P12 - MWC

[PorkerPoke]

One thing to keep in mind when comparing the announced MWC and P12 media deals for 2026 and beyond is what is the net revenue.

For example, if the P12 announces a $10 million per school per year media deal and the MWC announces a $6 million per school per year is the P12 actually $4 million ahead if they are paying the production costs where it’s already built in to the MWC deal.

The proof will be in the details once the deals are signed - if the P12 is transparent. Ever wonder why the P12 figures for 2025 aren’t being clearly stated publicly? The 2025 P12 deal is supposedly the model for the future. I am thinking that while the P12 might be ahead in gross revenue over the MWC, it won’t be like comparing the MWC to the CUSA, MAC or even the Sun Belt.

The G group media deals will probably value as:

1: AAC 10 million (heavily populated regions)
2: P12 7 million (heavy PPV streaming???)
3: MWC 5 million
4: Sun Belt 2 million
5: MAC 1 million
6: CUSA 700,000

As a side, it keeps looking like Texas State is going to be announced soon. If the increased media income is $5 million will it offset travel costs and leverage Texas State as a potential P member?

These are just guesses based on current values tossed out for thought/discussion.

 

[PAPoke]

Bsu built a national market and is nationally competitive. No argument there.

Cu was being ultra-hyped and was an early season game. That was a Deion effect.

csu vs fresno on fs2 at 10 pm est will draw the same ratings as WYO vs UNM in that same timeslot unless there is some reason to drive national interest (both top 25 for example). Sans, bsu and perhaps a few others, ratings for g5 teams are driven by network, timeslot, and if playing a name p4 team. G5 ratings aren't driven by the local TV markets in which the team resides.

Fair points on Boise and Deion... no argument there. Boise earned its national brand by consistently winning and showing up in big moments. And the CU vs. CSU game was absolutely juiced by the Deion Effect, early-season hype, and ESPN pushing it like it was the Super Bowl.

But where I push back is on the idea that all G5 viewership is purely dictated by slot and opponent. If that were entirely true, we’d see consistent viewership across G5 games in similar time slots, but we don’t. The variation is real, and it’s not random.

Boise doesn’t just get better viewership because of the slot. They get the slot because networks know they’ll deliver. Same thing with Deion: ESPN didn’t gamble on Colorado because of geography. They built the storyline and bet big on the payoff. That’s media value in action.

Saying “CSU vs. Fresno on FS2 will draw the same as WYO vs. UNM” assumes a flat landscape; that matchups are just interchangeable unless a big brand P4 team is involved. But the data, existing media deals and conference realignment outcomes say otherwise. There’s a pecking order, even within the G5. And while it’s not purely based on local market size, it is based on perceived upside, brand strength, and recent relevance.

I’m not wearing brown-and-gold goggles. But pretending that every G5 game is treated the same unless Boise or Deion walks through the door just doesn’t line up with the way media value gets built or how advertisers invest.

 

[307bball]

Boise doesn’t just get better viewership because of the slot. They get the slot because networks know they’ll deliver. Same thing with Deion: ESPN didn’t gamble on Colorado because of geography. They built the storyline and bet big on the payoff. That’s media value in action.

This is the key...this statement is perfect. Boise St is in a position because of what they accomplished on the field. They consistently delivered compelling moments over many years even in the pre-growth days of that area of Idaho. CU is at a level of college athletics where a Deion type stoy-line can exist. There is a road for those things to happen in Laramie but we are not and have not been on it since Joe Tiller was coaching.

The focus on winning games got lost sometime in the late 90s early 2000s. We told ourselves a story that, if you build it, they will come. It didn't work out that way. We hung on to coaches for too long, played small "safe" bets with coaching hiring and built some pretty nice facilities along the way. We see now where that got us. I don't fault the people for trying that strategy back then...I fault them for sticking to it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

This is the key...this statement is perfect. Boise St is in a position because of what they accomplished on the field. They consistently delivered compelling moments over many years even in the pre-growth days of that area of Idaho. CU is at a level of college athletics where a Deion type stoy-line can exist. There is a road for those things to happen in Laramie but we are not and have not been on it since Joe Tiller was coaching.

The focus on winning games got lost sometime in the late 90s early 2000s. We told ourselves a story that, if you build it, they will come. It didn't work out that way. We hung on to coaches for too long, played small "safe" bets with coaching hiring and built some pretty nice facilities along the way. We see now where that got us. I don't fault the people for trying that strategy back then...I fault them for sticking to it.

When I get time, I'll go back through each week of 2025. We can't get CBS sports data but rest is there. We'll see

 

[307bball]

When I get time, I'll go back through each week of 2025. We can't get CBS sports data but rest is there. We'll see

To what end? You've already made your point that you don't see the value difference between Wyoming and the teams in the group leaving the MWC (specifically USU and CSU). Whether you or I can't see a difference...somebody (a lot of somebody's actually) do see a difference. I'll defer to the people cutting the checks. Not that I think they are perfect...but they know a hell of a lot more than I do.

I don't think you need to be an expert here to make a value judgement in this moment. If you just freeze frame it right now...what group of teams would you want Wyoming to be in going forward? I would rather be with the group that left. I'm not saying that group doesn't have problems...but if we are just measuring "juice"...I would rather be in the group of schools that has some rather than the situation we are in ... with no juice. Maybe if Wyoming were being courted like UNLV and AFA are I would feel differently....but we aren't...nobody outside of our borders cares.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

To what end? You've already made your point that you don't see the value difference between Wyoming and the teams in the group leaving the MWC (specifically USU and CSU). Whether you or I can't see a difference...somebody (a lot of somebody's actually) do see a difference. I'll defer to the people cutting the checks. Not that I think they are perfect...but they know a hell of a lot more than I do.

I don't think you need to be an expert here to make a value judgement in this moment. If you just freeze frame it right now...what group of teams would you want Wyoming to be in going forward? I would rather be with the group that left. I'm not saying that group doesn't have problems...but if we are just measuring "juice"...I would rather be in the group of schools that has some rather than the situation we are in ... with no juice. Maybe if Wyoming were being courted like UNLV and AFA are I would feel differently....but we aren't...nobody outside of our borders cares.

Theory is more tv sets in market = more money theoretically through better ratings. We'll see how ratings stack up in g5 to see if that holds. Do some g5 teams consistently drive good tv ratings or is it more network, timeslot, and power opponent?

Now to your theory of pac not wanting us because every team there has more value. UTEP and NIU joined so I guess we have more value than cusa or Mac teams or is that all UNLV and AF?

 

[307bball]

Theory is more tv sets in market = more money theoretically through better ratings. We'll see how ratings stack up in g5 to see if that holds. Do some g5 teams consistently drive good tv ratings or is it more network, timeslot, and power opponent?

Now to your theory of pac not wanting us because every team there has more value. UTEP and NIU joined so I guess we have more value than cusa or Mac teams or is that all UNLV and AF?

All I know for sure is that the PAC doesn't want us...I have my theories but they are just that. I don't feel good about the perception that CSU and USU are leaving us in their wake. We can rah rah all we want and tell ourselves that their greed will be their undoing but I think that is just trying to make ourselves feel better.

USU and CSU (and the other leaving MWC schools) are setting themselves up to be the premier regional conference in the west. Will they succeed?...Seems more likely than the misfits in our new conference but it's not a complete slam dunk i suppose. I know this pokes fan would have liked it if we were seen as worth extending an invitation to or worth getting a larger chunk of the pie for staying like UNLV and AFA got. My explanation for that outcome is that Wyoming athletics is not valued as highly as the teams that are leaving the MWC or UNLV and AFA. I don't understand an alternate explanation where we are valued higher or the same but getting nothing out of it.

Maybe the language is not helping us here....I don't mean value in a strict dollars and cents way. I used the term "juice" in my last post....We do not have any "juice" in these discussions.

 

[PorkerPoke]

is it more network, timeslot, and power opponent?

Definitely a factor - emphasis time slot.

The power networks feature what they feel sells at the best time. The same ad usually costs more to run at 10 am PT (1 pm ET) than it would at 10 pm PT (1 am ET).

more tv sets in market = more money

Definitely a factor - emphasis more.

Kind of like “The more the merrier” saying. It seems as though 1,000,000 potential TV sets is more than 100,000 potential.

we have more value than cusa or Mac teams

Absolutely. Consider this. The purchase price for the P12 to take Wyoming right now is $36 million dollars. The Sun Belt purchase price for Texas State is $5 million dollars.

The grant of rights guarantees a payment to all 7 remaining MWC up to the first $61 million meaning the potential $7 million Wyoming would get still leaves them at $29 million to exit immediately after being paid. Any exit notice terminates further payments so a quick play for UNLV would still cost $22 million.

If the P12 really wanted another MWC team would a Wyoming investment return $29 million (or even a $22 million UNLV) in media value revenue over the next 5 years?

I can see the play for Texas State as needed by 2026 and depending on how much the MWC collects and how quickly it is distributed could make it possible for UNLV to leave in 2027 since they are on track for $14 million immediately and up to $31 million overall.

The value equation for UNLV is MWC beneficial as the P12 would need a B12 style media package to offset the $31 million guaranteed MWC revenue UNLV will get through 2032.

The UNLV math model:

Stay MWC - $31m plus 6 years media at $36m is $77 million in revenue

Go P12 - ($16m) to exit MWC in 2027 plus ($17m) lost exit revenue means ($33m) plus 6 years media at $48 million is $15 million in revenue.

The big deterrent is the MWC not paying the chunk of the fees beyond the first $61 million before June 1, 2026 making it a double exit fee plus very unprofitable to forfeit a substantial payment if the mediation pays well. That is the $100+ million I referenced as making the MWC a good G conference for the 7 remaining members.

Hypothetical numbers because the media numbers don’t exist yet, the exit/poaching fees have not been announced along with future residuals such as tournament credits, bowl games, etc. The point is the MWC setup a pretty nice GOR to entice sticking around for a couple of seasons minimal as I don’t see the P12 hauling in the kind of revenue needed to lure a MWC program unless the MWC concedes substantially in the mediation.

So yes - the MWC has more value than the Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA conferences and I think the theory the MWC is a valuable entity especially if 100+ million is collected (plus legal fees a bonus) has merit based on the GOR payment schedule. Wasn’t it just OSU and WSU thinking they were swimming in money after the exit lawsuits by spending huge chunks of it pursuing the 5 MWC programs? Now the P12 is sweating it out and who knows- maybe CSU makes less money than Wyoming in the next few years.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

dp

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Definitely a factor - emphasis time slot.

The power networks feature what they feel sells at the best time. The same ad usually costs more to run at 10 am PT (1 pm ET) than it would at 10 pm PT (1 am ET).

Definitely a factor - emphasis more.

Kind of like “The more the merrier” saying. It seems as though 1,000,000 potential TV sets is more than 100,000 potential.

Absolutely. Consider this. The purchase price for the P12 to take Wyoming right now is $36 million dollars. The Sun Belt purchase price for Texas State is $5 million dollars.

The grant of rights guarantees a payment to all 7 remaining MWC up to the first $61 million meaning the potential $7 million Wyoming would get still leaves them at $29 million to exit immediately after being paid. Any exit notice terminates further payments so a quick play for UNLV would still cost $22 million.

If the P12 really wanted another MWC team would a Wyoming investment return $29 million (or even a $22 million UNLV) in media value revenue over the next 5 years?

I can see the play for Texas State as needed by 2026 and depending on how much the MWC collects and how quickly it is distributed could make it possible for UNLV to leave in 2027 since they are on track for $14 million immediately and up to $31 million overall.

The value equation for UNLV is MWC beneficial as the P12 would need a B12 style media package to offset the $31 million guaranteed MWC revenue UNLV will get through 2032.

The UNLV math model:

Stay MWC - $31m plus 6 years media at $36m is $77 million in revenue

Go P12 - ($16m) to exit MWC in 2027 plus ($17m) lost exit revenue means ($33m) plus 6 years media at $48 million is $15 million in revenue.

The big deterrent is the MWC not paying the chunk of the fees beyond the first $61 million before June 1, 2026 making it a double exit fee plus very unprofitable to forfeit a substantial payment if the mediation pays well. That is the $100+ million I referenced as making the MWC a good G conference for the 7 remaining members.

Hypothetical numbers because the media numbers don’t exist yet, the exit/poaching fees have not been announced along with future residuals such as tournament credits, bowl games, etc. The point is the MWC setup a pretty nice GOR to entice sticking around for a couple of seasons minimal as I don’t see the P12 hauling in the kind of revenue needed to lure a MWC program unless the MWC concedes substantially in the mediation.

So yes - the MWC has more value than the Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA conferences and I think the theory the MWC is a valuable entity especially if 100+ million is collected (plus legal fees a bonus) has merit based on the GOR payment schedule. Wasn’t it just OSU and WSU thinking they were swimming in money after the exit lawsuits by spending huge chunks of it pursuing the 5 MWC programs? Now the P12 is sweating it out and who knows- maybe CSU makes less money than Wyoming in the next few years.

All good points regarding likely for expansion. I guess I'm more trying to get a grip on the mentality that we have so many "market challenges" due to low population that we just can't compete in modern college football.

Dissecting that out, nobody can really define the relationship between population, ratings (we'll get back to that), and value. G5 will not ever get the optimum timeslots unless the G5 member is playing a P5. A T25 bsu team against a T25 Utah team in a premium timeslot will definitely get way better ratings than a T25 Utah vs WYO in that same timeslot. I agree with that. What I'm getting at is the majority of the content is WYO-NV, UNM-UTEP, csu-usu, csu-fsu, usu-tx state, etc. In terms of "value" to media, I'd venture those games are all pretty interchangeable if timeslot and network are similar. Heck, even bsu against any of those would probably pretty interchangeable.

307 is claiming since we didn't get an invite to the pac, somehow we are very low value. My key here is defining value. I don't buy it from the low population TV value perspective. I think we'd fall in the interchangeable bucket. From a TV value perspective, those teams don't all of a sudden become more valuable when they leave the MWC nor do I believe wsu and osu add that much. I think teams like bsu will help them get more, but it's not because of, usu, tx state, etc.

Back to value because the pac didn't want us. I asked 307 about UTEP and NIU so I won't speak for him. You point out that yes we have more value. Theoretically that is true of the Sun Belt, so why does tx state have more value? Your breakdown of the involvement of buyouts is spot on, imo, and a key point. Estimating value based on expansion potential is not a great metric. The G5 is about to find out that TV contract value is also not a great metric. Throwing our hands up and saying all this stuff is out of our control has been conditioned into the WYO fanbase. Lack of definition or sorting out "people factors" from real "out of our control factors" inhibits our ability to move forward which is why it is critical to identify these.

The response will be (not you but some), "I'm sure people at WYO who know a lot more than us are working on that". I guess. Of course, that sounds equally unfalsifiable as our market will never allow us to compete in the G5.

 

[307bball]

All good points regarding likely for expansion. I guess I'm more trying to get a grip on the mentality that we have so many "market challenges" due to low population that we just can't compete in modern college football.

Dissecting that out, nobody can really define the relationship between population, ratings (we'll get back to that), and value. G5 will not ever get the optimum timeslots unless the G5 member is playing a P5. A T25 bsu team against a T25 Utah team in a premium timeslot will definitely get way better ratings than a T25 Utah vs WYO in that same timeslot. I agree with that. What I'm getting at is the majority of the content is WYO-NV, UNM-UTEP, csu-usu, csu-fsu, usu-tx state, etc. In terms of "value" to media, I'd venture those games are all pretty interchangeable if timeslot and network are similar. Heck, even bsu against any of those would probably pretty interchangeable.

307 is claiming since we didn't get an invite to the pac, somehow we are very low value. My key here is defining value. I don't buy it from the low population TV value perspective. I think we'd fall in the interchangeable bucket. From a TV value perspective, those teams don't all of a sudden become more valuable when they leave the MWC nor do I believe wsu and osu add that much. I think teams like bsu will help them get more, but it's not because of, usu, tx state, etc.

Back to value because the pac didn't want us. I asked 307 about UTEP and NIU so I won't speak for him. You point out that yes we have more value. Theoretically that is true of the Sun Belt, so why does tx state have more value? Your breakdown of the involvement of buyouts is spot on, imo, and a key point. Estimating value based on expansion potential is not a great metric. The G5 is about to find out that TV contract value is also not a great metric. Throwing our hands up and saying all this stuff is out of our control has been conditioned into the WYO fanbase. Lack of definition or sorting out "people factors" from real "out of our control factors" inhibits our ability to move forward which is why it is critical to identify these.

The response will be (not you but some), "I'm sure people at WYO who know a lot more than us are working on that". I guess. Of course, that sounds equally unfalsifiable as our market will never allow us to compete in the G5.

Ragtime, I'm trying to avoid too much dissecting. On this topic...If I get into that I'll embarrass myself (if I havn't already).

I get what you are saying about the problem of prematurely deciding we can't compete in modern college football. That is more of a judgement call that I'm trying to avoid even while I'm noticing that has went down in the last 25 years culminating with being "left behind" by 5 programs that I would have liked to see us compete with and beat for years to come.

PorkerPoke has written some great analysis that I think gives us a window into the next two years or so from a financial standpoint of this. That is an important window to analyze. I'm following that conversation but I am mostly receiving information...not really contributing.

The story of why Wyoming is in the position it's is an arc that goes back to the '90s...I have often pointed to '96 10 win UW team not getting a postseason invitation as "shot heard round the world" of the decline of Wyoming football". Getting left out of the BSU, SDSU, Fresno, USU, and CSU group coupled with the fact that UNLV and AFA were courted publicly to the point that the MWC had to make big concessions for them to stay feels like another pivotal event. It's not hard to see the group of teams that are leaving the MWC creating a situation where they are setting themselves up for a systemic advantage over the remaining MWC in a way that will manifest by better scheduling options, better TV timeslots and ultimately a recruiting advantage that will really hurt. I have always loved that great Colorado HS players have come to Wyoming to succeed vs going to CSU. I don't think it's crazy to think that 10 years from now, Wyoming is seen by Colorado recruits as a much worse destination in relation to CSU than it has been considered for my lifetime.

I guess I just can't shake the notion that the slow motion demise of UW sports is speeding up. IMO...we have one fruitful way forward here. Wyoming must win on the field in football first and men's basketball second. We have to have a run, for the next 7 or so years like BSU did from '06 to '12. Absent that, we are left arguing with each other about whose fault it is that recruits don't want to come here and nobody wants to put Wyoming games into a decent time slot.

 

[PorkerPoke]

IMO - Wyoming has never been a leader but instead a follower. When the B12 was in a state of flux a while back both CSU and UNM made overtures. We were “included” in the infamous airport meeting to form the MWC but I am not aware of us playing an instrumental role other than delightfully being included.

What has really hurt us in perceived value is that for the past 22 years we have not had a conference championship and despite the once every 7 years of being competitive in the hunt for a championship, our major sports are generally viewed as middle of the pack at best and quite often in the bottom feeder group.

I suspect the exclusion of a pee12 invite had more to do with OSU/WSU viewing us as another Nevada, SJSU or closer to NMSU than to USU. Why would any of the traitors beg for our inclusion if they have bought into a model that showed a much better financial package without Wyoming?

We may never have any answers. Maybe Burman received an interest inquiry email from the pea12 but the $18 million price tag made him hit the delete button and silence on the subject.

The bottom line is the way the college football world is going all we can bank on now is we should be able to sustain our current finances as the future for all G league teams will be revealed. A new level is likely and we won’t be in the total bottom nor will we be in the top. I would hate to see a FCS move because I don’t trust we would be anything more than a middle of the pack program with the leadership inherent at UW.

 

[307bball]

IMO - Wyoming has never been a leader but instead a follower. When the B12 was in a state of flux a while back both CSU and UNM made overtures. We were “included” in the infamous airport meeting to form the MWC but I am not aware of us playing an instrumental role other than delightfully being included.

What has really hurt us in perceived value is that for the past 22 years we have not had a conference championship and despite the once every 7 years of being competitive in the hunt for a championship, our major sports are generally viewed as middle of the pack at best and quite often in the bottom feeder group.

I suspect the exclusion of a pee12 invite had more to do with OSU/WSU viewing us as another Nevada, SJSU or closer to NMSU than to USU. Why would any of the traitors beg for our inclusion if they have bought into a model that showed a much better financial package without Wyoming?

We may never have any answers. Maybe Burman received an interest inquiry email from the pea12 but the $18 million price tag made him hit the delete button and silence on the subject.

The bottom line is the way the college football world is going all we can bank on now is we should be able to sustain our current finances as the future for all G league teams will be revealed. A new level is likely and we won’t be in the total bottom nor will we be in the top. I would hate to see a FCS move because I don’t trust we would be anything more than a middle of the pack program with the leadership inherent at UW.

Very well said .... Wyoming is a "follower". That much is not really debatable. Maybe I'm just jaded but when I imagine Wyoming's leadership "making overtures" to other conferences like CSU and UNM evidently did...I would think that would be a confusing call for them to take. When I play that conversation out in my head, the decision makers at other conferences have zero reasons to take that call. If that's true (or at least more true than not), then following is what we are left with.

So how do you become a leader? I mean... Maybe we can pull a BYU and go independent like they did when Utah left the MWC. Would that qualify? My guess is that might be the straightest path to FCS irrelevance... But I suppose I would respect the balls that would make that decision. For my money... The answer is as I laid out previously. Win, win, and win some more. We have to break that door down. Nobody is going to open it on the other side. Nobody. We can't afford to be "among the top" of the new MWC. We have to dominate. If we don't, we will be an average team in an irrelevant conference. Our competitive history with CSU will take on a decided big brother little brother dynamic that will suuuuck