall.

I've replied to your comments in bold. Yes, the Boise TV schedule is negotiated separate from the rest of the conference. The money gets thrown back in the pot to be divided up. No, Boise doesn't get the lions share of the TV money automatically. The teams in the MW that get the most TV appearances as well as the team who wins the access bowl gets the majority of the money. Again, this is not a one way deal, for Boise to get the lion share of the money they have to get the lion share of the TV games and win the access bowl. The MW deal sounds like the old Big 12 deal that Nebraska always insisted be a part of the package. The team on tv the most, gets the most tv money.

Of course they have to get the most TV time to get the most out of it. But they will likely be the team on TV the most, even when they don't win the conference. I think they get some % of their TV deal for themselves, too. And the bowl game the champ goes to doesn't help much, either way, unless it's the access slot, but that was going to be that way anyway, and Boise still expected to be that team most years, if the MWC got that slot.

I'm confused. Are you saying the deal Boise negotiated with the MWC is fair and even for all schools, and Boise gets nothing extra unless they earn it? They get more if they earn it, but they start out ahead of the pack.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/football-5/...us-payouts

Above is a recent article on the payouts. The author spins the positive.

There are two payment pools, the $1M CBS pool and the $6M ESPN pool. All teams share the $1M pool, but there is a catch to that noted below.

The $6M pool is used to pay teams for tv appearances; $300K for weekday, and $500K for weekend games on qualifying networks. But here's the catch, the $6M ESPN pool may not be enough to cover the bonuses. If not, then the $1M CBS pool is used. If the additional CBS pool isn't enough, well, they don't know where the money is coming from. They do know that it wont come from the NCAA basketball tournament credit fund.

As noted in the article, there are 5 teams that are currently shut out of the bonus pool. (Although Hawaii has its own contract this year.) If one of their games gets picked up, they could get some bonus. But none of their games were schedule to be picked up at the time of the article.

The teams that are shut out of the bonus would still share the $1M CBS pool, but only after the bonus pool is paid out. If the ESPN pool does not cover all of the bonuses, then the CBS pool will be used to fund the remainder before that pool is divided between the conference members.

What is striking is that, even under the best situation, no one is looking at a lot of money. There is little tv sets in their footprint, so it's important that some team remains nationally relevant to keep ESPN coming back. Their normal conference tv package is and was pathetic, and even worse, iron-clad, which is why they are in the state they are today. Without tv sets, their normal conference tv rights will always be limited. Without a nationally relevant team, ESPN will have little interest. They don't generate a tremendous amount of NCAA basketball credits. They are simply a conference that is revenue handicapped at every angle.