Mountain West future on line as TV talks take place (Las Vegas Review-Journal) | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Mountain West future on line as TV talks take place (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
You underestimate the power of the government when it wants something and that even $15M is more than $7M

you think the government would pass legislation forcing connecticut cable companies to carry a uconn television station.

@temery you should start a new board similar to off topic called penthouse letters to banish this kinda stuff to.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
4,923
Reaction Score
19,061
you think the government would pass legislation forcing connecticut cable companies to carry a uconn television station.

@temery you should start a new board similar to off topic called penthouse letters to banish this kinda stuff to.
The government can't pass laws requiring a cable company to carry a TV channel at a certain price. But, SubbaBub's point about ESPN showing the way for colleges to move their games to streaming is an interesting point.

If you are going to produce the content yourself (like most content in the AAC/ESPN deal), what does ESPN bring to the party in a streaming world? I guess it brings some streaming expertise, but that is clearly being commoditized. ESPN does bring wide distribution of big games to their captive, but declining cable subs which is still important. But, if hardcore fans had to pay for Tier 3 games, how much would they pay and would it be more profitable for them to stream them themselves instead of having ESPN do it for them on ESPN+? Why can't a college just partner with Amazon or YouTube to stream their games that they are already producing? I already have both Amazon and YouTube on my TV.

I believe that steaming sports will become widespread in the next 5 years and you will easily be able to subscribe/watch any sports network you want on your home TV as long as you pay for it. That is why college brands with large fan bases are going to be extremely important in the future as you will be able to know how much each fan base is willing to pay to watch their teams.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
Theoretically, yes. However, the AAC provides almost no good content. Now it is good for a few football and men’s bball games. The worst football school (us) has the biggest fan base. The UConn women will probably outdraw almost every AAC event ESPN will now broadcast. It’s a big loss. ESPN had to have it.

I don’t agree with this

As a conference, the AAC is getting better & better. Both Football & Men’s Hoop. Markedly. Good content. Not demonstrably 10x less than a P5. Fixed at that number until 2033? Crazy.

UConn Benedict & Staff should be supported. Praised. It’s a huge risk. But WE control our destiny - as we’ve been saying. We won’t be butthurt by more defection- which I believe will come from 1 or 2. The AAC acts butthurt (and easily point to 1-11) ... but what the hell is Temple gonna have if a wing of this conference gets sliced off.
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
32,093
Reaction Score
24,542
Whaler seems to forget that the government has already added taxes and fees to his cable bill.

Also forgets that once the money is funneled to the school, it doesn't really matter as cable is no longer the gatekeeper to distribution. It'd be great for the analog generation to see WBB games , but for the rest it'd be a convenience.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
Whaler seems to forget that the government has already added taxes and fees to his cable bill.

Also forgets that once the money is funneled to the school, it doesn't really matter as cable is no longer the gatekeeper to distribution. It'd be great for the analog generation to see WBB games , but for the rest it'd be a convenience.

because taxes exist the government can compel cable systems to do whatever they demand.

good luck in court.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,916
Reaction Score
5,364
Theoretically, yes. However, the AAC provides almost no good content. Now it is good for a few football and men’s bball games. The worst football school (us) has the biggest fan base. The UConn women will probably outdraw almost every AAC event ESPN will now broadcast. It’s a big loss. ESPN had to have it.
...........and if ESPN ever wants our content and fan base back, the only place they could put us is in the ACC. Benedict, Herbst, and the BOT saw the potential way back when they hired Hurley. It was a brilliant move in my opinion. Is it a gamble? Sure, but a well calculated one. If football does well this season, this train gains even more steam.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
The government can't pass laws requiring a cable company to carry a TV channel at a certain price. But, SubbaBub's point about ESPN showing the way for colleges to move their games to streaming is an interesting point.

If you are going to produce the content yourself (like most content in the AAC/ESPN deal), what does ESPN bring to the party in a streaming world? I guess it brings some streaming expertise, but that is clearly being commoditized. ESPN does bring wide distribution of big games to their captive, but declining cable subs which is still important. But, if hardcore fans had to pay for Tier 3 games, how much would they pay and would it be more profitable for them to stream them themselves instead of having ESPN do it for them on ESPN+? Why can't a college just partner with Amazon or YouTube to stream their games that they are already producing? I already have both Amazon and YouTube on my TV.

I believe that steaming sports will become widespread in the next 5 years and you will easily be able to subscribe/watch any sports network you want on your home TV as long as you pay for it. That is why college brands with large fan bases are going to be extremely important in the future as you will be able to know how much each fan base is willing to pay to watch their teams.

What ESPN brings is a nationwide organization to contract and market streaming as a single source provider of multiple programs/sports.

One hundred fifty years ago, my dairy farm family hauled cans of milk into town in wagons. Then in the 20th century, local consolidators developed milk routes and picked up milk from the farms.

Delivery to the consumer changed over time...the local consolidators now processed the milk and delivered it to the consumer's door.

As the use of grocery stores grew, and chain stores began to proliferate, regional and national milk consolidators developed (Borden's, Foremost, etc) in order to market and deliver milk to the consumer intermediary, the grocery store.

I see individual programs as like a farmer. Yes, that program can sell their product to local markets...but, like a farmer, that most likely would evolve into selling to a consolidator as is the current practice. Some consolidators (like ESPN, etc) would market and deliver that product to national markets. The program would now have to contract only with the consolidator, not with 20 different markets...it is that way now and I think it will remain so.

The TV is our grocery for sports.
 
Last edited:

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,511
Reaction Score
206,253
What ESPN brings is a nationwide organization to contract and market streaming as a single source provider of multiple programs/sports.

One hundred fifty years ago, my dairy farm family hauled cans of milk into town in wagons. Then in the 20th century, local consolidators developed milk routes and picked up milk from the farms.

Delivery to the consumer changed over time...the local consolidators now processed the milk and delivered it to the consumer's door.

As the use of grocery stores grew, and chain stores began to proliferate, regional and national milk consolidators developed (Borden's, Foremost, etc) in order to market and deliver milk to the consumer intermediary, the grocery store.

I see individual programs as like a farmer. Yes, that program can sell their product to local markets...but, like a farmer, that most likely would evolve into selling to a consolidator as is the current practice. Some consolidators (like ESPN, etc) would market and deliver that product to national markets. The program would now have to contract only with the consolidator, not with 20 different markets...it is that way now and I think it will remain so.

The TV is our grocery for sports.
Maybe the better analogy is mail delivery. Initially private carriers, not much choice. (Broadcast) Moved to cable as middleman allowing regional broadcasts to go national and local users joined because of efficiency and reliability. (Like USPO squeezing out local carriers (or forcing them move to a different businsess.) Technology now allows direct access to end user via internet, much like emails did. USPS is largely relegated to delivery of junk that no one really wants. Cable will left infomercials and reruns and the more desirable products will find their way directly to the end user.

That wasn't well done, but you get the gist. The role of the consolidator dries up when the producer can directly reach the end user. That's not a prediction, per se, it's just me flowing along with your thought exercise.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
If, as you are suggesting, college TV football will be deliverable
a la carte, it might have the same consequences that unbundling cable/satellite TV will have.

I notice that of the hundreds of channels that I receive, I watch maybe ten to fifteen tops.

Right now, CSpan, Oxygen, Outdoor Channel, Shepard's Chapel Network, and the three Jewelry Network Channels and dozens of others of the like are included for everyone because the popular channels carry the load. The less popular channels earn less per TV household for the carriage but the sheer numbers multiply.

If each channel must stand on their own merit, far fewer people will pay to access the channels less in demand. Of course those boutique channels can up their charges and those costs will be born only by the dedicated devotees of the channel and will only be able to be accessed by those few.

If that was TV football...the teams that do not capture national interest may well become boutique and relegated to a ESPN+ type bundle.

SEC, BTN, ACCN would not be seen bundled with main line TV offerings but would have to be an individual purchase (a la ESPN+).

ESPN+ is a sort of harbinger of a streaming bundle....currently a bundling of less than marquis football matches, and football over flow content of the Big 12 and AAC, and a large assortment of other sports.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
86,931
Reaction Score
323,061
>>Athletic director Joe Parker would prefer Colorado State play its homecoming football game against San Diego State on Saturday afternoon instead of 8 p.m.

He’d even be willing to give up some of the $1.1 million CSU receives from the Mountain West’s national television deals with CBS-Sports Network and ESPN to make that happen.

CSU, though, is in the MW minority when it comes to that tradeoff, commissioner Craig Thompson said Monday. Most schools in the conference care more about maximizing the revenue they earn from those media-rights deals than about when their games are played. And the MW’s value to potential broadcast partners is directly correlated to the conference’s willingness to play games when others are not.<<

>>“We’re knee-deep in negotiations with everybody and anybody, and one thing is perfectly clear: The later we kick and the more frequently we play on Thursdays and Fridays, the more rights fees they will pay us,” he said.<<

>>The MW’s 11 full members have been asked repeatedly to rank the importance of revenue, controlling start times and national exposure in a new media-rights package, Thompson said.

CSU consistently puts controlling start times at the top of its list, Parker said. “The revenue is important, but we’ve always talked that, in our case with the new stadium and fan engagement, we’d rather see more favorable kick times,” Parker said.

The majority of the conference’s members, though, continue to make revenue No. 1 and control over start times No. 2, creating a “direct conflict … which makes it a very challenging decision by the membership,” Thompson said.

Restrictions on the number of late-night games a school can play, or what time of year those games are scheduled, further reduce the value, he said.<<
 

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10,395
Reaction Score
38,188
Important to note: MWC #s exclude Boise and Hawaii who have their own TV deals for football.



The new Fox and CBS contracts, which will go into effect July 1, provide the conference’s 10 schools -- not including Hawaii and Boise State, which have separate arrangements -- with a significant revenue lift. Under the old contracts, those 10 schools made $1.1 million per year, per school. That per-school figure should jump to about $3 million or more. The league’s media deals are complicated because Boise State’s home games are negotiated separately from the rest of the conference. In the previous arrangement, Boise was paid a $1.8 million annual bonus, a deal negotiated in 2012 when the school jumped to the Big East and then quickly returned. Thompson has said that Boise will continue to receive a bonus above what other MWC schools get as an incentive to keep the Broncos in the league. Hawaii also has a separate deal, as it is a football-only member of the MWC.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
20,513
Reaction Score
44,465

That's not bad for the MWC considering it excludes Hawaii and Boise State. AAC should have went for a shorter term deal as well. Still hope UConn ends up under Fox Sports Umbrella for football.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,511
Reaction Score
206,253
Important to note: MWC #s exclude Boise and Hawaii who have their own TV deals for football.



The new Fox and CBS contracts, which will go into effect July 1, provide the conference’s 10 schools -- not including Hawaii and Boise State, which have separate arrangements -- with a significant revenue lift. Under the old contracts, those 10 schools made $1.1 million per year, per school. That per-school figure should jump to about $3 million or more. The league’s media deals are complicated because Boise State’s home games are negotiated separately from the rest of the conference. In the previous arrangement, Boise was paid a $1.8 million annual bonus, a deal negotiated in 2012 when the school jumped to the Big East and then quickly returned. Thompson has said that Boise will continue to receive a bonus above what other MWC schools get as an incentive to keep the Broncos in the league. Hawaii also has a separate deal, as it is a football-only member of the MWC.
$3M a year per school without production costs and capital outlay of building production facilities. This seems like it a better deal than the American's on a net basis.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
2,429
Reaction Score
4,540
Yeah, not so sure about that Hank. I think we still have a shot if we put together a more intriguing schedule, get decent home and homes, and of course win. I was heartened by AD Daves comment that he is receiving a lot of interest in playing us. I think we still have a shot. Is it a more difficult path and staying in the American? Well, They are both so minuscule that any difference is probably irrelevant.
I do agree with you that it doesn't matter as this point if UConn remained in the AAC or with the current chosen path. Either way, UConn is not likely to receive an invite to a P5 Conference any longer. The chance was there, but it has been frittered away. In life, timing is everything. For UConn the time came back in the day of Suzie and Warde and unfortunately passed by without positive result.
 

Online statistics

Members online
224
Guests online
2,574
Total visitors
2,798

Forum statistics

Threads
155,756
Messages
4,030,472
Members
9,864
Latest member
leepaul


Top Bottom