Last year's MWC Championship game wasn't just "after the SEC champ. game" on CBS.....it started at 10PM east coast time on CBS (the SEC game kicked off at 4pm)

that start time is fine for the Mountain Time zone....and even Pacific Time zone....but central/eastern time zones where the big markets are which help to drive the ratings? no. no good. (how many east coast/central people really stay up past 10pm to watch the PAC 12 games? It's why the PAC12 has been asking for more late afternoon/early evening times from ABC and ESPN)

so the MWC is going with the early evening kick time on ESPN2 to hopefully bring in more viewers in the central/eastern time zones.

(05-16-2015 11:16 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 09:43 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 09:37 AM)MemphisTigerFreak Wrote:  When is ours? And what channel?

not decided yet...most likely 12:30 on espn. if it's some kinda amazing match up..
10:30-11:00 am on ABC

but it's abc or espn

That's a solid spot.

I will consider anything between 12 noon - 5pm pure gold.

Here hope AAC lands between said slots.

Minus for the MWC: Championship game on cable instead of CBS OTA. (it wasn't on CBS sports network). Pluses: according to MWC commissioner Thompson the MWC payout from Espin is double for the game then CBS paid them. Their kicking off at a good time now instead of 11 PM ET. (I don't know the payout) I heard the breakdown in pay is 10% to home team, 5% to visiting school, and 85% divided among the 10 remaining. Someone on here was saying that UNLV would get 0.---how? Hows AAC's time slot, money etc in comparison. Anyone?

(05-16-2015 11:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  So basically cbs wanted no more mwc in results to their POOR embarrassing conference championship TV ratings.

actually MW had relatively good ratings for their championship game last year. not sure why you would say otherwise. Again, if you think the AAC belongs with the big boys why waste so much time trying to prove your better than MWC and even CUSA. Their not the enemy. Focus on the pretender ACC as a way to prove the American belongs at the big boy table.

(05-16-2015 08:44 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 08:19 AM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 07:34 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  Still a downgrade. Went from broadcast to cable. However CBS wasn't making the right decisions (ie starting the game right after the SEC CG) so maybe they thought it was a smart move.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe that CBS wasn't getting the return on their investment that they wanted and thus refused to bid on or continue the current contract. Instead they refused to cover the game this year as per their contract. That's why the MWC could seek a new representative without any backlash from CBS. I'm also pretty sure that the MWC can not seek compensation for the breach of contract by CBS since the MWC will actually be getting more money.

Perhaps someone with more insight in the matter could fill in the blanks or correct any errors on my part.

2014 MWC Championship Game on CBS was the lowest rated college football game of the season for the network, even below the Army/Air Force game played in Nov.

2014 MWC Championship Game TV rating for Fresno-Boise St was even lower than the 2013 Champ Game TV rating between Utah State vs Fresno.

What do they expect when they put it at 10 PM ET? Place it in prime time right after the SEC and you will get better ratings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-16-2015 11:45 AM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  Last year's MWC Championship game wasn't just "after the SEC champ. game" on CBS.....it started at 10PM east coast time on CBS (the SEC game kicked off at 4pm)

That's the point. CBS wasnt using their brain and placed it 2 hours after what they should've. Place it at 8 and it would've gotten more viewers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-16-2015 12:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Minus for the MWC: Championship game on cable instead of CBS OTA. (it wasn't on CBS sports network). Pluses: according to MWC commissioner Thompson the MWC payout from Espin is double for the game then CBS paid them. Their kicking off at a good time now instead of 11 PM ET. (I don't know the payout) I heard the breakdown in pay is 10% to home team, 5% to visiting school, and 85% divided among the 10 remaining. Someone on here was saying that UNLV would get 0.---how? Hows AAC's time slot, money etc in comparison. Anyone?

Where did you see the commissioner said the game is worth double what CBS was paying? The only source I have on that is Fluger, who I'm not sure I trust. The only quotes I have seen from Thompson just say they got for "more" for the game. Estimates last year were that CBS was paying one million for the game. If they did get double--that's likely around 2 million--putting thier contract over ours (19 + 2 =21 million). They divide theirs by 11 just like ours because Hawaii has a seperate deal.

When you consider UConn women's basketball is worth 3 million to YES, basketball is worth at least what A10 basketball is worth (5 million), the CCG is worth 2---plus CBS-Sports is showing our games and ignoring the. CUSA games they pay 7 million. Thats 17 million in value right there---meaning our main football tier one football contract with ESPN is worth 3 million. Hell, Fox pays CUSA 7 million for less games. It's embarrassing how under paid the AAC is.

What are we really worth? Honestly, I'd bet we get at least 5 million a school when the renegotiation occurs.

sure wish we could combine the best of the mac and the aac

most years the winner of the conference would get the access bowl


it's like we are MAKING it happen when we do this.....

You are on the wrong board. This is the AAC not Mountain West!

(05-16-2015 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 11:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  So basically cbs wanted no more mwc in results to their POOR embarrassing conference championship TV ratings.

actually MW had relatively good ratings for their championship game last year. not sure why you would say otherwise. Again, if you think the AAC belongs with the big boys why waste so much time trying to prove your better than MWC and even CUSA. Their not the enemy. Focus on the pretender ACC as a way to prove the American belongs at the big boy table.

Did I just hit nerve, billy??

FYI I don't have anything against the mwc, but whatever floats your boat man.

(05-16-2015 02:38 PM)Savacool Wrote:  You are on the wrong board. This is the AAC not Mountain West!

your rep is -53

I think you are on the wrong board

(05-16-2015 02:39 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 11:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  So basically cbs wanted no more mwc in results to their POOR embarrassing conference championship TV ratings.

actually MW had relatively good ratings for their championship game last year. not sure why you would say otherwise. Again, if you think the AAC belongs with the big boys why waste so much time trying to prove your better than MWC and even CUSA. Their not the enemy. Focus on the pretender ACC as a way to prove the American belongs at the big boy table.

Did I just hit nerve, billy??

FYI I don't have anything against the mwc, but whatever floats your boat man.

yes attackcoog. You did hit a nerve. You Houston fans worry too much about the mwc like too many ECU fans worry about Marshall. You are making them our peers when you do that!!!! I know something about schools and have ties to both. As an ECU fan I worry about UNC and as a nominal Houston fan I place Texas tech as the school that gets out wrath...keep on wasting time and energy on the usual suspects though. Whatever floats YOUR boat my friend.

(05-16-2015 03:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:39 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 11:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  So basically cbs wanted no more mwc in results to their POOR embarrassing conference championship TV ratings.

actually MW had relatively good ratings for their championship game last year. not sure why you would say otherwise. Again, if you think the AAC belongs with the big boys why waste so much time trying to prove your better than MWC and even CUSA. Their not the enemy. Focus on the pretender ACC as a way to prove the American belongs at the big boy table.

Did I just hit nerve, billy??

FYI I don't have anything against the mwc, but whatever floats your boat man.

yes attackcoog. You did hit a nerve. You Houston fans worry too much about the mwc like too many ECU fans worry about Marshall. You are making them our peers when you do that!!!! I know something about schools and have ties to both. As an ECU fan I worry about UNC and as a nominal Houston fan I place Texas tech as the school that gets out wrath...keep on wasting time and energy on the usual suspects though. Whatever floats YOUR boat my friend.

Lol. I didnt make that comment you're responding to. My point was that we are underpaid.

(05-16-2015 04:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 03:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:39 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 11:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  So basically cbs wanted no more mwc in results to their POOR embarrassing conference championship TV ratings.

actually MW had relatively good ratings for their championship game last year. not sure why you would say otherwise. Again, if you think the AAC belongs with the big boys why waste so much time trying to prove your better than MWC and even CUSA. Their not the enemy. Focus on the pretender ACC as a way to prove the American belongs at the big boy table.

Did I just hit nerve, billy??

FYI I don't have anything against the mwc, but whatever floats your boat man.

yes attackcoog. You did hit a nerve. You Houston fans worry too much about the mwc like too many ECU fans worry about Marshall. You are making them our peers when you do that!!!! I know something about schools and have ties to both. As an ECU fan I worry about UNC and as a nominal Houston fan I place Texas tech as the school that gets out wrath...keep on wasting time and energy on the usual suspects though. Whatever floats YOUR boat my friend.

Lol. I didnt make that comment you're responding to. My point was that we are underpaid.

my bad. I was responding to another and meant to make my point to another...sorry

(05-16-2015 03:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:39 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 11:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  So basically cbs wanted no more mwc in results to their POOR embarrassing conference championship TV ratings.

actually MW had relatively good ratings for their championship game last year. not sure why you would say otherwise. Again, if you think the AAC belongs with the big boys why waste so much time trying to prove your better than MWC and even CUSA. Their not the enemy. Focus on the pretender ACC as a way to prove the American belongs at the big boy table.

Did I just hit nerve, billy??

FYI I don't have anything against the mwc, but whatever floats your boat man.

yes attackcoog. You did hit a nerve. You Houston fans worry too much about the mwc like too many ECU fans worry about Marshall. You are making them our peers when you do that!!!! I know something about schools and have ties to both. As an ECU fan I worry about UNC and as a nominal Houston fan I place Texas tech as the school that gets out wrath...keep on wasting time and energy on the usual suspects though. Whatever floats YOUR boat my friend.

lol... Wrong billy, I don't worry about the mwc, not even a little bit.

But since you bringing leagues strengths up, yes, I do believe the AAC is the 6th best league out there in the FBS to be completely honest.

So misinformation in this thread. CBS did not air the MWC championship game nationally even though it was OTA channel. It was a regional broadcast and many cities, especially in the east did not show it last year.

MWC has several stadiums in the north and they get cold at night in December really hurting attendance. MWC wanted a better time slot and CBS did not want to move the game, given the ratings and regional nature of the game. CBS chose not to exercise their option for the game. The late night slot on a December night was very bad for the MWC frankly. Hell it was 10:30 pm eastern time and below freezing in the northern stadiums in the west. CBS and MWC simply wanted different things for the game.

ESPN has almost doubled the money the MWC received and give the MWC a fan friendly time slot for the western regional game.

Playing against the ACC will hurt a bit but many in the west don't follow the ACC anyway so it will be interesting to see how the demographics break out. ESPN obviously feels they need a western game in that time slot for a reason.

Most MWC fans are happy with the change, especially the game time slot. We are a bit nervous about the ratings and how the ACC thing will all play out but at least this is actually more of a national broadcast then CBS was doing. Like many I don't follow the ACC much anyway nor do many eastern fans follow the MWC.

a link from Boise:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/05/15....html?rh=1

So your saying the Boise St Conference got a bump in pay and a better time slot... ya, thats what I thought, it does in fact turn out that I dont care.

Cant wait till 2019 when the new contract comes and the seperation in pay gets much bigger.

(05-17-2015 11:11 AM)billings Wrote:  So misinformation in this thread. CBS did not air the MWC championship game nationally even though it was OTA channel. It was a regional broadcast and many cities, especially in the east did not show it last year.

MWC has several stadiums in the north and they get cold at night in December really hurting attendance. MWC wanted a better time slot and CBS did not want to move the game, given the ratings and regional nature of the game. CBS chose not to exercise their option for the game. The late night slot on a December night was very bad for the MWC frankly. Hell it was 10:30 pm eastern time and below freezing in the northern stadiums in the west. CBS and MWC simply wanted different things for the game.

ESPN has almost doubled the money the MWC received and give the MWC a fan friendly time slot for the western regional game.

Playing against the ACC will hurt a bit but many in the west don't follow the ACC anyway so it will be interesting to see how the demographics break out. ESPN obviously feels they need a western game in that time slot for a reason.

Most MWC fans are happy with the change, especially the game time slot. We are a bit nervous about the ratings and how the ACC thing will all play out but at least this is actually more of a national broadcast then CBS was doing. Like many I don't follow the ACC much anyway nor do many eastern fans follow the MWC.

a link from Boise:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/05/15....html?rh=1

I don't see where that article says the rights fee was doubled. It just says it was more.

The game was national but also after 11 pm local channels have rights back and if they decided to show what would likely get higher local ratings that's their call. Have better teams or a better slot and it wouldn't happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk