(12-16-2019 09:29 PM)Out West Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:16 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 09:12 PM)Out West Wrote:  Neither BYU or any MWC team will pursue AAC membership until there is an AAC binding agreement in place. Why join AAC if it is perceived that AAC might lost a team or teams to B12? The B12 contract has to play out and renewed without any B12 expansion before the AAC is in a position to attract BYU or a MWC school. My guess is AAC stays at 11 teams for the next six years or so.

The AAC has a waiver for only two years and an extension is unlikely. The AAC will probably be forced to add a football team.

Some help please on this! I think it was posted on this board that AAC could play with 11 teams with two divisions, one with 6 teams and one with 5 teams, and still have a conference championship game. Is this correct?

Scheduling in this 5/6 divisional setup would probably not be any worse than scheduling no divisions 11 team AAC. The Sun Belt has two divisions of 5 teams as a reference.

The rule as presently written: conference can be divisionless with full conference round robin and CCG between top two, or divisions with division round robin and CCG between division winners. The waiver the AAC got was to go divisionless without the full conference round robin and still have a CCG between top two.
Without a waiver renewal, or an overall legislative change, the AAC could stay with its present 11-team membership, in divisions of 6 and 5 teams, and play a divisional round robin and have a CCG between the two division winners. The challenge there is that you can't build a schedule with 11 teams having 8 conference games each: you could have two teams play 7 and nine teams play 8, or two teams play 9 and nine teams play 8.
It's not just hard in terms of fitting the puzzle pieces together. It's uneven and just sloppy, with the possibility of division standings or CCG host being decided between 7-1/6-1 teams or 6-2/5-2 teams.

Look out MWC

(12-16-2019 09:59 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Look out MWC

MWC gonna wake up in a bathtub missing a few teams...

(12-16-2019 08:30 PM)pesik Wrote:  the 7mil vs 3mil thing, is fun for bragging rights but in the bigger picture of things we have budgets of 60mil, the difference 3 or 7 wont make or break anyone

the biggest part for them is separating from ESPN...people dont realize the domino effect of being on espn.....
late nights on fs1 ..regular hours on cbssports/fs2 ..the max their games might be rated (not counting boise games which is seprate ) might be 200k, and the majority will be loyalist

it hard to be build program momentum without eyes...being on espn's main channels is what made us ...the demise of the pac 12 started when they went to smaller networks ...

houston vs oregon (@houston/aac controlled) was over 1mill views...houston vs oreogon (@oregon/pac 12 controlled) was on the pac 12 network with almost no one watching it

if your programs are doing good who will see it....fans to create buzz? recruits to fall in love with your program? when your progrma does good, it wont mean as much without many eyes

Very interesting post, in that you're focusing on the big picture (vs. small picture) kind of thinking that is going on at the networks, conferences, and institutions.

The $3 vs $7 million being only one small part of the overall equation is very notable, especially if any MWC addition(s) would be for FB only. The ~$2.75 to $3 million increase would have to be allocated, in part (perhaps $1+ million), to increased travel expenses.

What matters more than $$ is the longer-term impact on the national viewership, brand, and perception of each potential member.

Yes, a new AAC member would get some financial benefit, but for it to be worthwhile to them, the benefits would have to be calculated in terms of boosts in their program's national profile, and related benefits, such as recruiting, increased competitiveness, and even the future overall success of the program's university as a whole.

Along these lines, it is of interest that some AAC schools appear to have reaped some significant benefits, in terms of their overall national recognition, increased endowments, and academic selectivity.

My own alma mater, Temple, is a great example. Temple's endowment appears to have grown steadily since the move to the AAC, and the university's overall level of academic selectivity has increased substantially during this period. In addition, Temple achieved R1 research status during its membership in the AAC.

(12-16-2019 09:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 07:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The positive is it opens up more time slots on the ESPN networks for ESPN properties.

But many of those time slots are late night, and more valuable to us if we add one or more MWC properties in the Mountain time zone.

2019 MWC ESPN time slots expressed in CST (potentially attractive slots for current 11 in bold)

Friday
8 PM ESPN2
8 PM ESPN2
8:30 PM ESPN2
8:30 PM ESPN2

Saturday
9:15 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPN2
7 PM ESPNU
9:30 PM ESPN2
9 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPNU
6:30 PM ESPNU
9:15 PM ESPN2
9 PM ESPN2
9:30 PM ESPNU
9:15 PM ESPN
3 PM ESPNU
6 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPN2
9:30 ESPN2

I am sure ESPN's first choice would be to get more Pac 12 games (from Fox) to fill these slots.

Yup----any Central Time Zone team could easily take those slots. Teams in the south would probably love those start times in August/September over 11AM or 2:30 slots in the under the hot sun in 95 degree heat.

(12-16-2019 10:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 08:30 PM)pesik Wrote:  the 7mil vs 3mil thing, is fun for bragging rights but in the bigger picture of things we have budgets of 60mil, the difference 3 or 7 wont make or break anyone

the biggest part for them is separating from ESPN...people dont realize the domino effect of being on espn.....
late nights on fs1 ..regular hours on cbssports/fs2 ..the max their games might be rated (not counting boise games which is seprate ) might be 200k, and the majority will be loyalist

it hard to be build program momentum without eyes...being on espn's main channels is what made us ...the demise of the pac 12 started when they went to smaller networks ...

houston vs oregon (@houston/aac controlled) was over 1mill views...houston vs oreogon (@oregon/pac 12 controlled) was on the pac 12 network with almost no one watching it

if your programs are doing good who will see it....fans to create buzz? recruits to fall in love with your program? when your progrma does good, it wont mean as much without many eyes

Very interesting post, in that you're focusing on the big picture (vs. small picture) kind of thinking that is going on at the networks, conferences, and institutions.

The $3 vs $7 million being only one small part of the overall equation is very notable, especially if any MWC addition(s) would be for FB only. The ~$2.75 to $3 million increase would have to be allocated, in part (perhaps $1+ million), to increased travel expenses.

What matters more than $$ is the longer-term impact on the national viewership, brand, and perception of each potential member.

Yes, a new AAC member would get some financial benefit, but for it to be worthwhile to them, the benefits would have to be calculated in terms of boosts in their program's national profile, and related benefits, such as recruiting, increased competitiveness, and even the future overall success of the program's university as a whole.

Along these lines, it is of interest that some AAC schools appear to have reaped some significant benefits, in terms of their overall national recognition, increased endowments, and academic selectivity.

My own alma mater, Temple, is a great example. Temple's endowment appears to have grown steadily since the move to the AAC, and the university's overall level of academic selectivity has increased substantially during this period. In addition, Temple achieved R1 research status during its membership in the AAC.

Very solid post. American Conference meant more than athletics. That is my personal vision I have towards its memberships. So that is why in this next round conference realignment, I'd target a school with good academic profile. So no Boise-likes.

MWC will now lose teams to the AAC as we’ve cemented ourselves as far more valuable than their collective brand

(12-16-2019 09:24 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 08:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---thats better than I thought they would do and its a bit more than Thompson originally believed they would get. He had said on multiple occasions that they would not get as much as Hawaii was getting from their Oceanic Pay-per-View deal (2.3 million a year).

Its interesting that FOX has now snaked ESPN out of the rights to 13 FBS schools over the last 12 months. They got the rights to UConn last summer when the Big East expanded. Now they took around 15 games of western late night inventory (and all the Boise games) from ESPN. They took the Big East Catholic schools in 2013 and then half of ESPN's Big10 inventory just a few years ago. As far as western inventory---ESPN still has half the Pac12 inventory plus BYU.

So---just a few days ago we learned that ESPN was talking with the AAC about their TV deal now that UConn is gone. The question now is---Does ESPN take this loss of inventory lying down....or might the current AAC talks be about western expansion? The Mouse could then quickly reclaim anywhere from 6 to 18 games of western inventory by financing a 1 to 3 team AAC western grab.

Boise isn't part of this deal and Hawaii gets the extra over what the average deal would be. So its 600k or so to Hawaii, the rest divided by 10 so a little over/under 3m for the non Boise schools. Boise will keep most of its money and kick in some for the league so probably somewhere between 4.5 and 5 for Boise a couple extra 100k to the other schools.

The question here is do the schools retain their third tier rights? For schools like San Diego St, UNLV and maybe New Mexico or CSU that would mean a nice bump for that package to local or regional broadcast as well as kick off time control. SDSU could probably get in to spitting distance of Boise maybe CSU too.

Thats what the article says---but these things are often a little off on the details early on. I suspect there is some confusion involved. For one thing, the package that ESPN owned included all the Boise games as well the the formerly second tier CBS content that was returned to the MW when the existing deal was reworked in late 2012. ESPN was paying a total of about 6 million for ALL the Boise games and the former CBS-Sports content. Its pretty darned unlikley FOX would pay almost 3 times as much for the same package WITHOUT getting the Boise games. That just doesnt make much sense. Frankly, the whole purchase is suprising to me. Im wondering if FOX is going to fire up FS-2 for some Saturday football action. The only other explanation is that the Pac12 has made it crystal clear they arent doing nearly as many late night games going forward and FOX is grabbing some MW inventory to slide into those soon to be open late night slots.

Here is how the Boise/Hawaii thing actually works. Hawaii's deal is a complete stand alone deal. They take no share of the MW TV deal unless the MW starts making more than Hawaii. The Boise package is handled differently. The revenue from the sale of the Boise games goes into the shared income of the remaining 11 teams. When it is divided---Boise gets the first 1.8 million. The remaining TV revenue is then divided equally among the 11 teams until they reach 2.3 million a share. Above that amount, it sounds like it will be divided by all 12 teams.

Colorado State and Boise State Come on down!

one thing being overlooked....no college gameday, ever for the MWC...

The deal is for $35 mil for 10 teams (Bosie and Hawaii have seperate deals). That comes to $3.5 mil per school, and if that doesn't include 3rd teir rights that can be an extra $1 mil for schools like SDSU. No production costs and less years locked in... not bad for the MWC.

Jay Tust

@KTVBSportsGuy
UPDATE regarding the potential new MW television deal that was reported earlier tonight...

From the @MountainWest:

“The story is inaccurate as reported. No deal has been signed by any party and negotiations are ongoing.”

I thought that Disney bought all of Fox Sports channels?

(12-16-2019 11:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Jay Tust

@KTVBSportsGuy
UPDATE regarding the potential new MW television deal that was reported earlier tonight...

From the @MountainWest:

“The story is inaccurate as reported. No deal has been signed by any party and negotiations are ongoing.”

But it's not April 1st, not fair...

(12-16-2019 11:54 PM)muffinman Wrote:  I thought that Disney bought all of Fox Sports channels?

Only Fox regional Sports Networks, which they have sold to STADIUM as mandated by the terms of the Merger/Purchase.

(12-17-2019 12:06 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:54 PM)muffinman Wrote:  I thought that Disney bought all of Fox Sports channels?

Only Fox regional Sports Networks, which they have sold to STADIUM as mandated by the terms of the Merger/Purchase.

Sinclair Broadcasting bought the Fox Sports channels. I believe Sinclair owns Stadium. Used to be a shareholder.

(12-17-2019 12:10 AM)First Family Forever Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 12:06 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:54 PM)muffinman Wrote:  I thought that Disney bought all of Fox Sports channels?

Only Fox regional Sports Networks, which they have sold to STADIUM as mandated by the terms of the Merger/Purchase.

Sinclair Broadcasting bought the Fox Sports channels. I believe Sinclair owns Stadium. Used to be a shareholder.

I stand corrected, as I was one of the first to post that on this board... I was watching STADIUM to see what they were saying about the FOX deal, so STADIUM was on my mind.

I guess its good for them. They can get their games in slots against other competition instead of ESPN family cross pollination. Not sure how the ESPN: ABC = FOXSN:FOX / CBSSN:CBS math works out as I think OTA FOX and CBS probably won't do their games unless they are T25 battles so most likely CBSSN, FOXS1, FOXSN. And then you have the FOXSNs doing the local NHL, NBA, and MLB broadcasts it will be interesting to see how the shuffling goes. Arguably, ESPN has the better streaming platform.

That said, these figures getting tossed around could be interesting negotiating leverage for the AAC adding a school. That said as well, Boise State kind of jerked around the AAC at the beginning on tv money so...

(12-16-2019 09:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 07:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The positive is it opens up more time slots on the ESPN networks for ESPN properties.

But many of those time slots are late night, and more valuable to us if we add one or more MWC properties in the Mountain time zone.

2019 MWC ESPN time slots expressed in CST (potentially attractive slots for current 11 in bold)

Friday
8 PM ESPN2
8 PM ESPN2
8:30 PM ESPN2
8:30 PM ESPN2

Saturday
9:15 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPN2
7 PM ESPNU
9:30 PM ESPN2
9 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPNU
6:30 PM ESPNU
9:15 PM ESPN2
9 PM ESPN2
9:30 PM ESPNU
9:15 PM ESPN
3 PM ESPNU
6 PM ESPN2
9:15 PM ESPN2
9:30 ESPN2

I am sure ESPN's first choice would be to get more Pac 12 games (from Fox) to fill these slots.

Unless there has been a change of philosophy at ESPN, The AAC can expect a list from ESPN of what programs to take from The MWC. The AAC could ask as many as 3 from The MWC to join in the next few months. ESPN has done it before and they will do it again.

I keep reading in thread that the difference between 3 to 7 million isn’t enough to make any MWC jump; Membership in an Eastern time zone conference is invaluable to a Mountain time zone team.

Media exposure in the East alone makes the move very attractive for MWC teams. Couple that with ESPN’s belief that The AAC is a better conference than The MWC, AAC expansion with MWC teams seems all but certain.