StanfordAggie
Water Engineer
Posts: 76
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
|
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.
|
|