nvspuds Wrote:Neville Chamberlain?? I am not relying on anything the MWC does to improve or hurt the WAC..The WAC has everything in place to succeed and it is entirely up to the WAC, not the MWC, to rise or fall.

Be real. The WAC does not live in a vacuum. College sports is a business and the rules of competition follow off the field just as much as they do on the field. If the MWC is strong enough to get their own "the mtn." and we are not, then how can you say that we have "everything in place" and how can you pretend that that doesn't give them a competitive advantage (at least if it is successful)? You're being naive, in my view.

Would you say that "GM has everything in place to succeed and it is entirely up to the GM, not Toyota, to rise or fall."? And if you would, then how would you explain GM's talks with Nissan if not a functional admission that Toyota is kicking their butts?

nvspuds Wrote:Do you honestly think that if the CSTV works out, ESPN will shuffle off without a fight? Do you honestly think that WAC schools will stop trying to improve their product.

No and no. But what does that have to do with anything? That ESPN would put up a fight demonstrates that ESPN at least recognizes that CSTV is a competitor. You don't seem to recognize that the MWC is a competitor of the WAC -- one that must be fought just as you think that ESPN should fight CSTV.

The WAC would try and improve its product under any circumstances but if conferences don't have competitive advantages, then why don't we just improve our product to the point where we can compete with the Big Ten and not worry about the MWC? Maybe we could do it this weekend.

The Big Ten has bigger schools, more fans, way bigger money, tradition, the nation's attention and respect, etc. They distanced themselves from us before the WAC was ever born. The MWC is trying to do the same thing and you don't seem to think it matters. We're at war and you're a pacifist.

nvspuds Wrote:You are terrified of the MWC and what they might or might not do but you have absolutely zero faith in the WAC to compete..Tell that to Boise..Are they laying down and taking whatever scraps are left? Hardly.

I know you took it personally when the MWC schools left you behind but is has made you into a paranoid about their massive power. The MWC is a non BCS conference with a risky but fairly lucrative tv deal..They are not the Pac 10..

They do not control the fate of the WAC..

I realize it is a fruitless wish but just once I would like to see a positive comment from you about the league that has provided Fresno with a platform for national recognition.

Tough up dude..

I'm not terrified of the MWC. I'm terrified of WAC fans who aren't inclined to fight a war because they don't even realize that they are at war. And I'm not terrified of their massive power -- they don't have massive power.

There can be only one "best non-BCS conference". Right now, they are generally given that honor (if you can call it an honor). I want to overtake them, which means, that I want them to fail in everything they do both on and off the field while I want us to succeed in everything we do both on and off the field. It's not personal; it's business. It has nothing to do with having been left behind -- if Fresno were in the PAC 10, I'd feel the same way towards the other big five conferences. It's about having a passion for winning. You seem to have a passion for being collegial and collegial never won a war.

I think the WAC can overtake the MWC -- what's more positive than that? -- but it becomes doubly difficult if the MWC is successful in their CSTV / "the mtn." deal.

Yoda out...

SPCoug, two points -- maybe more if I get on a roll...

First, yes, Thompson did say, "BCS, BCS, BCS". But he meant it for you -- not for us. He meant it for you, if necessary, at our expense. He would like nothing more than to get an autobid, see us fade away to Sun Belt status (with all the recruiting clout of the Sun Belt schools), and thus be better positioned to take on the other "big six" conferences. You really think he is going to want us for scheduling once he's got an autobid?

Second, don't be obtuse. Of course BYU doesn't want to steal Fresno recruits (unless their last name is Christenson or they are somebody else that you happen to want) -- they want PAC recruits. But gimme a break, that's who we want too. We are going after the same recruits. We didn't get better than you by going after recruits that are of a lesser quality than those that you are going after.

Third, give me my neighbor's goat.

And last, if we are all such buddies, all working to defeat the common BCS enemy, then why isn't there still a WAC 16? It seems to me that you are perfectly willing to pull the trigger when the gun is directed at us -- when it helps you separate yourselves from us. But is also seems as if you are now asking us to put down our guns and not shoot back. I call "bull****", my friend.

Yoda out...

Yoda you are beyond help. I guess you just need to wallow in a pity pool..

Your clever reading of what I said missed the point that the WAC could rise or FALL at this point. There are more factors in place that make it easier to succeed now than before. The league has a regional footprint, there is a better tv contract in place and the league will be showcased on tv more than ever before. From this you have derived that the WAC is simply unable to compete and that I am a pollyanna because I think these are good developments.

Still, even with the positive progress the WAC has made over the last two years, the league could still fail. It's a dog it dog world and the WAC is a small dog. What bothers me most is your assertion that the WAC just has no chance unless another league's tv deal fails. The WAC will RISE or FALL based upon what its own members do.

You insult every WAC school to suggest otherwise

There is no question that your unceasing negativity towards the league is based solely upon your arrogant beleif that Fresno is so much better than every school in the conference.

I am sorry the MWC left you behind. I really am. I wish there were more schools out west so that if a WAC schools leaves there would be a smooth transition but there isn't. The problem is we have to stick together and fight for everything but you don't want to fight with schools you disdain so. You want to be in the MWC.

The past is in the past. You got screwed but you need to get over it..The WAC needs to Fresno to build national name recognition. It would be nice if you personally cared about the WAC but you don't..

Wallow away, dude..

nvspuds Wrote:Yoda you are beyond help. I guess you just need to wallow in a pity pool..

Your clever reading of what I said missed the point that the WAC could rise or FALL at this point. There are more factors in place that make it easier to succeed now than before. The league has a regional footprint, there is a better tv contract in place and the league will be showcased on tv more than ever before. From this you have derived that the WAC is simply unable to compete and that I am a pollyanna because I think these are good developments.

Still, even with the positive progress the WAC has made over the last two years, the league could still fail. It's a dog it dog world and the WAC is a small dog. What bothers me most is your assertion that the WAC just has no chance unless another league's tv deal fails. The WAC will RISE or FALL based upon what its own members do.

You insult every WAC school to suggest otherwise

There is no question that your unceasing negativity towards the league is based solely upon your arrogant beleif that Fresno is so much better than every school in the conference.

I am sorry the MWC left you behind. I really am. I wish there were more schools out west so that if a WAC schools leaves there would be a smooth transition but there isn't. The problem is we have to stick together and fight for everything but you don't want to fight with schools you disdain so. You want to be in the MWC.

The past is in the past. You got screwed but you need to get over it..The WAC needs to Fresno to build national name recognition. It would be nice if you personally cared about the WAC but you don't..

Wallow away, dude..

Where are you getting this crap? I never said that the WAC couldn't survive if the CSTV / "the mtn." deal works. I said it would make it more difficult (and as such I hope it fails). To argue anything less would be patently absurd.

Yoda out...

Yoda, you want the mtn deal to fail so you can say neener neener to posters on the MWC board. You are still hurt becuse the conference dumped Fresno.

All this talk about the WAC needing it to fail is a smokescreen..You haven't respected or cared about the WAC since the split.

I think you are an excellent poster and I read all your stuff. I just wish you could get past the split and focus some of your considerable energy towards a more positive view of the WAC.

nvspuds Wrote:Yoda, you want the mtn deal to fail so you can say neener neener to posters on the MWC board. You are still hurt becuse the conference dumped Fresno.

All this talk about the WAC needing it to fail is a smokescreen..You haven't respected or cared about the WAC since the split.

I think you are an excellent poster and I read all your stuff. I just wish you could get past the split and focus some of your considerable energy towards a more positive view of the WAC.

First off, I wouldn't say "neener neener" to posters on the MWC board. I actually respect the MWC and CSTV for taking the risks that they have taken with this television project and I don't generally root against risk takers. I certanly don't gloat when they fail.

And I am not hurt because the gang of five dumped Fresno. I'm angry about what the split did to the WAC but Fresno has done fine since the split.

Finally, I didn't say the WAC needs the CSTV / mtn. deal to fail -- only that I hope it does.

The biggest concern that I or anyone else has about the WAC is the possibility that the MWC might invite three of our schools. The best way to prevent that is to narrow the gap between the two conferences so that, when the invitation comes, if it comes, our schools will tell the MWC to go away. On that level, my concern about the contract is that, if successful and if not matched by the WAC, then it will tend to widen the gap and increase the possibility that one or more of us will accept an invitation if one is offered. So yeah, I hope it fails.

Devote my energies to "a more positive view of the WAC"? I'm not sure what that means. What I will say is that everybody's energy should be directed towards building a stronger WAC -- and there is nothing wrong with hoping that the MWC struggles at the same time. I want to surpass them, not join them.

Yoda out...

Yoda it is extremely unlikely that the MWC will expand to 12 or take three WAC schools should they do so.

Fresno and Boise have eagerly sought admission but the MWC has been uninterested to this point..Hawaii is still a long ways away from Salt Lake.
Nevada has never been under consideration by the MWC and would be vetoed by UNLV at any rate. Never say never but the rest of the WAC programs are not under the radar at this time.

I do think there is a strong possibility that the MWC will go to 10 members and Boise would certainly get a lot of consideration. Fresno, maybe not so much.

TCU would lobby hard for someone in the central time zone which would make more sense from a travel partner sense..

I really think the WAC is not going to be gutted..

I don't believe that the MWC will gut the WAC either. I too think that they will go to 10 and I think that #10 will be UTEP.

Still, I will worry about it up until the day that that the gap has been closed off -- or better still up until the day that we take back the invitee schools. Probably won't happen but it is my own personal goal.

Yoda out...

It's a good goal... UNLV will never accept sharing a conference with Nevada though..

nvspuds Wrote:It's a good goal... UNLV will never accept sharing a conference with Nevada though..

They will do what the legislators tell them to do. It is one thing to blackball you for the MWC -- voting yes after making certain that sufficient other MWC Presidents vote no to kill it. It's quite another to receive your own offer and to refuse it. The legislature will hear about that and the President may get canned. There is no cover for such a refusal.

Yoda out...

Vegas has far more say in the legislature than Reno does. There is almost zero sentiment in the South for the two schools to share a conference..There is an effort to force Nevada to call themselves
Nevada- Reno becuase the non readers down south feels that the name the northern team is known by somehow demeans UNLV..

Nevada Southern will never, I repeat, never willingly share a conference with Nevada again.

SPCoug Wrote:

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.

I think this logic is flawed. It's one thing to accept peanuts in order to play on ESPN. It's quite another thing to accept a small paycheck to play on a brand-new network that isn't currently carried by any cable or satellite provider.

Personally, I am a USU fan, and even though I know for a fact that USU football won't be on ESPN any time soon, I would be livid if the WAC started selling our games to the mtn. network. As it is right now under the current ESPN contract, USU games can be broadcast on local TV in Utah. BYU and Utah games, on the other hand, cannot be broadcast on local TV, since CSTV owns the rights to all their games. Thus, the CSTV deal gives USU a great chance for more local exposure.

On the other hand, if we agree to play on the mtn. on Tuesday night in return for a very small paycheck, it's a lose-lose for us. We get very little additional exposure, since the mtn. is available in very few homes. (Right now it's available in 0 homes, as Yoda is fond of pointing out.) We don't get much additional revenue. And we just reinforce our perceived status as a second-tier school in the state of Utah, since BYU and Utah would be playing on the same network in more desirable time slots. (At the point where USU football becomes competitive, this could actually help us with recruiting... We could tell a potential recruit that they could play on a local public TV station at USU, whereas at BYU or Utah they would be playing most of their games on a channel that is available in very few homes. If we're playing Tuesday and Wednesday night games on the mtn., however, this will never happen.)

In short, if the mtn. were to offer us as many desirable time slots as the MWC receives and a comparable paycheck (or at least an appropriate paycheck considering that our media markets aren't as attractive), then fine. But I would be very strongly opposed to the idea of playing games during undesirable time slots in order to sell them to the mtn. just to receive a small paycheck.

Yoda Wrote:There can be only one "best non-BCS conference". Right now, they are generally given that honor (if you can call it an honor).

Do you really think that's true? I will agree that an informed, objective fan would probably agree that the MWC is the best non-BCS football conference. However, that's a very small proportionate of fans and sportswriters in the country. And I don't think anyone would say that the MWC is the best non-BCS basketball conference... Or the best non-BCS conference in just about any sport for that matter.

Indeed, if you asked most fans or sportswriters to name the "best" non-BCS conference, I think most of them would say C-USA. Until they were raided by the Big East, they were clearly the best non-BCS basketball conference. Even now, having Memphis in the league is enough to convince most casual fans that C-USA is a cut above any other non-BCS conference. They have a potential national championship contender in a major sport, which is something that no other non-BCS conference can boast about.

Regarding the WAC and the MWC, my experience is that most casual fans don't even know that there's a difference between the two, or, if they do, they know that one broke away from the other, but they don't know who broke away from whom or who is a member of which conference. Many sportswriters don't even seem to be aware that there's a difference; I read an article in a San Francisco paper a while back talking about how Utah went to a BCS bowl "as a member of the Western Athletic Conference." I certainly don't think that one is perceived as "better" than the other. And among the fans that know that there is a difference, most seem to think that the MWC's slightly better record in football is offset by the WAC's slightly better record in basketball. I don't think that the MWC is commonly seen as "better" than the WAC by anyone except certain posters on the MWC board.

CSTV may own the rights to all games, but there appears to be some possibilities for syndication and local television for the MWC.

When you look at the composite schedule for the MWC (http://themwc.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/m...hed.html), they list games on the mtn, but those games can't all air live at the same time on a single channel. The mtn games earmarked for the RSN are the ones not marked with an asterisk and that is straight from someone at the MWC offices. The others have a decent chance of being televised locally according to that same person. KJZZ and KSL might not be shut out of Utah and BYU athletics, but they'll have to deal with a different seller of those games (CSTV) instead of the individual schools.

The flipside to that is how much will CSTV want to have a game air locally. From what I've read about the C-USA All Access package from last year, CSTV was charging a little too much to some of the local stations and they passed on airing any games. Only Memphis, ECU, Tulsa and UTEP had stations purchase any games for local telecast.

There's another side to the mtn as a 24/7 network: Will they ask for the same terms as the new Big Ten network will have to the national satellite companies? DirecTV is part of the backing for the new Big Ten channel and has already guaranteed to place it on the basic, non-sports tier. Will the MWC ask for the same or will they ask to cut out a specific territory and be placed on a sports tier and be available to, for example, folks in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico plus southern California and parts of Nevada and Texas?

nvspuds Wrote:Nevada Southern will never, I repeat, never willingly share a conference with Nevada again.

Why do say this? Their president, Dr. Carol Harter, the woman who actually holds the power of expanding for UNLV has pubicly stated that she wants to bring Nevada into the same conference as UNLV. She pushed for Nevada in the last round, but obviously did not have any support.

Here is a link with it.

http://mb4.scout.com/futahstatefrm27.sho...=120.topic

Quote:NEVADA (114)
Pros: Reno is geographically close to several MWC members. UNLV president Dr. Carol Harter has made no secret of her desire to get the Wolf Pack in the same conference as the Rebels in the hopes of creating an interconference rivalry for the state of Nevada.

I don't think that the MWC will ever add another WAC school, but if they did I think that Nevada would be the frontrunner. They are the only school from the WAC that has ever had another school's president endorse them. (At least that I'm aware of, if I'm wrong someone will have to show me.)

However, it is unlikely that they will ever gain the support of others to get Nevada into the league.

StanfordAggie Wrote:I think this logic is flawed. It's one thing to accept peanuts in order to play on ESPN. It's quite another thing to accept a small paycheck to play on a brand-new network that isn't currently carried by any cable or satellite provider.

On the other hand, if we agree to play on the mtn. on Tuesday night in return for a very small paycheck, it's a lose-lose for us. We get very little additional exposure, since the mtn. is available in very few homes. (Right now it's available in 0 homes, as Yoda is fond of pointing out.) We don't get much additional revenue. And we just reinforce our perceived status as a second-tier school in the state of Utah, since BYU and Utah would be playing on the same network in more desirable time slots. (At the point where USU football becomes competitive, this could actually help us with recruiting... We could tell a potential recruit that they could play on a local public TV station at USU, whereas at BYU or Utah they would be playing most of their games on a channel that is available in very few homes. If we're playing Tuesday and Wednesday night games on the mtn., however, this will never happen.)

In short, if the mtn. were to offer us as many desirable time slots as the MWC receives and a comparable paycheck (or at least an appropriate paycheck considering that our media markets aren't as attractive), then fine. But I would be very strongly opposed to the idea of playing games during undesirable time slots in order to sell them to the mtn. just to receive a small paycheck.

Your post has some great points that, unfortunately, are undermined by one key, incontrovertable point: The difference between the WAC's ESPN contract and what ESPN was willing to pay the MWC. IIRC, ESPN was willing to more or less continue paying the MWC $8 million/year, if the conference would have agreed to mid week and other odd hours games. The MWC said no thanks and went to CSTV.

Now . . . if the WAC had gone to ESPN and said "hey guys, we'll be glad to take the contract that the MWC just refused," then you could rightfully say that the two conferences were at parity and equals, at least in ESPN's eyes. Instead -- whether because the WAC's leadership panicked, dithered or didn't bargain hard enough -- the conference signed for 1/8 of what ESPN was willing to pay the MWC. That's the point where I'd be livid if I were a WAC fan, wondering why the conference settled for so little and how it graphically reinforced the very thing you're trying to disprove: A disparity between the MWC and WAC.

If ESPN openly thinks the WAC is grossly inferior to the MWC, in terms of compensation, should CSTV or any other network think otherwise? In all seriousness, that do-it-on-the-cheap-because-exposure-is-all-that-matters contract with ESPN is going to bite the WAC, hard, for a long time to come. That's why it's an insult because I firmly believe that you were worth more than that. Alas, the deed is done, with the consequences continuing.

So if the WAC has demonstrated to ESPN that it's willing to work for much less than the MWC and accept less desireable time slots in the process, why should CSTV have any incentive to pony up something approaching parity with the MWC? If the WAC balks, there's always the Big Sky, who will most likely be happy to have their product distributed regionally throughout their viewership. Translation (to paraphrase Top Gun): The WAC's reputation and past contractual behavior have put it in a position where its ego is writing checks that its conduct can't cash.

To put it into a larger stance, I've opined elsewhere that the MWC has a collective culture that's very different from the WAC's. To me it seems like the MWC is more proactive, grab the bull by the horns, make things happen and take risks. In effect, it reminds me of Sean Connery's statement in "The Hunt for Red October," wherein he reminded his fellow defectors that, when Cortez landed in Mexico, his first act was to burn his ships; therefore, his men were highly motivated. The MWC burned its ships by walking away from ESPN and cutting its safety net and umbilical chord, something I'm proud to see happen. The venture with CSTV may fail and can't be shaded from its risk standpoint. However, it seems like the conference's collective culture has an attitude of better to try and fail than fail to try.

Conversely, it seems to me that the WAC is more reactive, indecisive, timid, risk aversive, prone to take a wait-and-see attitude and watch things happen. With regard to ESPN vs. CSTV, it seems like the collective attitude was one of not wanting to leave ESPN's embrace and take one's chances in the cold, cruel world, because CSTV might fail. Similarly, when TCU first started making noises about possibly leaving CUSA, it seems like the WAC dithered and dallied on whether to invite the Frogs, while the MWC made a decisive decision and extended an invite.

In saying that, it's okay to let others do the R&D and proof of feasibility work. However, one shouldn't then expect to belatedly be able to get in on the ground floor of an opportunity that has succeeded. If Yoda made me an offer to join his business, what do you think his reaction would be if I demanded a full partnership and share of the profits, without having to put up any investment or otherwise pay my dues (IOW, wanting all of the benefits he's now receiving but without incurring any of the risks)? I suspect he'd laugh me out the door and tell me to get real, that that's not how the world operates.

So how is that different from the WAC wanting to benefit from CSTV but being unwilling to assume any risks? If the MWC hadn't signed with CSTV and put its neck on the line, we wouldn't even be having this thread today.

erdaggie..You will just have to trust me on this one..Harter is lying.. Nevada schools receive money from the state and almost all the power in the state is down south. Nevada's athletic budget is less than Nevada Southern by a large margin. Harter has to play political games but she would be hammered right out of office if she did anything to slow up the money train.

It is my understanding, that unlike some other schools, Nevada has never even made a formal presentation to the MWC. Nevada has always focused solely on the WAC. The story about them refusing to sign a binding agreement is a myth.

The day after the split, then athletic director Chris Ault, said in the newspaper that he would be spending all of his time to try and revamp the Big West lineup by lobbying the discarded WAC schools to join with Nevada, Boise and eventually the three who just joined..

SP,
I agree with you that the WAC should be fighting for a better deal with ESPN.

Quote:Conversely, it seems to me that the WAC is more reactive, indecisive, timid, risk aversive, prone to take a wait-and-see attitude and watch things happen.

I don't really agree with you here. The WAC is confident in ESPN. The MTN is really what the MWC is relying on. And they're relying on The MTN to earn enough money in the Mountain Time Zone to make their contract with CSTV profitable. If the MTN falls flat on its face, and it will if they don't get COX on board, then the MWC has traded its exposure on ESPN for CSTV. If you're trading straight accross for CSTV, it isn't worth it unless you can dump CSTV with the money CSTV paid you and get back on board with ESPN.

In other words, the majority of the MWC's success rides on The MTN. This is a HUGE risk to take. #1 I'm not sure the WAC can afford to take such a risk. #2 If they did take such a risk, they'd have to jump on board with CSTV. Who else is out there to offer an alternative package like CSTV? If they jump on with CSTV then they're not gaining anything over their deal with ESPN and they're having to share time with the MWC and C-USA. Why share with those conferences when you can have exposure over a proven network? #3 When C-USA and MWC left for greener pastures, that left a hole for the WAC to fill. It makes perfect sense to jump in.

So I don't agree with your assessment of the WAC. The WAC simply did what was in its best interest.

SPCoug Wrote:

StanfordAggie Wrote:I think this logic is flawed. It's one thing to accept peanuts in order to play on ESPN. It's quite another thing to accept a small paycheck to play on a brand-new network that isn't currently carried by any cable or satellite provider.

On the other hand, if we agree to play on the mtn. on Tuesday night in return for a very small paycheck, it's a lose-lose for us. We get very little additional exposure, since the mtn. is available in very few homes. (Right now it's available in 0 homes, as Yoda is fond of pointing out.) We don't get much additional revenue. And we just reinforce our perceived status as a second-tier school in the state of Utah, since BYU and Utah would be playing on the same network in more desirable time slots. (At the point where USU football becomes competitive, this could actually help us with recruiting... We could tell a potential recruit that they could play on a local public TV station at USU, whereas at BYU or Utah they would be playing most of their games on a channel that is available in very few homes. If we're playing Tuesday and Wednesday night games on the mtn., however, this will never happen.)

In short, if the mtn. were to offer us as many desirable time slots as the MWC receives and a comparable paycheck (or at least an appropriate paycheck considering that our media markets aren't as attractive), then fine. But I would be very strongly opposed to the idea of playing games during undesirable time slots in order to sell them to the mtn. just to receive a small paycheck.

Your post has some great points that, unfortunately, are undermined by one key, incontrovertable point: The difference between the WAC's ESPN contract and what ESPN was willing to pay the MWC. IIRC, ESPN was willing to more or less continue paying the MWC $8 million/year, if the conference would have agreed to mid week and other odd hours games. The MWC said no thanks and went to CSTV.

Now . . . if the WAC had gone to ESPN and said "hey guys, we'll be glad to take the contract that the MWC just refused," then you could rightfully say that the two conferences were at parity and equals, at least in ESPN's eyes. Instead -- whether because the WAC's leadership panicked, dithered or didn't bargain hard enough -- the conference signed for 1/8 of what ESPN was willing to pay the MWC. That's the point where I'd be livid if I were a WAC fan, wondering why the conference settled for so little and how it graphically reinforced the very thing you're trying to disprove: A disparity between the MWC and WAC.

If ESPN openly thinks the WAC is grossly inferior to the MWC, in terms of compensation, should CSTV or any other network think otherwise? In all seriousness, that do-it-on-the-cheap-because-exposure-is-all-that-matters contract with ESPN is going to bite the WAC, hard, for a long time to come. That's why it's an insult because I firmly believe that you were worth more than that. Alas, the deed is done, with the consequences continuing.

Well, I don't have any firsthand evidence of this, but according to Yoda, CSTV offered the WAC a TV deal that was worth about half of what they are paying the MWC. (Which is probably fair, given that our media markets aren't nearly as attractive.) The WAC turned down this offer since they believed that the additional exposure they would obtain on ESPN was worth more than the extra money that CSTV was offering. I don' think it was a case of "panicked, dithered or didn't bargain hard enough"; they were simply willing to accept less money for more exposure. (Politics may have played a role in the decision as well. In particular, Hawaii has an extremely lucrative local TV deal that they would have had to forfeit if they sold their rights to CSTV, so it would have ended up costing them money.) At any rate, I think it's premature to say that the WAC's leadership screwed up. If the CSTV deal blows in the MWC's face, they are going to look like geniuses.

Quote:So if the WAC has demonstrated to ESPN that it's willing to work for much less than the MWC and accept less desireable time slots in the process, why should CSTV have any incentive to pony up something approaching parity with the MWC? If the WAC balks, there's always the Big Sky, who will most likely be happy to have their product distributed regionally throughout their viewership. Translation (to paraphrase Top Gun): The WAC's reputation and past contractual behavior have put it in a position where its ego is writing checks that its conduct can't cash.

Well, let's see here: CSTV can't even get on basic cable in Las Vegas or San Diego. And their new mtn. network has an agreement with a total of zero cable and satellite providers, even though the football season starts in a month and a half. I would say that this puts the WAC in a fairly decent bargaining position. We're already on ESPN, and we can sell our games that ESPN doesn't want to local TV stations, a luxury the MWC doesn't have. We don't need to accept a pittance to get additional "exposure" on a network that's available in very few homes.

Indeed, I would go so far to say that I would be thrilled to death if the WAC refused to sell games to the mtn. network so they decided to show Big Sky games instead. Imagine the sales pitch that WAC schools could make to recruits: "Well, you can play for us, where you'll get a chance to play on ESPN, be on Sports Center, and have the games broadcast throughout the country... Or you can play for an MWC school, where all your games will be on a regional station that currently isn't available anywhere... Along with other big-name conferences like the Big Sky, the SWAC, and the MEAC." Simply the fact that we're on ESPN gives us a strong argument that our conference is more desirable than the MWC. But if we're selling our games to the MWC's TV network during undesirable time slots, then MWC coaches can tell recruits that it's because our league is second-tier. As a WAC fan, I simply wouldn't accept that.

Quote:To put it into a larger stance, I've opined elsewhere that the MWC has a collective culture that's very different from the WAC's. To me it seems like the MWC is more proactive, grab the bull by the horns, make things happen and take risks. In effect, it reminds me of Sean Connery's statement in "The Hunt for Red October," wherein he reminded his fellow defectors that, when Cortez landed in Mexico, his first act was to burn his ships; therefore, his men were highly motivated. The MWC burned its ships by walking away from ESPN and cutting its safety net and umbilical chord, something I'm proud to see happen. The venture with CSTV may fail and can't be shaded from its risk standpoint. However, it seems like the conference's collective culture has an attitude of better to try and fail than fail to try.

Conversely, it seems to me that the WAC is more reactive, indecisive, timid, risk aversive, prone to take a wait-and-see attitude and watch things happen. With regard to ESPN vs. CSTV, it seems like the collective attitude was one of not wanting to leave ESPN's embrace and take one's chances in the cold, cruel world, because CSTV might fail. Similarly, when TCU first started making noises about possibly leaving CUSA, it seems like the WAC dithered and dallied on whether to invite the Frogs, while the MWC made a decisive decision and extended an invite.

Say what? TCU had left the WAC a few years earlier? Are you saying that the WAC should have invited them back now that all of their former regional rivals in the WAC had jumped to C-USA and Fresno, Boise, and Nevada were openly lobbying for MWC membership? I'm sure they would have accepted that offer... As I understand it, Benson was trying to get his schools to sign an agreement not to leave, which was the smart thing to do, IMHO. If he had invited TCU back into the conference, I'm sure they would have laughed him out of the room.

Quote:In saying that, it's okay to let others do the R&D and proof of feasibility work. However, one shouldn't then expect to belatedly be able to get in on the ground floor of an opportunity that has succeeded. If Yoda made me an offer to join his business, what do you think his reaction would be if I demanded a full partnership and share of the profits, without having to put up any investment or otherwise pay my dues (IOW, wanting all of the benefits he's now receiving but without incurring any of the risks)? I suspect he'd laugh me out the door and tell me to get real, that that's not how the world operates.

So how is that different from the WAC wanting to benefit from CSTV but being unwilling to assume any risks? If the MWC hadn't signed with CSTV and put its neck on the line, we wouldn't even be having this thread today.

Well, you have a point there. However, I would say that selling games to a network that is currently available in 0 homes is also taking a big of a risk. Yeah, the WAC certainly isn't in a position to demand as much money as the MWC is receiving, but I also think that they are justified in asking for more than scraps. If the mtn. network fails to sign any significant TV deals, then we would basically be losing any hope of exposure by selling games to that network. If the mtn. wants us to take that risk, then it's only fair to expect compensation of some form or another.