+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: UACbbs (/forum-376.html)
+--- Thread: The new "mtn" network is a total joke (/thread-26990.html)
The new "mtn" network is a total joke - Benjiminer - 08-03-2006 12:24 AM
The folks over at the Mountain Waste Conference were going berzerk
at the total joke of their so called "mtn" network not being carried by satellite and for only being available in 3 states. Three friggin states!!! lmfao I am laughing so hard I want to cry!!!!
Yeah right! They have the better tv deal!!
That conference is going to be in even more obscurity!!! I mean who was the genius to engineer this type of non coverage coverage for their conference? lmfao
- wolf pack 1 - 08-03-2006 12:27 AM
From last I heard, MWC is in talks with cable networks in all the MWC cities to carry it and were at one time in talks with Dish Network and DirecTV to carry it. Its only the beginning of August and a lot could happen by the time the season begins.
However I started laughing when they decided to start their own network.
- Anthony - 08-03-2006 12:30 AM
wolf pack 1 Wrote:From last I heard, MWC is in talks with cable networks in all the MWC cities to carry it and were at one time in talks with Dish Network and DirecTV to carry it. Its only the beginning of August and a lot could happen by the time the season begins.
However I started laughing when they decided to start their own network.
Yeah, I knew it would become a bad idea since the mwc always carried the lowest rated bowl games.
- Yoda - 08-03-2006 06:35 AM
Sorry folks, but I don't agree. They will have more exposure than we will, including:
~ 7 or 8 OOC games various national networks, including ESPN, ABC & TNT, and
~ 7 or 8 home games on OLN / Versus -- which is in 70 million homes (compared to 90 million for ESPN), and
~ 16 or so games on CSTV -- which has 2 to 3 times the reach of ESPNU, and
~ the mtn. -- for everything else.
I realize the criticism here is of the mtn but you can't look at the mtn. in a void. It was always intended to carry everything that nobody else picked up.
To be sure, there are some gaps in their coverage. CSTV isn't available from Cox in San Diego or Las Vegas (I'm guessing that it will be) and the mtn. isn't widely distributed as yet (and probably won't be, first year). Their ratings will suck for now as the casual fan won't often find them but their own fans likely will generally be able to do so.
I was probably the #1 critic of their TV deal on the MWC board -- well, not so much a critic as a skeptic, wanting to see what really was instead of what was promised before joining CJ and the Kool Aid drinkers in celebration of how wonderful their deal was. But now that some of what "really was" has been announced, you've got to be fair. They may not have pulled it off totally as yet, but it looks like they are pulling it off -- better game days and start times, a hell of a lot more money and, apparently, exposure that is every bit as good as they have had on ESPN.
Yoda out...
Dish and Direct - ustate98 - 08-03-2006 07:52 AM
It was reported here in Utah recently that Direct TV and Dish Network are not going to carry the 'mtn' channel and have no current plans of picking it up. So for now it is Comcast only, and with Comcast being a part owner of it I don't think they'll be willing to easily hand over coverage of their channel to their competition. Its just my guess but I don't think you'll see it on other cable company lineups anytime soon, though I could be wrong on that. The OLN/Versus and CSTV is another story.
Re: Dish and Direct - Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 08-03-2006 08:53 AM
ustate98 Wrote:It was reported here in Utah recently that Direct TV and Dish Network are not going to carry the 'mtn' channel and have no current plans of picking it up. So for now it is Comcast only, and with Comcast being a part owner of it I don't think they'll be willing to easily hand over coverage of their channel to their competition. Its just my guess but I don't think you'll see it on other cable company lineups anytime soon, though I could be wrong on that. The OLN/Versus and CSTV is another story.I'd be real surprised if the satellites hold out. The rumor you mention probably stemmed from the article out of New Mexico, but there have been people who have gotten more promising feedback more recently. I do think it will be tougher with Cox in SD and LV and with Charter in FW- those negotiations may go into the season.
Benjiminer has a thing out for the mtn., but I don't think he is thinking about it in the right context. As Yoda says the mtn. is really a "gravy" channel for the rabid MWC fan. It will have football and basketball games that previously would not have been broadcast at all. Plus it will a bunch of sports that previously went unbroadcast. With the Comcast deal in place, its just a matter of time until all of the contracts get ironed out and the vast majority of MWC fans will have access to the content on the mtn. in one form or another (albeit potentially at a premium for some). I would go so far as to say that since all of us on a message board like this are rabid fans, anybody who says they wouldn't want a channel like the mtn. to round out their TV exposure for their team and conference isn't being honest.
Re: Dish and Direct - gaard - 08-03-2006 09:19 AM
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:As Yoda says the mtn. is really a "gravy" channel for the rabid MWC fan.
That is fine if you are a MWC fan that has the "gravy" games available. CSTV wants much more for the rebroadcast rights to the BSU/Wyoming game that it will not be shown in Idaho. It has been several years since a BSU away game has not been available.
Re: Dish and Direct - Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 08-03-2006 09:41 AM
gaard Wrote:It will be available, it will just be through a different medium than what you are used to (i.e. free local TV). Just wait and see. They want to make these games available to as many fans as possible.Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:As Yoda says the mtn. is really a "gravy" channel for the rabid MWC fan.
That is fine if you are a MWC fan that has the "gravy" games available. CSTV wants much more for the rebroadcast rights to the BSU/Wyoming game that it will not be shown in Idaho. It has been several years since a BSU away game has not been available.
Also, your's is not the experience for many schools. In the CUSA and MWC, there were probably half of our games a year that weren't televised. Sorry, but if the choice is for me to see my teams games or for you, I'd pick me- the needs of the conference members should come first with a conference TV package, don't you think?
Re: Dish and Direct - ejmpalle - 08-03-2006 09:50 AM
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:Sorry, but if the choice is for me to see my teams games or for you, I'd pick me- the needs of the conference members should come first with a conference TV package, don't you think?
To a degree. If the games can't get the ratings on national tv to earn a good deal of money for the conference AND (and not or) give our programs national exposure for rankings, then it becomes conditional. If Utah St is playing a home game in BB and it is sold out, I'd like it to be televised, locally, at least. If the game is not sold out, I'd like it to NOT be televised. The same is true for football.
I don't want the WAC to EVER give up national exposure on a major network. Our best teams are too deserving of that kind of exposure. It's really quite valuable (recruiting, name recognition, rankings, etc.), maybe more valuable than a dollar figure.
- BarkBoard - 08-03-2006 09:57 AM
See the problem with that logic Yoda is they very well might be in the homes of millions but no one is going to care to watch.
Their direct tv ratings are going to suffer as a result.
ESPN has credibility and history on it's side and as a result Fresno State has benefited nicely with their exposure of our program along with BSU.
I honestly believe the MTN is going to be a failure. Not that our own TV contract isn't either.
I doubt Fresno State or BSU would have the name they have if they were on the MTN or CSTV.
Re: Dish and Direct - Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 08-03-2006 10:13 AM
ejmpalle Wrote:To be honest, I guess I don't understand your thinking. The mtn. has nothing to do with national exposure. The intended market is for MWC fans, and MWC fans only. The network is meant as a sort of "season ticket" for fans of the conference, including displaced fans.Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:Sorry, but if the choice is for me to see my teams games or for you, I'd pick me- the needs of the conference members should come first with a conference TV package, don't you think?
To a degree. If the games can't get the ratings on national tv to earn a good deal of money for the conference AND (and not or) give our programs national exposure for rankings, then it becomes conditional. If Utah St is playing a home game in BB and it is sold out, I'd like it to be televised, locally, at least. If the game is not sold out, I'd like it to NOT be televised. The same is true for football.
I don't want the WAC to EVER give up national exposure on a major network. Our best teams are too deserving of that kind of exposure. It's really quite valuable (recruiting, name recognition, rankings, etc.), maybe more valuable than a dollar figure.
As an example, when I moved away from Texas after graduating, I was able to see 1-5 TCU football games and a few b-ball games on TV. Over a period of time with some fans, that sporadic access might be a negative and interest might atrophy. Now displaced fans can see every one of the football games and the vast majority of basketball games, along with coaches shows, minor sports etc so that their enthusiasm for their team is maintained and grown. It is meant to be a tool to develop fan bases/ interest, by making more programming available to more fans.
Willl it adversly affect attendance? Well, that's the risk with any TV. I say in the long run it will develop a deeper and broader fan base.
As far as never giving up national exposure, everyting has a cost/benefit ratio. If ESPN said we'll show you, but only if you play at 3 AM, you would turn that down, obviously. For every conference that 3AM analogy may be something different- for us it was Tues/Wed nights and late game starts. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze, at least in our opinion.
- WAC_FAN - 08-03-2006 10:14 AM
Quote:I honestly believe the MTN is going to be a failure. Not that our own TV contract isn't either.
Imho, it's really hard to make this a total failure. It's a low budget operating expense for them, even if the only ones who are interested in this are MWC Markets, they'll at least break even.
Re: Dish and Direct - gaard - 08-03-2006 11:40 AM
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:Sorry, but if the choice is for me to see my teams games or for you, I'd pick me- the needs of the conference members should come first with a conference TV package, don't you think?
That is understandable that you would be more concerned about your conference. Could this affect who you are able to schedule an ooc game with?
Re: Dish and Direct - Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 08-03-2006 01:24 PM
gaard Wrote:First even if you know your opponent's conference's TV contract, its impossible to know when you schedule nonconference exactly on what channel you'll end up within their contract (if any), so I bet your opponents TV contract is way down the list of factors teams consider when considering nonconference. Many nonconference games are scheduled at a point in the future when the current TV contracts don't even cover, yet in fact. Second, the real attractive teams (who will be in a better position to potentially be picky) are more likely to be on OLN or maybe CSTV in the MWC contract anyway. The mtn. itself will probably have no effect, (or be a positive) since those games often would not have been televised anyway. Teams that schedule with the MWC are almost guaranteed to have games avaiable through some medium. Finally, although its a benefit for Boise fans to broadcast away nonconference games, there is no direct financial benefit to the school- all the money goes to the participating schools coffers.Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:Sorry, but if the choice is for me to see my teams games or for you, I'd pick me- the needs of the conference members should come first with a conference TV package, don't you think?
That is understandable that you would be more concerned about your conference. Could this affect who you are able to schedule an ooc game with?
MTV - Broncoguy - 08-03-2006 01:30 PM
Today, thursday, we should find out if the MTN is going to be on Directv,
tune in to KTIK ISP and we should learn something.
Personally. CSTV not selling rights to Bronco TV is very disgusting, if this there idea of good marketing they are doomed.
GO BRONCOS
- broncobob - 08-03-2006 03:17 PM
Net, Net....I bet the mtn will show up on Dish and Direct before the end of September and even if it doesn't the MWC is making 47 times the money from TV contracts that the WAC is making. The WAC is really taking it in the shorts with their current TV contract. I should be at least 10 times the current amount.....
- gaard - 08-03-2006 03:47 PM
broncobob Wrote:Net, Net....I bet the mtn will show up on Dish and Direct before the end of September and even if it doesn't the MWC is making 47 times the money from TV contracts that the WAC is making. The WAC is really taking it in the shorts with their current TV contract. I should be at least 10 times the current amount.....
I would expect that the money CSTV has to make to pay the contract will be affected by the number of sets they broadcast to. Right now the programming requires that you be in certain geographic locations and subscribe to specific add on packages to a limited number of signal providers. I don't think that they are even a blip on ESPN's radar yet. It may all work out, and nothing would make me happier if it did, but it isn't "gravy" yet.
Re - ejmpalle - 08-03-2006 03:53 PM
gaard Wrote:broncobob Wrote:Net, Net....I bet the mtn will show up on Dish and Direct before the end of September and even if it doesn't the MWC is making 47 times the money from TV contracts that the WAC is making. The WAC is really taking it in the shorts with their current TV contract. I should be at least 10 times the current amount.....
I would expect that the money CSTV has to make to pay the contract will be affected by the number of sets they broadcast to. Right now the programming requires that you be in certain geographic locations and subscribe to specific add on packages to a limited number of signal providers. I don't think that they are even a blip on ESPN's radar yet. It may all work out, and nothing would make me happier if it did, but it isn't "gravy" yet.
I'm still skeptical about the contract. Is it on an as-is basis? Or is it per game broadcasted? Or is it based on the markets that it enters? If it is an as-is contract, then the MWC will get their money, but if not, then they may not see every dollar.
- jediwarrior - 08-03-2006 03:54 PM
Broncobob - They may be making 47 times what we're making with our ESPN deal, but there's at least one WAC school making nearly twice what each MWC team is making.
Off all the non-BCS schools in the country, the school that is making the most TV money...is in the WAC.
The money is there to be had. Each WAC school just needs to go out and get it.
Let the WAC worry about our ESPN deal in 2009. Let the WAC sign deals with ESPNU and a "Regional" network in the future.
Let each school partner with a "local" network. ...and everybody wins.
- broncobob - 08-03-2006 05:38 PM
jediwarrior Wrote:Broncobob - They may be making 47 times what we're making with our ESPN deal, but there's at least one WAC school making nearly twice what each MWC team is making.
Off all the non-BCS schools in the country, the school that is making the most TV money...is in the WAC.
The money is there to be had. Each WAC school just needs to go out and get it.
Let the WAC worry about our ESPN deal in 2009. Let the WAC sign deals with ESPNU and a "Regional" network in the future.
Let each school partner with a "local" network. ...and everybody wins.
Which WAC school has a $6 million contract?