This is not sustainable...

[TSpoke]

Assume a couple of things:
1) Big12 grabs some combo of Cinci, Memphis, Houston.
2) The P5 is done dipping into the G5 ranks.
3) MWC TV is up for negotiations.

Now imagine BSU goes independent. How much money does BSU get on its own; how much does the MWC get; how much does the MWC + BSU get; how much does the AAC + BSU get?

My guess is there won't be enough money in any scenario to make a move palatable. Thus, the notion that BSU is doing the MWC a favor which justifies preferential treatment, while it might have been true before, is nothing short of ludicrous now.

I agree with this but I think people were making a point that at the time the deal was made it was definately made to keep the BSU in the conference and keep the MWC conference together. SDSU and BSU were leaving for the Big East(now aac) until we made this deal. And the deal did net us more money than we would have received otherwise since we were locked into our contract but boise wasn't a part of it so they negoticated the deal with ESPN and helped the whole conference earn more money(some more than other, wchich we have benefited quite a bit).

But I agree it is not sustainable and the next round of negotiations we shouldn't have bonus money involved it should be an even amount. I don't think there is much risk of Boise leaving now(don't think the aac is clamoring to take them now and don't see them going P5).

I didn't like the original deal but I understand why they did it and agree it probably had to be done. The next round it definately shouldn't be done.

 

[Wyovanian]

We did not let BYU, Utah or TCU go, too funny. There is not a damn thing we could have done to stop a move to a p5 even giving them the entire TV package. Nebraska moved for academic prestige as did CU. Big 12 teams make more money then CU does now from Big 12 versus PAC TV deals

They are not making twice what everyone else is making overall. SDSU and UNLV both have larger athletic budgets then Boise State

We did let them go because they wanted pretty much all of the TV money and wanted to call the shots in the conference. Remember the failed MW TV channel? You know who owned and organized it? BYU and Utah! And when it failed they jumped ship.

Every conference affiliation change of the past 10 years has been based on TV money. The Pac 12 and Big 10 make way more money than the Big 12, academic prestige had nothing to do with it.

Ut(t)er nonsense. Utah left because it was invited to the PAC-12. There was no, "Well, Hair, what's the counter-offer?" It was more like, "Thanks, it's been fun! Good luck with everything, we've enjoyed being a part of it," followed by, "Y'all go kick some ass in the PAC-12!"

Ditto for TCU, with the little detour through the former Big East.

BYU* left because they were genuinely embarrassed that the sinners an hour from the Wyoming border got the call BYU* always deluded themselves into believing they'd get.

 

[Wyovanian]

While I don't necessarily agree with how the numbers were presented in that article, it is worth noting that Boise was averaging 645k viewers per game vs our 643k viewers per game.

We have a really large / and a very quiet fan base out there. I don't know why our administration doesn't try to sell that more. Boise has a larger fanbase, but we are (last I knew anyways) the second largest fanbase in the MWC.

Ours is definetely a national fan base - people come and go from wyoming. UW really should find someone who knows how to market that spin a bit better than they do now. Our administration makes us sound like the smallest - most remote - least interested fanbase in the MWC. Its simply not true.

Two things....

1) That 643k for Wyoming is not per game but a TOTAL for our 3 national TV games.

2) Ragtime is right and I can't believe no one else agrees. You can't have one school making twice the money than everyone else every year. It will destroy the conference and the reason we let BYU, Utah and TCU go is because they wanted more of the pie.

Texas making more money killed the Big 12 and forced Nebraska, Colorado and Mizzou to move conferences. This has to be fixed. Interms of TV Boise is pretty much operating as an independent with all their games on national TV

Ouch - thanks for pointing that out. I was just tossing numbers around too quickly without checking my work.

There's a great fallacy in broadcast media business- the traditional, time-honored methods of measuring viewership have largely broken down. These days TV ratings are dubious at best, outright fraudulent at worst. The other fallacy of the the business is their business metrics. They only consider important that which can easily be measured. They have never really built a solid methodology to account for the diasporic nature of almost every CFB program.

What they have managed to determine, over several attempts is that Wyoming ostensibly has the second largest fan base (ergo potential TV market) in the conference.

We also are probably one of the only major CFB programs to have the majority of our living alumni living out-of-state, making it that much more difficult to measure the potential market. It also makes it that much more difficult to sustain outreach to the alumni via marketing and booster club efforts, which means Wyoming, rather uniquely, needs to become more innovative and aggressive in its approaches to both media relations and fan outreach.

 

[billings]

We did not let BYU, Utah or TCU go, too funny. There is not a damn thing we could have done to stop a move to a p5 even giving them the entire TV package. Nebraska moved for academic prestige as did CU. Big 12 teams make more money then CU does now from Big 12 versus PAC TV deals

They are not making twice what everyone else is making overall. SDSU and UNLV both have larger athletic budgets then Boise State

We did let them go because they wanted pretty much all of the TV money and wanted to call the shots in the conference. Remember the failed MW TV channel? You know who owned and organized it? BYU and Utah! And when it failed they jumped ship.

Every conference affiliation change of the past 10 years has been based on TV money. The Pac 12 and Big 10 make way more money than the Big 12, academic prestige had nothing to do with it.

UTAH jumped ship when the PAC called. Your post makes zero sense. There was nothing anyone in the MWC could do. The MTN failed after UTAH and BYU jumped ship as they accounted for a huge chunk of the advertisers.

Academic prestige has a lot to do with it. Utah tied int o some really nice PAC grant sharing opportunities and the BIG is far more then an athletic conference. There is a reason they want all members to be an AAU institution.

The Big 12 makes as much or a bit more money per team then the PAC does per team and the bigger team in the Big 12 sell some of their rights and do much better then the PAC teams do.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/06/01/pac-12-conference-revenue-comparisons-with-the-sec-big-12-and-big-ten-projections-only/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"SEC: $31.2 million per school
Big Ten: $30.9 million
Big 12: $25.6 million per school (critical point: does not include revenue from Tier 3 media deals)
Pac-12: $25.1 million per school"

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I agree with this, but assumption #1 opens up a new can of worms. If that occurs, another chain reaction will begin for realignment. Some have suggested a "best of the rest" conference might form of the remaining AAC teams of MW schools. The best attempt to form a P6 conference. This is a "be careful what you wish for" type of situation. 2/3 of Houston/Memphis/Cincy leaving would cause chaos for the G5, and not good chaos.

I think the best of the rest thing is nothing but utter nonsense formulated by a bunch of fans who GREATLY overestimate the importance of their programs to the CFB world.

There is no way in hell that the P5 will ever under any circumstance allow a P6 to exist. There is no conglomeration of G5 teams that could even sniff the P5 ranks. It has nothing to do with competitive teams; nothing. The P5 is settling for a few more G5 teams only to accommodate a system not because they want those teams.

If there is no way for the P5 to become the P6, then I see no reason to have a best of the rest type of conference. The TV money won't be there to justify it. Not only that, but I think they would have to appeal to have the new conference recognized (i.e. included in the bowl system) by the "BCS system" which would require majority votes. I'm pretty certain nobody would vote to allow their best teams to leave and form their own conference.

A much more realistic, IMO, scenario is the rest of us pick up a few FCS teams and we are the new FCS. The, P5 becomes the new and contracted FBS and the old FCS becomes DII, etc.

Obviously there is no way to know for certain, but I think the best of the rest is nothing more than fans' pipe dreams of relevance.

 

[J-Rod]

I think the best of the rest thing is nothing but utter nonsense formulated by a bunch of fans who GREATLY overestimate the importance of their programs to the CFB world.

There is no way in hell that the P5 will ever under any circumstance allow a P6 to exist. There is no conglomeration of G5 teams that could even sniff the P5 ranks. It has nothing to do with competitive teams; nothing. The P5 is settling for a few more G5 teams only to accommodate a system not because they want those teams.

If there is no way for the P5 to become the P6, then I see no reason to have a best of the rest type of conference. The TV money won't be there to justify it. Not only that, but I think they would have to appeal to have the new conference recognized (i.e. included in the bowl system) by the "BCS system" which would require majority votes. I'm pretty certain nobody would vote to allow their best teams to leave and form their own conference.

A much more realistic, IMO, scenario is the rest of us pick up a few FCS teams and we are the new FCS. The, P5 becomes the new and contracted FBS and the old FCS becomes DII, etc.

Obviously there is no way to know for certain, but I think the best of the rest is nothing more than fans' pipe dreams of relevance.

Yes, it's completely nonsense...yet it has been confirmed they have spoken to programs outside the MW for inclusion. I wonder why.... They didn't suddenly like UTEP and Rice. It's precautionary. Lord knows it isn't for expansion, money is scarce as is without adding more mouths to feed.

 

[WyoBrandX]

While I don't necessarily agree with how the numbers were presented in that article, it is worth noting that Boise was averaging 645k viewers per game vs our 643k viewers per game.

We have a really large / and a very quiet fan base out there. I don't know why our administration doesn't try to sell that more. Boise has a larger fanbase, but we are (last I knew anyways) the second largest fanbase in the MWC.

Ours is definetely a national fan base - people come and go from wyoming. UW really should find someone who knows how to market that spin a bit better than they do now. Our administration makes us sound like the smallest - most remote - least interested fanbase in the MWC. Its simply not true.

Two things....

1) That 643k for Wyoming is not per game but a TOTAL for our 3 national TV games.

2) Ragtime is right and I can't believe no one else agrees. You can't have one school making twice the money than everyone else every year. It will destroy the conference and the reason we let BYU, Utah and TCU go is because they wanted more of the pie.

Texas making more money killed the Big 12 and forced Nebraska, Colorado and Mizzou to move conferences. This has to be fixed. Interms of TV Boise is pretty much operating as an independent with all their games on national TV

Ouch - thanks for pointing that out. I was just tossing numbers around too quickly without checking my work.

There's a great fallacy in broadcast media business- the traditional, time-honored methods of measuring viewership have largely broken down. These days TV ratings are dubious at best, outright fraudulent at worst. The other fallacy of the the business is their business metrics. They only consider important that which can easily be measured. They have never really built a solid methodology to account for the diasporic nature of almost every CFB program.

What they have managed to determine, over several attempts is that Wyoming ostensibly has the second largest fan base (ergo potential TV market) in the conference.

We also are probably one of the only major CFB programs to have the majority of our living alumni living out-of-state, making it that much more difficult to measure the potential market. It also makes it that much more difficult to sustain outreach to the alumni via marketing and booster club efforts, which means Wyoming, rather uniquely, needs to become more innovative and aggressive in its approaches to both media relations and fan outreach.

Thanks - that basically summarizes what I was thinking when I wrote the original post - but written a hell of alot better than I would of. Way to summarize it clearly WV!

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Yes, it's completely nonsense...yet it has been confirmed they have spoken to programs outside the MW for inclusion. I wonder why.... They didn't suddenly like UTEP and Rice. It's precautionary. Lord knows it isn't for expansion, money is scarce as is without adding more mouths to feed.

My apologies, man. The utter nonsense was directed at the Universities with an overinflated view of themselves. I know that they float that around, but reality is, if the money was there and it was feasible, it would have already happened. BSU and SUDS would have been screwed in the Big East once AQ was gone; that was their motivation for jumping.

I could be wrong, but there is simply no financial or other motivation to support the concept of the best of the rest conference. Not only that, the new conference would need to be "ratified" into the current system; I doubt they would get the votes to further dilute revenue.

1) P5 status? Nope and probably not even guaranteed access to the current system (sort of like byu is now).
2) TV money? No real substantial increase when spread over 9 to 12 teams.
3) Prestige? Definitely in football. Also, will most likely have highest ranked G5 (or G6) member most years, but without guaranteed access, that won't matter.
4) Other sports? Depends on the conference I suppose, but the MWC is a solid league in mbball and non-revenue sports.

I think any discussion about a best of the rest conference is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and inability to come to grips with the reality that they are left behind in whatever evolves for the G5.

A much more likely scenario is that the P5 adds a couple of teams (or kicks a few out) and then splits. The G5 will be left in limbo between the P5's new league and FCS.

 

[johnywyo]

Ours is definetely a national fan base - people come and go from wyoming. UW really should find someone who knows how to market that spin a bit better than they do now. Our administration makes us sound like the smallest - most remote - least interested fanbase in the MWC. Its simply not true.

X has this pegged, I believe a joint venture between the Foundation and Athletic Dep't should investigate the options to create a position to facilitate exploration into "Maximizing Return on Athletics" revenue sports. The position would be unique, developed into the areas of Media, Social Content, In Game Experience, Marketing, and Outreach. We have a decent presence, our Brand is definitely identifiable, and we do have Alumni that have done great things in the Professional Ranks. Blalock and our Business Dep't could facilitate and equip this dep't to do what has not been achieved in a tech savvy and sports rich world we live in. We all know Burman doesn't have the brains or creativity to do it, so why not facilitate the right people to explore these options.

 

[WyoBrandX]

Ours is definetely a national fan base - people come and go from wyoming. UW really should find someone who knows how to market that spin a bit better than they do now. Our administration makes us sound like the smallest - most remote - least interested fanbase in the MWC. Its simply not true.

X has this pegged, I believe a joint venture between the Foundation and Athletic Dep't should investigate the options to create a position to facilitate exploration into "Maximizing Return on Athletics" revenue sports. The position would be unique, developed into the areas of Media, Social Content, In Game Experience, Marketing, and Outreach. We have a decent presence, our Brand is definitely identifiable, and we do have Alumni that have done great things in the Professional Ranks. Blalock and our Business Dep't could facilitate and equip this dep't to do what has not been achieved in a tech savvy and sports rich world we live in. We all know Burman doesn't have the brains or creativity to do it, so why not facilitate the right people to explore these options.

That is a very interesting approach to the problem. It isn't a traditional problem and a traditional solution won't help us out here. This simply isn't a case where you can look at other schools and say - 'lets follow that model.' UW needs to lead the way and create the model that makes Wyoming successful. Following someone else's path just won't succeed here.

It will have its up's and downs - any one blazing new trails will get it right some of the time and not right much of the time. The difference is - when it isn't working - look for a new solution. Once the path sticks for Wyoming - there will be many more up's that down's. It doesn't seem anyone at UW has that leadership ability right now.