http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/06/04...ut-of.html

Boise gets the most ($5.3 Million but then add $4 million due to the Access bowl split and it push that total to $9.3 million) followed by Fresno getting $4.9 million.


From $29 million to $47 million.

Hopefully, the author can get a breakdown on the profit of the CCG to compare to last year. Given the attendance BSU had, I'd suspect it will be lower.

Though talks of expanding the playoff haven’t been heated as of late, Thompson said "I think it will come, I wouldn’t stand in the way." He said he would, however, have qualms if perhaps the format went to eight to include all five "power five" champions and three at-large teams.

Still peanuts compared to the $250 million of the Big 12.

(06-04-2015 03:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/06/04...ut-of.html

Boise gets the most ($5.3 Million but then add $4 million due to the Access bowl split and it push that total to $9.3 million) followed by Fresno getting $4.9 million.


From $29 million to $47 million.

Hopefully, the author can get a breakdown on the profit of the CCG to compare to last year. Given the attendance BSU had, I'd suspect it will be lower.

Though talks of expanding the playoff haven’t been heated as of late, Thompson said "I think it will come, I wouldn’t stand in the way." He said he would, however, have qualms if perhaps the format went to eight to include all five "power five" champions and three at-large teams.

Still peanuts compared to the $250 million of the Big 12.

Do you realize what $9.3 million can buy you in Boise?

The MWC is a solid league, glad to see them get paid. If they could add Houston and SMU they could have some negotiating power on media deal...

I don't see BYU coming back, even though Boise likely just out banked them in 2015.

Interesting breakdown on all MWC program earnings and intrinsic values. For all the grief San Jose State gets on this board, surprised to see them come in #2.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/mountain-we...ntain-west

As I see this from the point of how much each school register outside their own footprint is that the MWC is the best over the best of the rest of the G5 conferences. They are the only one that have all teams that played on ESPN that reached 1 million + viewers. Even the lowly San Jose State, UNLV and New Mexico. Seems the fans do have faith in their teams that loses a lot to watch them on tv. That is the problem with the AAC when they picked the schools to join them. Tulsa, Tulane and Temple are struggling with getting the stands fill and not enough people watching the games on tv. Rice, U. Mass., many of the MAC schools, UTEP, Texas State, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe, La.-Lafayette and others in the Sun Belt could garner more viewers. North Dakota State, UTSA, Old Dominion, Appalachian State, South Alabama and Georgia Southern are new to either football or in the spotlight at the FBS level. Even Eastern Washington registered by fans than over several FBS schools.
Some P5 schools are losing ground in viewers like Washington State, Oregon State, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Pittsburgh and in some cases Miami(Flo.) around the 500,000 mark at times. It would be a question of time when some of the underperforming P5 schools from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC gets the boot? Not sure if any Big 10 or SEC schools would get booted, but could the schools from the other three big conferences like Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 to decide to replace the bad teams that are not generating money and replaced them with the top G5 schools that are actually making money? It is something that these conferences must decide if they really want to keep it the old ways, or go to the model of demand where some of the demands tend to be at several of the G5 schools that fans like over some of the P5 schools in football?

(06-04-2015 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As I see this from the point of how much each school register outside their own footprint is that the MWC is the best over the best of the rest of the G5 conferences. They are the only one that have all teams that played on ESPN that reached 1 million + viewers. Even the lowly San Jose State, UNLV and New Mexico. Seems the fans do have faith in their teams that loses a lot to watch them on tv. That is the problem with the AAC when they picked the schools to join them. Tulsa, Tulane and Temple are struggling with getting the stands fill and not enough people watching the games on tv. Rice, U. Mass., many of the MAC schools, UTEP, Texas State, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe, La.-Lafayette and others in the Sun Belt could garner more viewers. North Dakota State, UTSA, Old Dominion, Appalachian State, South Alabama and Georgia Southern are new to either football or in the spotlight at the FBS level. Even Eastern Washington registered by fans than over several FBS schools.
Some P5 schools are losing ground in viewers like Washington State, Oregon State, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Pittsburgh and in some cases Miami(Flo.) around the 500,000 mark at times. It would be a question of time when some of the underperforming P5 schools from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC gets the boot? Not sure if any Big 10 or SEC schools would get booted, but could the schools from the other three big conferences like Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 to decide to replace the bad teams that are not generating money and replaced them with the top G5 schools that are actually making money? It is something that these conferences must decide if they really want to keep it the old ways, or go to the model of demand where some of the demands tend to be at several of the G5 schools that fans like over some of the P5 schools in football?

I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

(06-04-2015 05:37 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Interesting breakdown on all MWC program earnings and intrinsic values. For all the grief San Jose State gets on this board, surprised to see them come in #2.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/mountain-we...ntain-west

San Jose State gets some grief because their basketball team went 0-28 vs all D1 competition this year.

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern

"Playing at 10:30 pm Eastern" is the whole point, though, isn't it? There are fewer games on TV at that time, but there are also far fewer people watching. And, of course, there are fewer games on that late precisely because there are far fewer people across the U.S. watching anything at all at 10:30 pm ET than at 7:30 ET.

About 24% of the U.S. population lives in the Pacific or Mountain time zone. Alaska and Hawaii together are about 0.6 percent, so the combined Eastern/Central population is a bit more than 75% of the U.S. population. The pool of potential viewers in their own "prime time" for 7:30 ET games is 3 times the pool of potential viewers for 10:30 ET games. Maybe even more, because western viewers are far more likely to watch an earlier game at 4:30 their time than eastern viewers are to watch a game at 10:30 their time that ends at 2 am their time.

Only the hardest-core football fans, insomniacs, and gamblers are probably watching CFB games at 2 am their own time. That means that nearly all the viewers for west-coast prime time games are in the Pacific and Mountain time zones. When the TV networks show games in that late time slot, they're really just trying to capture viewers from that 24% of the U.S. population. Anyone farther east who is still awake that late is just a bonus.

(06-05-2015 02:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern

"Playing at 10:30 pm Eastern" is the whole point, though, isn't it? There are fewer games on TV at that time, but there are also far fewer people watching. And, of course, there are fewer games on that late precisely because there are far fewer people across the U.S. watching anything at all at 10:30 pm ET than at 7:30 ET.

About 24% of the U.S. population lives in the Pacific or Mountain time zone. Alaska and Hawaii together are about 0.6 percent, so the combined Eastern/Central population is a bit more than 75% of the U.S. population. The pool of potential viewers in their own "prime time" for 7:30 ET games is 3 times the pool of potential viewers for 10:30 ET games. Maybe even more, because western viewers are far more likely to watch an earlier game at 4:30 their time than eastern viewers are to watch a game at 10:30 their time that ends at 2 am their time.

Only the hardest-core football fans, insomniacs, and gamblers are probably watching CFB games at 2 am their own time. That means that nearly all the viewers for west-coast prime time games are in the Pacific and Mountain time zones. When the TV networks show games in that late time slot, they're really just trying to capture viewers from that 24% of the U.S. population. Anyone farther east who is still awake that late is just a bonus.

Television's "prime time" is between 8:00pm and 11:00pm, with the "lead in" and "lead outs" being the 30 minutes before and after. So no, I'm going to disagree with you on that. I would also consider the fact that football in the United States defies all laws of television. People will watch football - if accessible - later than they'll watch a lot of other programming. The MWC is smart enough to realize that they have the ability to capture their time zones at a normal time and the east at a time that's still accessible for people. This is something that every other FBS conference (save the Pac 12) can't do. Like I said in my first post, they can capture people that want to watch football in the largest population cluster in the country at a time that there's WAY less football on.

But the viewer difference isn't large enough to quantify any rights to gloat or anything.

If 10:15-10:30 starts were so good, why is the Pac 12 trying like hell to avoid them like the plague?

Because they aren't able to sleep well with 1 million viewers like the Mountain West can. One man's trash is another man's treasure

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

IMO, this is an argument in favor of western expansion for the AAC. Even if only 24% of the country is in the pool of potential viewers, the 10 ET time slot on ESPN/2 gets decent ratings - especially when compared to ESPNEWS and ESPN3 broadcasts, even during primetime.

If the AAC added a couple of western teams, you would be able to increase the TV deal simply by the fact that you could now have additional inventory that is available for the more lucrative 10ET time slot on ESPN/2.

(06-05-2015 02:39 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

IMO, this is an argument in favor of western expansion for the AAC. Even if only 24% of the country is in the pool of potential viewers, the 10 ET time slot on ESPN/2 gets decent ratings - especially when compared to ESPNEWS and ESPN3 broadcasts, even during primetime.

If the AAC added a couple of western teams, you would be able to increase the TV deal simply by the fact that you could now have additional inventory that is available for the more lucrative 10ET time slot on ESPN/2.

I hear Idaho and New Mexico State are interested.

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As I see this from the point of how much each school register outside their own footprint is that the MWC is the best over the best of the rest of the G5 conferences. They are the only one that have all teams that played on ESPN that reached 1 million + viewers. Even the lowly San Jose State, UNLV and New Mexico. Seems the fans do have faith in their teams that loses a lot to watch them on tv. That is the problem with the AAC when they picked the schools to join them. Tulsa, Tulane and Temple are struggling with getting the stands fill and not enough people watching the games on tv. Rice, U. Mass., many of the MAC schools, UTEP, Texas State, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe, La.-Lafayette and others in the Sun Belt could garner more viewers. North Dakota State, UTSA, Old Dominion, Appalachian State, South Alabama and Georgia Southern are new to either football or in the spotlight at the FBS level. Even Eastern Washington registered by fans than over several FBS schools.
Some P5 schools are losing ground in viewers like Washington State, Oregon State, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Pittsburgh and in some cases Miami(Flo.) around the 500,000 mark at times. It would be a question of time when some of the underperforming P5 schools from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC gets the boot? Not sure if any Big 10 or SEC schools would get booted, but could the schools from the other three big conferences like Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 to decide to replace the bad teams that are not generating money and replaced them with the top G5 schools that are actually making money? It is something that these conferences must decide if they really want to keep it the old ways, or go to the model of demand where some of the demands tend to be at several of the G5 schools that fans like over some of the P5 schools in football?

I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

With games like San Jose State Vs Stanford in 2012?


http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=322440024

Stanford holds off the Spartans 20-17.

UNLV defeated Arizona State in 2008 as well.
UNLV also beat Arkansas in the 2000 Las Vegas bowl.

(06-05-2015 02:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As I see this from the point of how much each school register outside their own footprint is that the MWC is the best over the best of the rest of the G5 conferences. They are the only one that have all teams that played on ESPN that reached 1 million + viewers. Even the lowly San Jose State, UNLV and New Mexico. Seems the fans do have faith in their teams that loses a lot to watch them on tv. That is the problem with the AAC when they picked the schools to join them. Tulsa, Tulane and Temple are struggling with getting the stands fill and not enough people watching the games on tv. Rice, U. Mass., many of the MAC schools, UTEP, Texas State, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe, La.-Lafayette and others in the Sun Belt could garner more viewers. North Dakota State, UTSA, Old Dominion, Appalachian State, South Alabama and Georgia Southern are new to either football or in the spotlight at the FBS level. Even Eastern Washington registered by fans than over several FBS schools.
Some P5 schools are losing ground in viewers like Washington State, Oregon State, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Pittsburgh and in some cases Miami(Flo.) around the 500,000 mark at times. It would be a question of time when some of the underperforming P5 schools from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC gets the boot? Not sure if any Big 10 or SEC schools would get booted, but could the schools from the other three big conferences like Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 to decide to replace the bad teams that are not generating money and replaced them with the top G5 schools that are actually making money? It is something that these conferences must decide if they really want to keep it the old ways, or go to the model of demand where some of the demands tend to be at several of the G5 schools that fans like over some of the P5 schools in football?

I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

With games like San Jose State Vs Stanford in 2012?


http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=322440024

Stanford holds off the Spartans 20-17.

UNLV defeated Arizona State in 2008 as well.
UNLV also beat Arkansas in the 2000 Las Vegas bowl.

What do these games from 3,8,and 15 years ago have to do with anything?

(06-05-2015 03:23 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 02:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As I see this from the point of how much each school register outside their own footprint is that the MWC is the best over the best of the rest of the G5 conferences. They are the only one that have all teams that played on ESPN that reached 1 million + viewers. Even the lowly San Jose State, UNLV and New Mexico. Seems the fans do have faith in their teams that loses a lot to watch them on tv. That is the problem with the AAC when they picked the schools to join them. Tulsa, Tulane and Temple are struggling with getting the stands fill and not enough people watching the games on tv. Rice, U. Mass., many of the MAC schools, UTEP, Texas State, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe, La.-Lafayette and others in the Sun Belt could garner more viewers. North Dakota State, UTSA, Old Dominion, Appalachian State, South Alabama and Georgia Southern are new to either football or in the spotlight at the FBS level. Even Eastern Washington registered by fans than over several FBS schools.
Some P5 schools are losing ground in viewers like Washington State, Oregon State, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Pittsburgh and in some cases Miami(Flo.) around the 500,000 mark at times. It would be a question of time when some of the underperforming P5 schools from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC gets the boot? Not sure if any Big 10 or SEC schools would get booted, but could the schools from the other three big conferences like Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 to decide to replace the bad teams that are not generating money and replaced them with the top G5 schools that are actually making money? It is something that these conferences must decide if they really want to keep it the old ways, or go to the model of demand where some of the demands tend to be at several of the G5 schools that fans like over some of the P5 schools in football?

I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

With games like San Jose State Vs Stanford in 2012?


http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=322440024

Stanford holds off the Spartans 20-17.

UNLV defeated Arizona State in 2008 as well.
UNLV also beat Arkansas in the 2000 Las Vegas bowl.

What do these games from 3,8,and 15 years ago have to do with anything?

It means that the fans now that these schools could put up a fight against some tougher teams. It still shows that people still watch these teams these days against the likes of Stanford and them. The viewership drops off at the end of the season because of who they play in the conference. It is like the viewers and fan support drops off in the MAC like Northern Illinois taken on Eastern Michigan. San Jose State is on the lower end of lack of support from fans. Plus with the Raiders and 49's in the ares do not help.

(06-05-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If 10:15-10:30 starts were so good, why is the Pac 12 trying like hell to avoid them like the plague?

Because late starts suck for the fan. As a Bronco fan, I know this all too well. It is much more convenient for me to stay at home and watch Boise play on the big screen in crisp HD, then venture out to the stadium at 8:00p MT on a cold November night.

(06-05-2015 02:39 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

IMO, this is an argument in favor of western expansion for the AAC. Even if only 24% of the country is in the pool of potential viewers, the 10 ET time slot on ESPN/2 gets decent ratings - especially when compared to ESPNEWS and ESPN3 broadcasts, even during primetime.

If the AAC added a couple of western teams, you would be able to increase the TV deal simply by the fact that you could now have additional inventory that is available for the more lucrative 10ET time slot on ESPN/2.

The key here is to invite the top 6 Mountain West teams as a group and form a 6-team all-sports western division. The result would be a 3-division 18-team nationwide AAC. Gotta have "divisional play-CCG" deregulation before that can happen.

(06-05-2015 02:56 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 02:39 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

IMO, this is an argument in favor of western expansion for the AAC. Even if only 24% of the country is in the pool of potential viewers, the 10 ET time slot on ESPN/2 gets decent ratings - especially when compared to ESPNEWS and ESPN3 broadcasts, even during primetime.

If the AAC added a couple of western teams, you would be able to increase the TV deal simply by the fact that you could now have additional inventory that is available for the more lucrative 10ET time slot on ESPN/2.

I hear Idaho and New Mexico State are interested.

The MW distributed 47 million of which Boise got the biggest chunk. The AAC distributed 94 million, which was divided evenly. I suspect some teams would be very interested IF they could be part of a 6-team MW all-sports division. Functionally, it wouldn't be much different from the way things operate now for them, except the schools would make more money and would have no real peer in the G5.

(06-05-2015 06:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 02:56 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 02:39 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 12:45 PM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I've tried to stay away from replying to people when they make this point because I truly enjoy the Mountain West, and I know people are going to think this is a dig or whatever. But, all that I'm going to say is that the television ratings for live sports that emanate from the West Coast, whether it be Mountain or Pacific time, largely are going up against less programming competition in their timeslots for people watching on the East coast (where the majority of the population of the United States is centralized).

When your games are on television against the Pac 12 only in a number of slots that the MWC shows games, it's far easier to draw those numbers from the "football watching demographics" (aka the folks that are just looking for some football to watch later in the day on Thursday/Saturday, and to a lesser extent Friday) in comparison to every other conference in the country, who plays on television at the same times as one another. There is crossover, but by and large, the MWC has the benefit of being slotted with less competition.

EDIT: I also think it's important to note that the MWC has the benefit of Boise, who has established itself a niche that people want to see. If someone sees that Boise is playing at 10:30 PM Eastern, they're probably going to watch it. I'm not sure that the same could be said as much if Boise was going up against the SEC on CBS primetime slate, or whatever example you want to use, from start to finish on a weekly basis.

IMO, this is an argument in favor of western expansion for the AAC. Even if only 24% of the country is in the pool of potential viewers, the 10 ET time slot on ESPN/2 gets decent ratings - especially when compared to ESPNEWS and ESPN3 broadcasts, even during primetime.

If the AAC added a couple of western teams, you would be able to increase the TV deal simply by the fact that you could now have additional inventory that is available for the more lucrative 10ET time slot on ESPN/2.

I hear Idaho and New Mexico State are interested.

The MW distributed 47 million of which Boise got the biggest chunk. The AAC distributed 94 million, which was divided evenly. I suspect some teams would be very interested IF they could be part of a 6-team MW all-sports division. Functionally, it wouldn't be much different from the way things operate now for them, except the schools would make more money and would have no real peer in the G5.

Uuuhh. No. Half of that revenue is from exit fees and that isn't split evenly. The AAC revenue will keep getting lower as the exit fees disappear. Especially those NCAA credits the Big East left for the AAC. Those credits will get less each year.