P12 - MWC

[307bball]

Speaking of points whistling by, the point relative to the major players is that we are left in the uncertainty bucket. Perhaps reread that.

For the rest, bsu won big bowl games in dramatic fashion which really launched their national brand. That won't be replicated. The G6 team that makes the playoff will likely be increasingly uncompetative. Cinderella in March Madness is likely dead.

If your point is we need to consistently win the new MWC, I guess that goes without saying. Beating csu every year would be great. It all ends there though.

I'm the one that made the point about what bucket of teams we are in....

You have a bad habit of misrepresenting people in conversation with you. It might be defensible after the first comment I made but at this point it's just intentional obfuscation. I guess there is a small chance that by mentioning the specifics about another institutions rise, people will laser focus on the analogy and miss the larger point.

Who is this directed to? "For the rest, bsu won big bowl games in dramatic fashion which really launched their national brand. That won't be replicated. The G6 team that makes the playoff will likely be increasingly uncompetative. Cinderella in March Madness is likely dead." I said multiple times that the specifics about what BSU accomplished are not the point, yet you still bang on like I'm advocating for us to change our mascot to the Broncos and resurrect Dan Hawkins.

My point includes what you mentioned as "going without saying" but that is the lessor part. The large point is that discussion and effort to make Wyoming into some sort of attractive media product is a waste of time. It detracts from the awful competitive athletic product that Wyoming sports have been for the past 30 years. I am tangentially interested in your winging about ratings differences and the impacts of time slots on viewership ... but in the final tally that discussion is a dead end for Wyoming to sell itself. Our athletic department needs to jettison any concern about that and start winning effing games. Get back to me when that ever happens.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It would be nice if you didn't pop off on a tangent that we will never be Michigan and instead cut to this type of clarification.

Here's the post...

The bsu path is dead. This is over. Hard to grasp but it is what it is. The next phase is unknown but abundantly clear. The top level (Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan, TX, TAMU, etc.) and everything below. How things shake out below that top level is uncertain and anyone's guess.

Don't see anything other than stating the future for us is uncertain.

Now to winning point. Goes without saying. I'm sure that's the goal of every team. The point is that sustained winning won't make us "matter". It would be fun and enjoyable for fans, but it won't make us matter.

Previously, G5 teams that excelled mattered because they could go be the underdog in an epic matchup at season's end. That is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

 

[307bball]

Here's the post:

Continual improvement over a long period of time is what is needed. That is possible. The specifics of what Boise State has built didn't happen in three to five years.

Don't see any statements about re-doing what Boise State did.

Now to your point that what Boise St accomplished is not reproducible...Goes without saying. Not only that...it wasn't even said (until you brought it up).

How about you show me the purpose of the constant focus on ratings and timeslots to UW's success going forward? Any luck convincing FOX or ESPN that they are just wrong about how valuable Wyoming is relative to other schools? Maybe somebody at a better conference will read your analysis and beat a path to Burman's door with an invitation since obviously we have been grossly mis-evaluated.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

How about you show me the purpose of the constant focus on ratings and timeslots to UW's success going forward? Any luck convincing FOX or ESPN that they are just wrong about how valuable Wyoming is relative to other schools? Maybe somebody at a better conference will read your analysis and beat a path to Burman's door with an invitation since obviously we have been grossly mis-evaluated.

You feeling OK today?

Appears you missed the entire ratings point. Message board lore centers on TV sets driving ratings driving value. Interestingly nobody can explain why tv market isn't correlated to ratings and what specific factors drive market value. The assumption that usu was invited because they have "better market value" with no quantifiable definition of market value is, well, ignorant. It is entirely possible networks said grab bsu. After that take anyone you want; tv value will be the same.

Talk about misrepresenting or strawman argument, sheesh.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Now to your point that what Boise St accomplished is not reproducible...Goes without saying. Not only that...it wasn't even said (until you brought it up).

You're also missing the point here again. I guess winning consistently in the new MWC will matter much like ndsu or mt winning consistently in fcs. Previously, winning consistently in the MWC would/could lead to a ny6 bowl which meant it mattered more.

 

[307bball]

You feeling OK today?

Appears you missed the entire ratings point. Message board lore centers on TV sets driving ratings driving value. Interestingly nobody can explain why tv market isn't correlated to ratings and what specific factors drive market value. The assumption that usu was invited because they have "better market value" with no quantifiable definition of market value is, well, ignorant. It is entirely possible networks said grab bsu. After that take anyone you want; tv value will be the same.

Talk about misrepresenting or strawman argument, sheesh.

I'm feeling ok...I can admit it's triggering to clarify something in good faith and have the entire comment skipped over in what can only be interpreted as an attempt to re-frame what I'm saying unfairly. You are not the first person to do it...and I'm guilty of that at times .... I try not to be the first to resort to that though.

On the topic of ratings, TV, and market value... man...I don't know...I've said as much. The only thing I do know is form this side of the equation, I'm seeing that Wyoming is not valued in that marketplace even in relation to USU and CSU. Are you seeing something else? How else do you explain it? It seem so obvious that those decision makers are rank ordering their wish list of conference members according to how they value them and Wyoming is below the schools that are mentioned all the time. Please explain to me how Wyoming could possibly be valued the same or higher than CSU and USU but do not even get mentioned in these discussions. If this is the wrong way to look at this..by all means, enlighten me.

I think these ratings and value discussions are distracting from something that is really at the center of this. Wyoming is not competetive...in almost anything. Fix that...focus there. You and I don't know what the future looks like but the path that has us beating up on our conference mates in MBB and football is the one I want to be on.

 

[307bball]

You're also missing the point here again. I guess winning consistently in the new MWC will matter much like ndsu or mt winning consistently in fcs. Previously, winning consistently in the MWC would/could lead to a ny6 bowl which meant it mattered more.

I already sort of addressed this in my other response.

I'll just add...you can only start where you are. I would love to be starting where BSU is...but we are not there. We really can't control how much anybody else cares about our ineptitude. So if that is the case...the task before UW is to climb...step after agonizing step. It will take time. Step 1 is to create a juggernaut at our level. Even with BSU and the rest leaving we are not there competitively.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

. Please explain to me how Wyoming could possibly be valued the same or higher than CSU and USU but do not even get mentioned in these discussions. If this is the wrong way to look at this..by all means, enlighten me.

If by value you mean total value of the football program, that study is linked above and we do have more value by that model.

If by value you mean relative to TV partners, it's entirely possible, I'd argue likely, that our value is very similar to usu or csu. csu's annual matchup with cu/Deon, might boost them some. Look at it this way, if you swapped usu and WYO, I seriously doubt the pac and MWC tv contracts would change at all.

If by value you mean importance to osu and wsu (they were clearly the decision makers), then, yeah, we are less valuable to them. Why? Maybe elevation, travel, lack of historical success, state politics, they wanted to focus on their previous footprint ... who knows?

 

[307bball]

If by value you mean total value of the football program, that study is linked above and we do have more value by that model.

If by value you mean relative to TV partners, it's entirely possible, I'd argue likely, that our value is very similar to usu or csu. csu's annual matchup with cu/Deon, might boost them some. Look at it this way, if you swapped usu and WYO, I seriously doubt the pac and MWC tv contracts would change at all.

If by value you mean importance to osu and wsu (they were clearly the decision makers), then, yeah, we are less valuable to them. Why? Maybe elevation, travel, lack of historical success, state politics, they wanted to focus on their previous footprint ... who knows?

I guess I mean all of those things. I'm sure all of them matter.

I also think you are right that Wyoming getting swapped out for USU or CSU doesn't change the contract numbers anywhere. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that is true. What explains the fact that Wyoming's name was never (seemingly) considered? Why are UNLV and AFA the only ones that ever get talked about? I think there is a narrow explanation there that involves contractual language and poaching penalty shenanigans but that is not where I'm trying to have this discussion.

Let's imagine there is some scorecard that these people are going off of...we can argue all we want about how that scorecard is formatted but the one thing we can't argue about is what came out the other end. There is a line above which teams get invitations to join other up-and-coming conferences and increased payouts for staying (UNLV, AFA)...and below that line is the rest. Are we above or below that line? To me...the teams above that line are valued higher than teams below that line...what goes into it is interesting but we will never know all the contributing factors....even if we did, it's likely they are arbitrary and unfair and out of our control.

 

[PAPoke]

Interestingly nobody can explain why tv market isn't correlated to ratings and what specific factors drive market value. The assumption that usu was invited because they have "better market value" with no quantifiable definition of market value is, well, ignorant.

It’s not that nobody can explain it; it’s that TV market size by itself doesn’t drive ratings anymore, and networks know this. Market value is layered. It’s about how likely a team is to consistently deliver viewership and engagement, not just how many TVs are in their DMA.

“Market value” usually comes from a mix of:

Brand strength: Does the team’s name move the needle nationally or regionally?
Alumni base / fan engagement: Bot just where the school is, but where its fans live now.
Recent success or storylines: Are people interested in watching this team right now?
Time slot utility: Can this team fill valuable windows (like late night, primetime)?
Reliability: Do networks know this team will show up for TV partners year over year?

You’re right that "USU was invited because they have a better market" is an oversimplification, it’s more that USU was perceived to offer more upside in filling future TV windows and delivering usable content than Wyoming, based on their recent competitiveness, ability to flex into late time slots, and stronger recruiting in fast-growing Utah markets.

If this were purely about DMA rankings, half of these invites would make no sense. It’s about who the networks believe can help them sell ad inventory. That’s the market value in 2025.

It’s not as vague as it sounds if you talk to anyone in media buying circles or look at how networks are making programming decisions today.

 

[PAPoke]

307 & Ragtime,

Reading through this whole back and forth, you guys agree on a lot more than I think y'all are giving yourselves credit for:

The Boise path is dead
NY6 bowls aren’t what they used to be
Media value is largely out of UW’s control
Winning consistently is the lever UW can pull, regardless of the conference makeup.

Where you’re diverging is mostly tone, in my opinion...

One side is saying, don’t waste time trying to out-argue ESPN/FOX, just win games.

The other is saying, media value is messy and political, so don’t stress what can’t be controlled.

It feels like y'all are saying the same thing in a different font lol.

Not exactly worlds apart. Honestly, this would be a great conversation to have at Mingles over a couple of drinks instead of swinging at each other here... We’re all pulling for the same thing in the end, something I think is lost on forums full of passionate fans.

Just win. Go Pokes.

 

[LanderPoke]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935315886946103471

Does that 7 mil per school include an 8th member factored in? And what about production costs? Sounds pretty crappy and definitely not worth torpedoing a conference

 

[TheRealUW]

Does that 7 mil per school include an 8th member factored in? And what about production costs? Sounds pretty crappy and definitely not worth torpedoing a conference

Yes, those numbers do include an 8th football member.

It's not an extravagantly high number, but it is at least 40% higher than what the MWC is likely to get. It also is enough to allow the PAC to offset any poaching penalties they have to pay the MWC over a relatively short period of time.

It's all kind of a wash for the next 5-10 years...but the PAC will be in a much better position than the MWC if we start to look out 10+ years.

 

[doreno5]

For all talk on this board about Boise (who have been very successful recruiting players out of California) I would like Wyoming to replicate the success of Gonzaga in basketball. I just see it being far easier to recruit 2 or 3 great players a year than 10 or 15 needed in football.

 

[LanderPoke]

Yes, those numbers do include an 8th football member.

It's not an extravagantly high number, but it is at least 40% higher than what the MWC is likely to get. It also is enough to allow the PAC to offset any poaching penalties they have to pay the MWC over a relatively short period of time.

It's all kind of a wash for the next 5-10 years...but the PAC will be in a much better position than the MWC if we start to look out 10+ years.

I bet their marquee schools leave within 10 years

 

[PAPoke]

For all talk on this board about Boise (who have been very successful recruiting players out of California) I would like Wyoming to replicate the success of Gonzaga in basketball. I just see it being far easier to recruit 2 or 3 great players a year than 10 or 15 needed in football.

Are you willing to sacrifice Wyoming Football to make this happen? And, I mean a major sacrifice... Like, eliminating or relegating the program to the basement?

 

[doreno5]

Are you willing to sacrifice Wyoming Football to make this happen? And, I mean a major sacrifice... Like, eliminating or relegating the program to the basement?

I would be good with stepping down a tier provided we have a consistently winning team. Think of NDSU or Montana State but with a basketball team like those with Dembo. Leckner, Bailey, Davis Adams etc. .

 

[Wyokie]

I would be good with stepping down a tier provided we have a consistently winning team. Think of NDSU or Montana State but with a basketball team like those with Dembo. Leckner, Bailey, Davis Adams etc. .

FOOTBALL pays the bills not basketball, kiddo.

Basketball is big in a few places...Gonzaga, Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina plus any school that doesn't offer football.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It’s not that nobody can explain it; it’s that TV market size by itself doesn’t drive ratings anymore, and networks know this. Market value is layered. It’s about how likely a team is to consistently deliver viewership and engagement, not just how many TVs are in their DMA.

“Market value” usually comes from a mix of:

Brand strength: Does the team’s name move the needle nationally or regionally?
Alumni base / fan engagement: Bot just where the school is, but where its fans live now.
Recent success or storylines: Are people interested in watching this team right now?
Time slot utility: Can this team fill valuable windows (like late night, primetime)?
Reliability: Do networks know this team will show up for TV partners year over year?

You’re right that "USU was invited because they have a better market" is an oversimplification, it’s more that USU was perceived to offer more upside in filling future TV windows and delivering usable content than Wyoming, based on their recent competitiveness, ability to flex into late time slots, and stronger recruiting in fast-growing Utah markets.

If this were purely about DMA rankings, half of these invites would make no sense. It’s about who the networks believe can help them sell ad inventory. That’s the market value in 2025.

It’s not as vague as it sounds if you talk to anyone in media buying circles or look at how networks are making programming decisions today.

I guess this is where we still disagree.

If WYO and usu were swapped, do you believe the pac money would go down and the MWC money go up?

 

[PAPoke]

I guess this is where we still disagree.

If WYO and usu were swapped, do you believe the pac money would go down and the MWC money go up?

I do.

Assuming nothing else changes, USU still pulls from the Salt Lake market in any conference; a market Wyoming can’t really tap. While Utah owns most of those eyeballs, Salt Lake is still a valuable, growing market.

USU also benefits from being in a booming state with a large in-state audience. Utah is one of the fastest-growing states in the country (source: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy/growth).

Per US News, it’s #6 in growth, #1 in overall state rankings (lol), and #3 in economy. Wyoming ranks 11th, 23rd, and 22nd in those categories, respectively. I won’t pretend to know all the formulas behind those rankings, but I have no reason to doubt what’s published here.

Do I think USU moves the needle significantly more? No. But when we’re fighting for scraps, even a 5% higher upside matters in the margins.

That said, I also don’t think you can look at this in a simple 1-for-1 swap. If Utah had stayed, and CSU ended up in the ACC (for the sake of argument), I think the Pac would have been more interested in Wyoming, especially because of our proximity (ish) to the Denver market.