Embarrassing!!! $100k per school?!? That is downright pathetic! The MAC MUST do a better job with the next contract. Why even have a contract when it is that low? The sad thing is, we still have 4 more seasons on this garbage contract! I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2...tract-espn

Supply and demand. But yes, the MAC should strive for a better contract.

I believe that requires prep work before the meeting. I'm not seeing much of that.

It's the exposure from E$PN they're going for I guess. But yea, that's a really stingy amount.

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

Really makes you wonder if the MAC is as stable as some would lead you to believe.

If we were to add a 14th school, wouldn't we be able to renegotiate? I believe that we're able to if we add two or more schools, so UMass would hopefully count in that case. The problem is that hardly any casual fans will tune in for a great MAC game like NIU-Toledo over a bad Big Ten matchup like IU-Minnesota. Seeing directional colleges play just doesn't drum up any enthusiasm nationwide, and not much in the Rust Belt either. Our best hope is that more space opens up for ESPN weeknight games and that we can get a minor network (CBS College, NBC Sports, FSN) to show us regionally. With our improved play as a conference, hopefully that's a possibility.

(02-19-2013 11:55 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

Really makes you wonder if the MAC is as stable as some would lead you to believe.

I have always felt there is divide among the top and bottom of the league when it comes to the revenue sports (football and mens hoops). I think the stability remains but it seems the gap has been steadily widening over the years. I doubt the only way anyone moves is if a group leaves together as a pack otherwise all will stay the course.

(02-19-2013 12:38 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:55 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

Really makes you wonder if the MAC is as stable as some would lead you to believe.

I have always felt there is divide among the top and bottom of the league when it comes to the revenue sports (football and mens hoops). I think the stability remains but it seems the gap has been steadily widening over the years. I doubt the only way anyone moves is if a group leaves together as a pack otherwise all will stay the course.

Yeah, but it's non-trivial to move even as a group. Tough to get that critical mass and sensible geography to form a viable conference (let alone the history and traditions).

I do think the conference could be split, but only w/ sensible opportunities. Obviously I've pointed at the revised ECC taking 3-4 MAC teams.

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

No chance.

(02-19-2013 12:56 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

No chance.

I'm not sure why you say that, or if you thought I meant something else, but I believe some MAC schools could make more than $100k with their own contract.

(02-19-2013 01:00 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 12:56 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

No chance.

I'm not sure why you say that, or if you thought I meant something else, but I believe some MAC schools could make more than $100k with their own contract.

Ruling out the national networks which are signing conferences not individual teams, especially not individual teams from the Gang of Five, you are looking at regional networks. MAC schools simply don't generate enough advertising revenue to make it feasible to pay a school the kind of money you are talking about and have to pay the cost of producing and broadcasting the games. Ad time on those regional sports networks is really cheap. It's just not a money maker. If it were profitable, the FOX regional networks and/or STO would have locked up MAC teams a long time ago.

(02-19-2013 01:00 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 12:56 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

No chance.

I'm not sure why you say that, or if you thought I meant something else, but I believe some MAC schools could make more than $100k with their own contract.

Who would be willing to pony up $100,000+ for Ohio or Toledo sporting events?

(02-19-2013 02:09 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 01:00 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 12:56 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

No chance.

I'm not sure why you say that, or if you thought I meant something else, but I believe some MAC schools could make more than $100k with their own contract.

Who would be willing to pony up $100,000 for Ohio or Toledo sporting events?

Over the past 3 seasons, UT has been on E$PN/2/U a total of 12 times (7 home games). So that means UT averages $25k per broadcast, or $42,860 per E$PN/2/U home game broadcast. (not counting all the E$PN3 broadcasts, which E$PN holds the rights to, correct?). Obviously I am no media expert, but I feel like $25k/$43k is not a ton of money compared to what (I would think) E$PN makes off of these broadcasts. That is why I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to get more money from another network, or a group of networks (E$PN, NBCSN, FSN, etc.). I feel like UT/NIU/Ohio could get at least $50k-$75k per home game broadcast.

(02-19-2013 02:20 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 02:09 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 01:00 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 12:56 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

No chance.

I'm not sure why you say that, or if you thought I meant something else, but I believe some MAC schools could make more than $100k with their own contract.

Who would be willing to pony up $100,000 for Ohio or Toledo sporting events?

Over the past 3 seasons, UT has been on E$PN/2/U a total of 12 times (7 home games). So that means UT averages $25k per broadcast, or $42,860 per E$PN/2/U home game broadcast. (not counting all the E$PN3 broadcasts, which E$PN holds the rights to, correct?). Obviously I am no media expert, but I feel like $25k/$43k is not a ton of money compared to what (I would think) E$PN makes off of these broadcasts. That is why I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to get more money from another network, or a group of networks (E$PN, NBCSN, FSN, etc.). I feel like UT/NIU/Ohio could get at least $50k-$75k per home game broadcast.

The only way you could convince me is if someone like WTOL paid for the rights.

Ohio, Toledo, and NIU by themselves have no value to a national network. Think a national audience would have cared if it was Kent State @ BG instead of Ball St @ Toledo, last year?

That is the point. And local markets have never been able to pay much for MAC games or they would have a long time ago. They've tried it on a limited basis. They just can't generate enough local ad revenue to even pay for the broadcast, let alone pay the schools. The MAC has basically been on regional networks just for the exposure, not the money. And ESPN is filling time. If it weren't MAC games, it would be something else. The MAC is not a national draw for viewers, though they will watch if it is the only game on. For sure, ESPN is making money, but the idea that MAC schools can outdraw their average audience and create additional revenue is just not evident, the ratings of some isolated games notwithstanding.

I think it is a fantasy to think another network besides ESPN is going to pay the MAC a bunch of money to carry our games. ESPN will up its number next time, but MAC schools are not getting rich from them. The numbers just don't add up for a regional conference.

(02-19-2013 02:57 PM)axeme Wrote:  That is the point. And local markets have never been able to pay much for MAC games or they would have a long time ago. They've tried it on a limited basis. They just can't generate enough local ad revenue to even pay for the broadcast, let alone pay the schools. The MAC has basically been on regional networks just for the exposure, not the money. And ESPN is filling time. If it weren't MAC games, it would be something else. The MAC is not a national draw for viewers, though they will watch if it is the only game on. For sure, ESPN is making money, but the idea that MAC schools can outdraw their average audience and create additional revenue is just not evident, the ratings of some isolated games notwithstanding.

I think it is a fantasy to think another network besides ESPN is going to pay the MAC a bunch of money to carry our games. ESPN will up its number next time, but MAC schools are not getting rich from them. The numbers just don't add up for a regional conference.

The question is, what is the MAC leadership doing about this?

(02-19-2013 03:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 02:57 PM)axeme Wrote:  That is the point. And local markets have never been able to pay much for MAC games or they would have a long time ago. They've tried it on a limited basis. They just can't generate enough local ad revenue to even pay for the broadcast, let alone pay the schools. The MAC has basically been on regional networks just for the exposure, not the money. And ESPN is filling time. If it weren't MAC games, it would be something else. The MAC is not a national draw for viewers, though they will watch if it is the only game on. For sure, ESPN is making money, but the idea that MAC schools can outdraw their average audience and create additional revenue is just not evident, the ratings of some isolated games notwithstanding.

I think it is a fantasy to think another network besides ESPN is going to pay the MAC a bunch of money to carry our games. ESPN will up its number next time, but MAC schools are not getting rich from them. The numbers just don't add up for a regional conference.

The question is, what is the MAC leadership doing about this?

Exactly what they are paid to do.

If the presidents and AD's wanted some high-end go-getters looking to take the MAC to the big time, they would go out and pay some serious bucks for those kind of MAC admins. I see very little impetus from the presidents that this is the direction they want to go. By and large, the MAC schools are content with the status quo despite what some of the AD's and coaches say from time to time. A lot of people talk ambitiously, but they don't really back it up with money and action. Don't blame the MAC office. It's the schools that drive what the MAC office does.

(02-19-2013 03:16 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 03:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 02:57 PM)axeme Wrote:  That is the point. And local markets have never been able to pay much for MAC games or they would have a long time ago. They've tried it on a limited basis. They just can't generate enough local ad revenue to even pay for the broadcast, let alone pay the schools. The MAC has basically been on regional networks just for the exposure, not the money. And ESPN is filling time. If it weren't MAC games, it would be something else. The MAC is not a national draw for viewers, though they will watch if it is the only game on. For sure, ESPN is making money, but the idea that MAC schools can outdraw their average audience and create additional revenue is just not evident, the ratings of some isolated games notwithstanding.

I think it is a fantasy to think another network besides ESPN is going to pay the MAC a bunch of money to carry our games. ESPN will up its number next time, but MAC schools are not getting rich from them. The numbers just don't add up for a regional conference.

The question is, what is the MAC leadership doing about this?

Exactly what they are paid to do.

If the presidents and AD's wanted some high-end go-getters looking to take the MAC to the big time, they would go out and pay some serious bucks for those kind of MAC admins. I see very little impetus from the presidents that this is the direction they want to go. By and large, the MAC schools are content with the status quo despite what some of the AD's and coaches say from time to time. A lot of people talk ambitiously, but they don't really back it up with money and action. Don't blame the MAC office. It's the schools that drive what the MAC office does.

I wasn't blaming the MAC office, I was referring to leadership at the universities as well.

And I think it's a false dichotomy to say the only alternative is to start throwing out big bucks to see any improvement. That's speculation on my part, but I think there are several low cost investments that can be made to improve the MAC's position.

I'm not suggesting MAC teams will be SEC or even Big 12 level anytime soon...I just believe they can do better.

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2...tract-espn

Tue., 11/6/12 - 0.4 (570K) - Ball State Toledo 8 PM ESPN2
Wed., 11/14/12 - 0.4 (557K) - Toledo No. Illinois 9 PM ESPN2
Wed., 11/14/12 -0.2 (281K) - Ohio Ball State 8 PM ESPNU
Tue., 11/20/12 - 0.4 (542K) - Akron Toledo 7 PM ESPN2
Fri., 11/23/1 - 0.1 (153K) - Ohio Kent State 11 AM ESPNU

Fri., 10/12/12 - 0.6 (884K) - Navy Cent. Michigan 8 PM ESPN2

Fri., 11/30/12 - 0.9 (1.3M) - No. Illinois Kent State 7 PM ESPN2

*maybe* a bit

(02-19-2013 03:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:29 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  I honestly think some schools could get better contracts individually (UT, NIU, Ohio).

http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2...tract-espn

Tue., 11/6/12 - 0.4 (570K) - Ball State Toledo 8 PM ESPN2
Wed., 11/14/12 - 0.4 (557K) - Toledo No. Illinois 9 PM ESPN2
Wed., 11/14/12 -0.2 (281K) - Ohio Ball State 8 PM ESPNU
Tue., 11/20/12 - 0.4 (542K) - Akron Toledo 7 PM ESPN2
Fri., 11/23/1 - 0.1 (153K) - Ohio Kent State 11 AM ESPNU

Fri., 10/12/12 - 0.6 (884K) - Navy Cent. Michigan 8 PM ESPN2

Fri., 11/30/12 - 0.9 (1.3M) - No. Illinois Kent State 7 PM ESPN2

*maybe* a bit

Wed. 11/7- BG @ Ohio .5 (719k) 8 PM ESPN2

No one is tuning in to see Toledo or Ohio. They are just tuning in to see football.

We get paid $100k but how much do our teams lose in season ticket and individual ticket sales when we each have 1-3 weeknight/day games in November?

We don't get the TV exposure to help with getting fans its all about reaching recruits nationally.