“They’re currently between the CBS deal and the ESPN deal somewhere in the $16, $17 million-a-year range. If ESPN-Plus is interested, they could double that easily. If ESPN is not interested, they could be looking at a 50 percent haircut.”

Mountain West future on line as TV talks take place

(07-09-2019 04:01 PM)GreenSteve Wrote:  “They’re currently between the CBS deal and the ESPN deal somewhere in the $16, $17 million-a-year range. If ESPN-Plus is interested, they could double that easily. If ESPN is not interested, they could be looking at a 50 percent haircut.

Wish we could get that.

(07-10-2019 06:46 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:01 PM)GreenSteve Wrote:  “They’re currently between the CBS deal and the ESPN deal somewhere in the $16, $17 million-a-year range. If ESPN-Plus is interested, they could double that easily. If ESPN is not interested, they could be looking at a 50 percent haircut.

Wish we could get that.

That would be nice, but it isn't happening. Also, does Boise St. still get a larger piece of the pie in MWC?

(07-10-2019 07:12 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 06:46 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:01 PM)GreenSteve Wrote:  “They’re currently between the CBS deal and the ESPN deal somewhere in the $16, $17 million-a-year range. If ESPN-Plus is interested, they could double that easily. If ESPN is not interested, they could be looking at a 50 percent haircut.

Wish we could get that.

That would be nice, but it isn't happening. Also, does Boise St. still get a larger piece of the pie in MWC?

They do.

When all is said and done, theirs will be comparable to the AAC's new deal.

I don't think so. It may be a little better than the deal they have right now. IMO, each school will make about $1.75 - 2 million annually. The MWC is a good conference, but it's second to the AAC right now.

(07-10-2019 08:22 AM)TTT Wrote:  When all is said and done, theirs will be comparable to the AAC's new deal.

I dont think so. AAC had very good tv ratings. Mwc is nowhere near that level.

(07-10-2019 09:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:22 AM)TTT Wrote:  When all is said and done, theirs will be comparable to the AAC's new deal.

I dont think so. AAC had very good tv ratings. Mwc is nowhere near that level.

You have to be on TV to get good ratings. CUSA cant even get on TV consistently, so theres no way to know what our rating would be. I would hope CUSA would still consider itself a peer of the MWC and expectations would be to have comparable exposure and revenue. Those two factors weigh heavily in the ability to be competitive on the field in the long run. If MWC gets $16m per year, thats over $1M per team. Twice what CUSA is getting, but closer to us than the AAC.

This was telling:
“Frankly, if you look at the rulings and developments of the NCAA over the years, it seems to be trending toward that occurring,” Carter said. “So I think what you might end up many years down the road having (is) 50 schools really playing top-level, professional-esque Division I football and basketball and maybe the rest playing the kind of sport the NCAA envisioned all along, which was balancing academics and athletics.”

Im surprised they actually admitted that publicly.

(07-10-2019 09:29 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:22 AM)TTT Wrote:  When all is said and done, theirs will be comparable to the AAC's new deal.

I dont think so. AAC had very good tv ratings. Mwc is nowhere near that level.

You have to be on TV to get good ratings. CUSA cant even get on TV consistently, so theres no way to know what our rating would be. I would hope CUSA would still consider itself a peer of the MWC and expectations would be to have comparable exposure and revenue. Those two factors weigh heavily in the ability to be competitive on the field in the long run. If MWC gets $16m per year, thats over $1M per team. Twice what CUSA is getting, but closer to us than the AAC.

This is where the NFL network deal will help. Putting up good numbers there should bode well for future negotiations. The only other alternatives would be odd day/time slots...something the conference hasn’t shown interest in.

(07-10-2019 09:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:29 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:22 AM)TTT Wrote:  When all is said and done, theirs will be comparable to the AAC's new deal.

I dont think so. AAC had very good tv ratings. Mwc is nowhere near that level.

You have to be on TV to get good ratings. CUSA cant even get on TV consistently, so theres no way to know what our rating would be. I would hope CUSA would still consider itself a peer of the MWC and expectations would be to have comparable exposure and revenue. Those two factors weigh heavily in the ability to be competitive on the field in the long run. If MWC gets $16m per year, thats over $1M per team. Twice what CUSA is getting, but closer to us than the AAC.

This is where the NFL network deal will help. Putting up good numbers there should bode well for future negotiations. The only other alternatives would be odd day/time slots...something the conference hasn’t shown interest in.

Exactly. CUSA REALLY needs to put up GOOD numbers for our NFL Network games this year. It's going to show if what our salt is worth. If we put up good #'s then that's going to bode well for many reason. If not, then we lay in the bed we made.

Do they release viewer #'s for ESPN3/+ & CBSSports Online games?

I don’t keep up with ratings like I used to. Most services list Nielsen numbers. CBSSports is not a Nielsen subscriber so neither tv nor digital info is included on those sites. I do check some social media accts that put out digital ratings, but they’re not consistent. ESPN will release numbers if they are really good or the event is big enough.

(07-10-2019 02:38 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I don’t keep up with ratings like I used to. Most services list Nielsen numbers. CBSSports is not a Nielsen subscriber so neither tv nor digital info is included on those sites. I do check some social media accts that put out digital ratings, but they’re not consistent. ESPN will release numbers if they are really good or the event is big enough.

Some social media accounts get very creative in what they consider a view as well. Facebook comes to mind. Scrolling past a suggested video on your feed can count as a view.

(07-10-2019 02:52 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 02:38 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I don’t keep up with ratings like I used to. Most services list Nielsen numbers. CBSSports is not a Nielsen subscriber so neither tv nor digital info is included on those sites. I do check some social media accts that put out digital ratings, but they’re not consistent. ESPN will release numbers if they are really good or the event is big enough.

Some social media accounts get very creative in what they consider a view as well. Facebook comes to mind. Scrolling past a suggested video on your feed can count as a view.

To be sure, anything not verified through a third party like Nielsen deserves to be met with some skepticism. I was thinking more along the lines of @AustinKarp and a few ESPN and FOX folks on twitter who sometimes post digital ratings.

(07-10-2019 09:55 AM)TTT Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:42 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:29 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:22 AM)TTT Wrote:  When all is said and done, theirs will be comparable to the AAC's new deal.

I dont think so. AAC had very good tv ratings. Mwc is nowhere near that level.

You have to be on TV to get good ratings. CUSA cant even get on TV consistently, so theres no way to know what our rating would be. I would hope CUSA would still consider itself a peer of the MWC and expectations would be to have comparable exposure and revenue. Those two factors weigh heavily in the ability to be competitive on the field in the long run. If MWC gets $16m per year, thats over $1M per team. Twice what CUSA is getting, but closer to us than the AAC.

This is where the NFL network deal will help. Putting up good numbers there should bode well for future negotiations. The only other alternatives would be odd day/time slots...something the conference hasn’t shown interest in.

Exactly. CUSA REALLY needs to put up GOOD numbers for our NFL Network games this year. It's going to show if what our salt is worth. If we put up good #'s then that's going to bode well for many reason. If not, then we lay in the bed we made.

Do they release viewer #'s for ESPN3/+ & CBSSports Online games?

Good ratings on the NFLN would be a good thing. FANTASTIC ratings will lead directly to a full takeover by the P5's.

I'd caution against expecting boffo numbers on NFLN, at least in the first couple of seasons. They should be better than BeIn (I could get better viewer count on a personal Periscope account), but it's still a new channel to the college-football game in a very crowded field. They'll be easier to get to and there'll be a higher rate of channel surfers that stick around, but it's still CUSA content and as of now, that means a pretty low ceiling.

(07-10-2019 08:39 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I don't think so. It may be a little better than the deal they have right now. IMO, each school will make about $1.75 - 2 million annually. The MWC is a good conference, but it's second to the AAC right now.

And the AAC was behind CUSA in BCS conference rankings just a few years ago. Unless you mean viewership, strength of conference was not used as guidance for the amount of tv money.

Our conference commissioner just sucked at getting us a good deal.

(07-11-2019 03:09 AM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:39 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I don't think so. It may be a little better than the deal they have right now. IMO, each school will make about $1.75 - 2 million annually. The MWC is a good conference, but it's second to the AAC right now.

And the AAC was behind CUSA in BCS conference rankings just a few years ago. Unless you mean viewership, strength of conference was not used as guidance for the amount of tv money.

Our conference commissioner just sucked at getting us a good deal.

Agreed. We gave up exposure on ESPN for what was supposed to be more money through lesser known networks. Instead we get no exposure and no money. What a great bargain.

(07-11-2019 07:20 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 03:09 AM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:39 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I don't think so. It may be a little better than the deal they have right now. IMO, each school will make about $1.75 - 2 million annually. The MWC is a good conference, but it's second to the AAC right now.

And the AAC was behind CUSA in BCS conference rankings just a few years ago. Unless you mean viewership, strength of conference was not used as guidance for the amount of tv money.

Our conference commissioner just sucked at getting us a good deal.

Agreed. We gave up exposure on ESPN for what was supposed to be more money through lesser known networks. Instead we get no exposure and no money. What a great bargain.

The onus is on Banowski for leaving ESPN. McCloud is working from behind. And it's not as if we don't have a relationship with ESPN anymore. Some of our Tier 3 games are shown on ESPN3. If they wanted our product on their main channel, they'd pay for it. I personally think it would hurt the conference to have to play weeknight games, but that's the only spot they'd be willing to give us. To hell with them. We need to improve our conference to the point that other linear providers are making meaningful bids.