(03-11-2017 10:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The MWC isn't getting much exposure from CBS-SN. The entire reason they left ESPN in 2005 was because they didn't want to play on weeknights. So CBS-SN AND weeknight games? They are better off losing their tv pennies and playing football on Saturdays and basketball at decent hours on the Internet or on a local network. Sell the big games like Florida St at Boise or Arkansas at Colorado St to ESPN if possible I guess...
Cheers!

Wow, there's a concept.

(03-13-2017 12:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Personally, I think they wont take much of hit if any on money or exposure. Either ESPN pays more and makes it worth the MW eating those late start times--or other things happen. ESPN gets a small package of late starts and pays nearly the same price as now (cuz they don't have anywhere else to get cheap FBS 9:30 starts) and the MW places games on other national platforms like NBC Sports, BeIn, and CBS-Sports Network (FS-2 might even be an option) at a reasonable price. That makes up virtually all their current income. The rest of the inventory slides to regional networks and local OTA, with either exclusive or mirror availability on the MWDN. Bottom line---neither exposure or income are likely to suffer much. In fact, largely staying out of those 9:30 PM west coast windows where nobody is really watching might end up INCREASING the exposure as more people might actually be awake to see more MW football.

You're dismissing the externalities of severing ties with a national media partner. The MWC considers itself at the level of the AAC, not the Sun Belt.

Don't think MWC presidents are that big of risk takers.

They might be now...the president's and AD's met all day to discuss the TV package and the future is a big indicator of the discontent of the current TV.
When you are losing much more $$ from attendance than what TV provides, there is a breaking point. Alumni/fans won't give more money for games they can't attend or see on TV because its on so late. Give us P5 $$ and there will be complaints but not so much that that TV $$ is significant for us.

I think the tremendous success of the digital network is playing a role in what the next TV contract will be. It would be more successful having higher profile games shown on the MWDN.

(03-13-2017 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 11:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, where you might see caps coming into play is when the towers begin to get close to bandwidth capacity and the time nears for another capacity upgrade. At that point, the conservation of bandwidth might be necessary until its clear a capacity upgrade will be profitable.

My point is that wireless capacity (in terms of serving top speed data throughput to each of X customers in a given city, any time those customers request to pull something) absolutely no where near what it would need to be to completely replace land-line service.

Check out what's coming with 5G wireless broadband. It's going to use a different part of the spectrum, including some of what used to be VHF TV. They're referring to it as millimeter wave. It won't need the same types of cell sites. In populated areas, they'll need a lot more transmitters, but they can be a lot smaller and less obtrusive. They could be put on power poles, street lights, any old building, etc.

Indeed, we will see.

Maybe the MWC wants to be trailblazers, testing the future for the likes of the AAC, MAC, etc. But I still say I'll believe it when I see it.

(03-13-2017 01:26 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  Check out what's coming with 5G wireless broadband. It's going to use a different part of the spectrum, including some of what used to be VHF TV. They're referring to it as millimeter wave. It won't need the same types of cell sites. In populated areas, they'll need a lot more transmitters, but they can be a lot smaller and less obtrusive. They could be put on power poles, street lights, any old building, etc.

That's wifi technology.

You're basically just talking about upgrading the spectrum that the wifi router uses to 20-60 GHz, to allow higher data throughput between the router and the devices (up to 10 Gbps).


That's not mobile technology.

(03-13-2017 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-11-2017 10:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The MWC isn't getting much exposure from CBS-SN. The entire reason they left ESPN in 2005 was because they didn't want to play on weeknights. So CBS-SN AND weeknight games? They are better off losing their tv pennies and playing football on Saturdays and basketball at decent hours on the Internet or on a local network. Sell the big games like Florida St at Boise or Arkansas at Colorado St to ESPN if possible I guess...
Cheers!

Wow, there's a concept.

Yeah. ESPN HATED the MWC for severing ties and boycotted them entirely for years. Ironically, right after the MWC left ESPIN, they went on an absolute tear. Years when TCU and Utah were going undefeated and winning Sugar Bowls over Bama and Rose Bowls and a few Fiesta Bowls for good measure. BYU was killing it too. The MWC's best years were completely ignored by ESPN. Then the PAC and Big 12 and ESPN took Utah, TCU and BYU (ESPN gave them an Indy contract) and basically destroyed a very good underrated conference. The AAC needs to understand what happened to the MWC when they decided to leave ESPN. The same thing will happen to the AAC.
Cheers!

(03-13-2017 12:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Personally, I think they wont take much of hit if any on money or exposure. Either ESPN pays more and makes it worth the MW eating those late start times--or other things happen. ESPN gets a small package of late starts and pays nearly the same price as now (cuz they don't have anywhere else to get cheap FBS 9:30 starts) and the MW places games on other national platforms like NBC Sports, BeIn, and CBS-Sports Network (FS-2 might even be an option) at a reasonable price. That makes up virtually all their current income. The rest of the inventory slides to regional networks and local OTA, with either exclusive or mirror availability on the MWDN. Bottom line---neither exposure or income are likely to suffer much. In fact, largely staying out of those 9:30 PM west coast windows where nobody is really watching might end up INCREASING the exposure as more people might actually be awake to see more MW football.

You're dismissing the externalities of severing ties with a national media partner. The MWC considers itself at the level of the AAC, not the Sun Belt.

Don't think MWC presidents are that big of risk takers.

I don't know about the MountainWest not being big risk takers. Let's see, they took a risk and breaking away from the WAC which is how the Mountain West got started. they have risked not being ESPN before. They took a risk in creating their own cable network. They have taken a risk in investing a great deal of money into their own digital network. Honestly, I'd say the Mountain West is far more Willing to take a risk then the AAC.

Fair enough! We will see.

Thanks for the countering viewpoints.

(03-13-2017 02:23 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-11-2017 10:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The MWC isn't getting much exposure from CBS-SN. The entire reason they left ESPN in 2005 was because they didn't want to play on weeknights. So CBS-SN AND weeknight games? They are better off losing their tv pennies and playing football on Saturdays and basketball at decent hours on the Internet or on a local network. Sell the big games like Florida St at Boise or Arkansas at Colorado St to ESPN if possible I guess...
Cheers!

Wow, there's a concept.

Yeah. ESPN HATED the MWC for severing ties and boycotted them entirely for years. Ironically, right after the MWC left ESPIN, they went on an absolute tear. Years when TCU and Utah were going undefeated and winning Sugar Bowls over Bama and Rose Bowls and a few Fiesta Bowls for good measure. BYU was killing it too. The MWC's best years were completely ignored by ESPN. Then the PAC and Big 12 and ESPN took Utah, TCU and BYU (ESPN gave them an Indy contract) and basically destroyed a very good underrated conference. The AAC needs to understand what happened to the MWC when they decided to leave ESPN. The same thing will happen to the AAC.
Cheers!

I think in the long run, the MWC is better off though. They weren't going to keep Utah and TCU in particular anyway (unfortunately, as it would have been a very strong league) nor would those schools have played a whole bunch of games on weeknights.

(03-13-2017 12:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Personally, I think they wont take much of hit if any on money or exposure. Either ESPN pays more and makes it worth the MW eating those late start times--or other things happen. ESPN gets a small package of late starts and pays nearly the same price as now (cuz they don't have anywhere else to get cheap FBS 9:30 starts) and the MW places games on other national platforms like NBC Sports, BeIn, and CBS-Sports Network (FS-2 might even be an option) at a reasonable price. That makes up virtually all their current income. The rest of the inventory slides to regional networks and local OTA, with either exclusive or mirror availability on the MWDN. Bottom line---neither exposure or income are likely to suffer much. In fact, largely staying out of those 9:30 PM west coast windows where nobody is really watching might end up INCREASING the exposure as more people might actually be awake to see more MW football.

You're dismissing the externalities of severing ties with a national media partner. The MWC considers itself at the level of the AAC, not the Sun Belt.

Don't think MWC presidents are that big of risk takers.

Other than Boise St., does ESPN really even cover the MWC?

The MWC's best non-Boise St. OOC home games and Boise St. *conference* road games are on CBSSN.

See the 2016 schedule. Boise St. at New Mexico, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Air Force.

See also, Cal at SDSU, Utah at SJSU, NIU at Wyoming, Navy at Air Force, etc.

All of these games were on CBSSN.

(03-13-2017 01:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:26 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  Check out what's coming with 5G wireless broadband. It's going to use a different part of the spectrum, including some of what used to be VHF TV. They're referring to it as millimeter wave. It won't need the same types of cell sites. In populated areas, they'll need a lot more transmitters, but they can be a lot smaller and less obtrusive. They could be put on power poles, street lights, any old building, etc.

That's wifi technology.

You're basically just talking about upgrading the spectrum that the wifi router uses to 20-60 GHz, to allow higher data throughput between the router and the devices (up to 10 Gbps).


That's not mobile technology.

I mean, it won't be WiFi in the sense that you won't be able to connect to them by searching for the SSID and typing in the password. But if you want to say the technology works more like WiFi, there could be a point there.

That being said, if it's sold by the current mobile carriers, and your smartphone or other SIM card enabled devices connect to it automatically, then of course it's mobile technology.

(03-13-2017 02:23 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-11-2017 10:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The MWC isn't getting much exposure from CBS-SN. The entire reason they left ESPN in 2005 was because they didn't want to play on weeknights. So CBS-SN AND weeknight games? They are better off losing their tv pennies and playing football on Saturdays and basketball at decent hours on the Internet or on a local network. Sell the big games like Florida St at Boise or Arkansas at Colorado St to ESPN if possible I guess...
Cheers!

Wow, there's a concept.

Yeah. ESPN HATED the MWC for severing ties and boycotted them entirely for years. Ironically, right after the MWC left ESPIN, they went on an absolute tear. Years when TCU and Utah were going undefeated and winning Sugar Bowls over Bama and Rose Bowls and a few Fiesta Bowls for good measure. BYU was killing it too. The MWC's best years were completely ignored by ESPN. Then the PAC and Big 12 and ESPN took Utah, TCU and BYU (ESPN gave them an Indy contract) and basically destroyed a very good underrated conference. The AAC needs to understand what happened to the MWC when they decided to leave ESPN. The same thing will happen to the AAC.
Cheers!

The funny thing is, if you're a AAC school playing at a very high level--- hoping to get into a P5 conference----maybe leaving ESPN is a good way to get realignment bubbling again. It worked for Utah and TCU. Probably would have worked for BYU if they hadn't been so difficult to work with in 2010-2011. Even though BYU didn't make the P5--they turned it into a MUCH better deal than the old MW was getting.

(03-13-2017 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Personally, I think they wont take much of hit if any on money or exposure. Either ESPN pays more and makes it worth the MW eating those late start times--or other things happen. ESPN gets a small package of late starts and pays nearly the same price as now (cuz they don't have anywhere else to get cheap FBS 9:30 starts) and the MW places games on other national platforms like NBC Sports, BeIn, and CBS-Sports Network (FS-2 might even be an option) at a reasonable price. That makes up virtually all their current income. The rest of the inventory slides to regional networks and local OTA, with either exclusive or mirror availability on the MWDN. Bottom line---neither exposure or income are likely to suffer much. In fact, largely staying out of those 9:30 PM west coast windows where nobody is really watching might end up INCREASING the exposure as more people might actually be awake to see more MW football.

You're dismissing the externalities of severing ties with a national media partner. The MWC considers itself at the level of the AAC, not the Sun Belt.

Don't think MWC presidents are that big of risk takers.

I don't know about the MountainWest not being big risk takers. Let's see, they took a risk and breaking away from the whack which is how the Mountain West got started. they have risked not being ESPN before. They took a risk and creating their own cable network. They have taken a risk in investing a great deal of money into their own digital network. Honestly, I'd say the Mountain West is far more Willing to take a risk then the AAC.

That's true...and see what happen in each one.
1. Moving from ESPN to CSN. Provided a new network for content and good MW start times and coverage. Became CBS Sport Network.
2. Created own conference cable network. The MW was first, but that lead to other conferences to start one also, the Big 10 Network to speak.
3. Invested money into the digital network and is serving as a good replacement for the cable conference network to where it is now being monetized.
4. Going all digital? Results: TBD....

May set the trend for other G5 conference to take some of the CFP$$ and invest in their own network. Unless you are the MAC which sold everything to ESPN and having ESPN3 as their digital network. Or the AAC which could develop a good digital network also, but is to tied to ESPN and their content on the sub-channels that not very people watch. The could really use that content to develop their own digital network. Surprised Aresco isn't on top of that more unless he was solely focused on TV only.

(03-13-2017 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:28 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Streaming Hulu, Netflix, FoxSportsGo, WatchESPN, Youtube don't affect your monthly data allowance whatsoever.

Two possibilities:

1) you're wrong, read the fine print.

2) if you truly could leave your phone plugged in, streaming 24/7 all month long from their towers, for zero surcharge ... well then that's because this is just a temporary promo. Rest assured, they can't afford that if any significant percentage of their customers start pulling a lot of streaming from their towers.

1) The fine print is that it's 480p quality which is fine for a phone or tablet on a qualifying plan (3gb or more / month)
2) Why would you stream 24/7 for a full month? This "promo" has been going on for about 2 years strong.

(03-13-2017 03:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think in the long run, the MWC is better off though. They weren't going to keep Utah and TCU in particular anyway (unfortunately, as it would have been a very strong league) nor would those schools have played a whole bunch of games on weeknights.

The ship has sailed, but I and many others were calling for the MWC to grow to 12 schools with the addition of Boise St., Fresno St. and Houston back in 2008 and 2009 timeframe. Those additions would have given the MWC an autobid to the BCS bowls for the last few years of the old system.

One of the knocks on the old MWC was the fact that the perceived dregs weighed down the conference. Boise St. would have fit perfectly in the top tier with TCU, Utah, and BYU. And, Fresno St. and Houston - both solid at the time - would have solidified the middle tier.

If the MWC had been a set to be a BCS conference in 2011 to 2013, there's a decent chance that BYU would have remained. Then, you would have two additional BCS appearances on the conference resume. Boise St., BYU, Fresno St., and Houston could have kept the conference strong, even despite losing Utah. The MWC would have looked to C-USA/Big East callups, instead of TCU, BSU and SDSU looking at the Big East.

The WAC would probably still have football, because the MWC would have back-filled with SMU and perhaps UTEP, Memphis, Tulsa, or even Navy(?) instead of SJSU, Utah St., Nevada, and Hawaii.

I have to wonder that going all digital or mostly digital will change the expansion dynamic. Just because you are in a big TV market won't mean a thing to the digital side if the fan base isn't engaged. San Jose St is my example, they give the MW a footprint in the Bay Area but they haven't engaged in the digital network broadcasts. NMSU on the other hand has a fairly good fan engagement with their AggieVision and despite not being in a TV market would bring quite a bit more from the engaged fans over a digital network than SJSU does for the TV side.

(03-13-2017 03:33 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  But if you want to say the technology works more like WiFi, there could be a point there.

No, you're conflating different things.

Upgrading wifi to 60GHz spectrum is considered to be under the (very broad) umbrella of "5G improvements". It is entirely wifi router technology. There won't be any cell towers transmitting in 60GHz to mobile devices.

(03-13-2017 03:45 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  1) The fine print is that it's 480p quality which is fine for a phone or tablet on a qualifying plan (3gb or more / month)
2) Why would you stream 24/7 for a full month? This "promo" has been going on for about 2 years strong.

I meant promo as literally something that is being promoted, not as a limited time offer.

The point is simply that if every TMobile customer suddenly started taking advantage of this service to its fullest extent, it would quickly overload their system and force them to install caps or reductions functionally equivalent to caps.

That's always the underlying reality of these "unlimited" plans. Marketing games. What they really mean is "sure, you can make unlimited requests .... and we'll service all of them, so long as it's not going to cost us more money to service everyone".

(03-11-2017 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-11-2017 04:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's the opposite direction to the MAC

The money is hardly make or break at G5 level. CUSA and SBC barely get anything, and the MAC sold their soul. CBS is obviously not going to pay the AAC or MWC much. It will be interesting to see what the MWC decides to do. Will they build a digital network again? Partner with somebody like Yahoo or Google or Facebook? Is a partnership with the P12N possible.

The AAC folks are delusional if they think they will get an increase. G5 schools are going to have to make a call on whether it's worth a few $100K to have crazy hours. If you lose 20K butts in seats you are probably losing $500K in gate. That is the calculus for 8:45pm kickoffs on Tuesday night.

The AAC will get a raise. The AAC numbers aren't anything like CUSA's numbers and are much higher than even the MW numbers. There is a difference.

The poster above doesn't know what he's talking about... He probably thinks the AAC is full of start-up programs too

I may be proven wrong (hell happens a lot, I'm used to it).

But I expect MWC isn't going to divorce "traditional" TV completely.
Whether it is Fox, ESPN, NBCSN, CBSSN they will have a traditional package but it will be for a limited number of games with limits on weeknight and late starts.

The rest they will take online to control the start times.

(03-13-2017 07:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I may be proven wrong (hell happens a lot, I'm used to it).

But I expect MWC isn't going to divorce "traditional" TV completely.
Whether it is Fox, ESPN, NBCSN, CBSSN they will have a traditional package but it will be for a limited number of games with limits on weeknight and late starts.

The rest they will take online to control the start times.

I agree. I don't even think its going to require them to lose much in terms of income. My guess is their income from traditional TV probably drops very little because ESPN will probably still pay 10 million for 1 late start a week spread around the league so no one school has to deal with more than a single 9:30 start. CBS-Sports will pay probably pay what they used to pay CUSA (7 million for a 15 game package that's mostly Sat games with reasonable start times, but features a few on Thursday). Maybe someone like BeIn pays a few million for a little more well known G5 inventory that would allow BeIn to control some FBS inventory that appeals to the west coast.

At that point, the amount of MW inventory requiring coverage via a combination of local TV, MWDN, or both probably isnt changing all that much from what it is now.