|
|
Post by jimbeav on Sept 3, 2023 7:38:13 GMT -8
I was stunned when I read that the MWC would consider offering a scheduling alliance to OSU & WSU for the 2024 season. It seems like the MWC's best play is to not help OSU & WSU with scheduling football games in 2024 (and perhaps 2025), forcing the Beavers & Cougars to come crawling to the Mountain West and beg for membership. One can only speculate what's going on to cause the MWC to consider such a generous offer to OSU & WSU. Two possibilities: Speculation #1) Several Mountain West Conf. schools (Boise St, Fresno St, SDSU, and Colorado St.) probably see themselves as Power-5 schools who have been historically overlooked for membership in the P5 Conferences. The Big-12 just blew them off. They may see helping OSU & WSU rebuilding the PAC-12 as their best chance to get close to P5 status. Speculation #2) Apple had a $250M/year deal with the PAC-10 that just blew up when other conferences (& networks) raided the PAC-10 a few weeks ago. Apple has deep pockets & it's hard to see them walking away and giving up. They maybe behind the scenes working with Oliver Luck to rebuild the PAC-12 to demonstrate that their streaming/subscription model works. Regardless of which case, Commissioner Nevarez may think that cooperating with the PAC-2 is the best way to salvage as much of her conference as possible. This doesn't have to be approached in a monolithic way with the entire MWC. Notice that this quote about a scheduling alliance is coming from the CSU AD, not the MWC commissioner. If you already have an idea of, say, 4 teams you'd like to have from the MWC and 4 teams from the AAC, you could approach each of them individually and say, Pssst...take care of us scheduling-wise the next couple years, and we'll take care of you when we're ready to put this thing together and shoot our shot at getting as good of a league put together as we can, and try to maintain P5 status. And it might just be doable. The biggest question is whether enough MWC teams would be able to cancel or buy out 1 or preferably 2 non-conf games to make room for OSU and/or WSU. But that's where the 2Pac's war chest could help out. And you can get dates throughout the season by taking a game between two MWC teams you want, moving it to an early date in place of an existing non-conf game, and then replace that mid-season date with each team playing OSU/WSU. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Sept 3, 2023 8:07:45 GMT -8
I was stunned when I read that the MWC would consider offering a scheduling alliance to OSU & WSU for the 2024 season. It seems like the MWC's best play is to not help OSU & WSU with scheduling football games in 2024 (and perhaps 2025), forcing the Beavers & Cougars to come crawling to the Mountain West and beg for membership. One can only speculate what's going on to cause the MWC to consider such a generous offer to OSU & WSU. Two possibilities: Speculation #1) Several Mountain West Conf. schools (Boise St, Fresno St, SDSU, and Colorado St.) probably see themselves as Power-5 schools who have been historically overlooked for membership in the P5 Conferences. The Big-12 just blew them off. They may see helping OSU & WSU rebuilding the PAC-12 as their best chance to get close to P5 status. Speculation #2) Apple had a $250M/year deal with the PAC-10 that just blew up when other conferences (& networks) raided the PAC-10 a few weeks ago. Apple has deep pockets & it's hard to see them walking away and giving up. They maybe behind the scenes working with Oliver Luck to rebuild the PAC-12 to demonstrate that their streaming/subscription model works. Regardless of which case, Commissioner Nevarez may think that cooperating with the PAC-2 is the best way to salvage as much of her conference as possible. I think your 1.) is spot on. The top teams would love to get out if they could. Utah made it. Boise State tried the Big 12 and then the Big East. San Diego State was all set to join the Pac this summer. The MWC, with its crap TV contract and comparatively non major metro locations, has historically not been in a "Strong position," in spite of having had some good teams. If it were, the $34 million exit penalty would be unnecessary. None of this should be news to Nevarez. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 3, 2023 8:42:20 GMT -8
The CSU AD just laid out how it will work. I'm sure he had vetted his remarks with the commish.
“That allows them to bridge and understand their financial situation, try to maximize where they’re at, and then maybe pivot into the Mountain West (in 2025),” Parker said. “There’s also the question of, what’s the stronger (intellectual property)? The value of the branding of the Pac-12, or the Mountain West, or is there something else (new)?”
Scheduling alliance for 2024-25, we're essentially Mountain West affiliates, eligible for conference championships and automatic NCAA berths, while we and Wazzu clean out what's left of the Pac-12 treasury and get the most money we can. The added year also facilitates the planning process, so all the moving parts can be worked out. It also gives the TV networks and the leagues more time to hash out a superior deal than the MWC currently has.
In 2025-26, there's a reverse merger. The Pac-12 is a heavyweight intellectual property and the Pac brand has far more value, compared to the Mountain West. Gloria is the commissioner, I expect the offices remain in Denver. We and Wazzu continue to receive the monies due the Pac-12 from NCAA basketball units, etc., through 2030, and share some of it with the MWC. The MWC also collects some of the windfall from SDSU's 2023 run.
One thing for sure, I find it very hard to believe that anything less than all 11 MWC teams will be involved. Can't see them dumping anyone, they seem to have more loyalty than the Pac-12 schools did. There is no real advantage to being a 10-team league over a 13-team league, especially since the most logical team to dump (SJSU) is in the biggest TV market.
The MWC seems to value us and Wazzu. They want us so they are bending over backward to work with us. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by making us "beg" for membership and for us to "come crawling" to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 3, 2023 9:03:41 GMT -8
Just to add, the MWC has two teams in the Denver/Colorado Springs/Fort Collins TV market (16); a team in the Bay Area TV market (10); a team in the Las Vegas TV market (40); a team in the San Diego TV market (30), a team in the Albuquerque TV market (49), a team in the Fresno/Visalia TV market (51), a team in the growing Boise (98) and Reno (102) TV markets and yet another team (Utah State) that has some following in the SLC market (29), much as we have a following in the Portland (22) market.
There are also a ton of Wyoming grad in the Denver area. Ten of their 11 schools are located in top-50 and top-100 TV markets.
Maybe they are not the No. 1 asset in those markets, but that doesn't seem to matter. SMU might be #10 in the Metroplex market but it was still attractive to the ACC. It seems like overall TV sets matter, not if they're actually being watched.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripgz on Sept 3, 2023 9:20:55 GMT -8
My understanding is that for linear/cable TV, market size matters because cable companies charge everyone in the market for access to the games, regardless of if anyone is watching (hence SMU being coveted).
But streaming/Apple is different in that each addl subscription is what matters. So the ultimate question is how many passionate fans does each school have who will fork over subscription fees? I could see Boise St with more of those fans than SMU, making it a more valuable streaming partner.
Which way to go is the question, with no definitive answer. But I could see a roll of the dice with Apple to see how it works, potentially putting osu at the technological forefront, as a viable option
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 3, 2023 9:35:57 GMT -8
My understanding is that for linear/cable TV, market size matters because cable companies charge everyone in the market for access to the games, regardless of if anyone is watching (hence SMU being coveted). But streaming/Apple is different in that each addl subscription is what matters. So the ultimate question is how many passionate fans does each school have who will fork over subscription fees? I could see Boise St with more of those fans than SMU, making it a more valuable streaming partner. Which way to go is the question, with no definitive answer. But I could see a roll of the dice with Apple to see how it works, potentially putting osu at the technological forefront, as a viable option Starting out with the Pac-13/MWC would also a much-cheaper way for Apple to gauge the interest the streaming market. And yes, you are correct about linear cable. The Bay Area cable companies can add the ACC network and charge every customer more for it, even if no one watches it. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 3, 2023 10:30:21 GMT -8
A thought. When Apple made its previous offer of 25 million a team, it had escalators which at 1.7 million subs were said to be worth roughly 32 mil per team. With 9 teams the night before it all fell apart several Friday mornings ago, that was right at about 300 million bucks to the league for 1.7 million subs.
Subs are subs, maybe it doesn’t matter to Apple what the names of the teams behind them are? If we took all 12 MWC teams, including Hawaii, do you think that ON AVERAGE, each team in the league could, between ticket holders/local residents/worldwide alumni/casual fans, manage to get 121,429 fans to put that Apple APP on their phone/IPad/Mac or TV? That could be approximately 300 million to the new league for 1.7 million subs, same as before, about 21.5 million per school because of the 14 way split. That doesn’t include people who just like football and want to have, or try out, the APP - any number over that 1.7 million subs would mean even more to the league under the previous Apple offer.
That’s the potential the Apple streaming deal could have. If Apple is willing to play, under similar $$ per subscription terms as before, the MWC teams could potentially have a lot of incentive to come our direction.
Apple’s incentive to make this happen is money. If they can make this work now, when the new media deal windows open up in several year’s they’ll be able to show that can provide the numbers in cold hard cash. Not being able to provide the numbers to prove it’s ability to deliver is why several teams just left - there’s a huge benefit in having proof of concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 3, 2023 10:33:30 GMT -8
A thought. When Apple made its previous offer of 25 million a team, it had escalators which at 1.7 million subs were said to be worth roughly 32 mil per team. With 9 teams the night before it all fell apart several Friday mornings ago, that was right at about 300 million bucks to the league for 1.7 million subs. Subs are subs, maybe it doesn’t matter to Apple what the names of the teams behind them are? If we took all 12 MWC teams, including Hawaii, do you think that ON AVERAGE, each team in the league could, between ticket holders/local residents/worldwide alumni/casual fans, manage to get 121,429 fans to put that Apple APP on their phone/IPad/Mac or TV? That could be approximately 300 million to the new league for 1.7 million subs, same as before, about 21.5 million per school because of the 14 way split. That doesn’t include people who just like football and want to have, or try out, the APP - any number over that 1.7 million subs would mean even more to the league under the previous Apple offer. That’s the potential the Apple streaming deal could have. If Apple is willing to play, under similar $$ per subscription terms as before, the MWC teams could potentially have a lot of incentive to come our direction. It’s not just “the app”, you have to pay a subscription fee in addition to the app, like they have for MLS. You’re not going to have a lot of people just “try it out”, when they have to pay a substantial additional fee over the normal apple+ basic subscription. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 3, 2023 10:45:05 GMT -8
A thought. When Apple made its previous offer of 25 million a team, it had escalators which at 1.7 million subs were said to be worth roughly 32 mil per team. With 9 teams the night before it all fell apart several Friday mornings ago, that was right at about 300 million bucks to the league for 1.7 million subs. Subs are subs, maybe it doesn’t matter to Apple what the names of the teams behind them are? If we took all 12 MWC teams, including Hawaii, do you think that ON AVERAGE, each team in the league could, between ticket holders/local residents/worldwide alumni/casual fans, manage to get 121,429 fans to put that Apple APP on their phone/IPad/Mac or TV? That could be approximately 300 million to the new league for 1.7 million subs, same as before, about 21.5 million per school because of the 14 way split. That doesn’t include people who just like football and want to have, or try out, the APP - any number over that 1.7 million subs would mean even more to the league under the previous Apple offer. That’s the potential the Apple streaming deal could have. If Apple is willing to play, under similar $$ per subscription terms as before, the MWC teams could potentially have a lot of incentive to come our direction. It’s not just “the app”, you have to pay a subscription fee in addition to the app, like they have for MLS. You’re not going to have a lot of people just “try it out”, when they have to pay a substantial additional fee over the normal apple+ basic subscription. I know you gotta pay. Pardon me if I missed adding the word “paid’. I bet that for every Reser ticket OSU sells, there are a number of people who have upgraded their cable or streaming packages to get the Pac-12 channel. For my wife and I, it already costs us money to watch the Beavs. There’d be little change for us. I’m betting that’s the case for a great many. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 3, 2023 10:53:21 GMT -8
It’s not just “the app”, you have to pay a subscription fee in addition to the app, like they have for MLS. You’re not going to have a lot of people just “try it out”, when they have to pay a substantial additional fee over the normal apple+ basic subscription. I know you gotta pay. Pardon me if I missed adding the word “paid’. I bet that for every Reser ticket OSU sells, there are a number of people who have upgraded their cable or streaming packages to get the Pac-12 channel. For my wife and I, it already costs us money to watch the Beavs. There’d be little change for us. I’m betting that’s the case for a great many. My point was that you are not going to draw in many casual fans that just try it out. It’s going to be hardcore fans subscribing. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 3, 2023 11:07:07 GMT -8
Just to add, the MWC has two teams in the Denver/Colorado Springs/Fort Collins TV market (16); a team in the Bay Area TV market (10); a team in the Las Vegas TV market (40); a team in the San Diego TV market (30), a team in the Albuquerque TV market (49), a team in the Fresno/Visalia TV market (51), a team in the growing Boise (98) and Reno (102) TV markets and yet another team (Utah State) that has some following in the SLC market (29), much as we have a following in the Portland (22) market. There are also a ton of Wyoming grad in the Denver area. Ten of their 11 schools are located in top-50 and top-100 TV markets. Maybe they are not the No. 1 asset in those markets, but that doesn't seem to matter. SMU might be #10 in the Metroplex market but it was still attractive to the ACC. It seems like overall TV sets matter, not if they're actually being watched. Agree that San Diego State, UNLV and San Jose State could make some major inroads in their metro areas. New Mexico and Colorado State are bigger question marks IMO but could have upward mobility, I suppose. To me, Boise State and Fresno State are important because of the national name recognition they bring to the table, along with historical success in football. Where I start wavering is Nevada, Air Force, Utah State, Hawaii and Wyoming. They just don't move the needle enough in most areas. I posted in another thread about this. IMO, what OSU and WSU need to be working toward is the creation of a conference that will be entrenched at the No. 5 spot nationally. I just don't buy the idea that adding OSU and WSU to the entire MWC gets to that level. For this to work, you have to get the best schools available from top to bottom. Maybe that can't be done for a few years, but that's what they should be keeping their eyes on. Take care of immediate needs while working toward the future. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 3, 2023 11:18:15 GMT -8
Just to add, the MWC has two teams in the Denver/Colorado Springs/Fort Collins TV market (16); a team in the Bay Area TV market (10); a team in the Las Vegas TV market (40); a team in the San Diego TV market (30), a team in the Albuquerque TV market (49), a team in the Fresno/Visalia TV market (51), a team in the growing Boise (98) and Reno (102) TV markets and yet another team (Utah State) that has some following in the SLC market (29), much as we have a following in the Portland (22) market. There are also a ton of Wyoming grad in the Denver area. Ten of their 11 schools are located in top-50 and top-100 TV markets. Maybe they are not the No. 1 asset in those markets, but that doesn't seem to matter. SMU might be #10 in the Metroplex market but it was still attractive to the ACC. It seems like overall TV sets matter, not if they're actually being watched. Agree that San Diego State, UNLV and San Jose State could make some major inroads in their metro areas. New Mexico and Colorado State are bigger question marks IMO but could have upward mobility, I suppose. To me, Boise State and Fresno State are important because of the national name recognition they bring to the table, along with historical success in football. Where I start wavering is Nevada, Air Force, Utah State, Hawaii and Wyoming. They just don't move the needle enough in most areas. I posted in another thread about this. IMO, what OSU and WSU need to be working toward is the creation of a conference that will be entrenched at the No. 5 spot nationally. I just don't buy the idea that adding OSU and WSU to the entire MWC gets to that level. For this to work, you have to get the best schools available from top to bottom. Maybe that can't be done for a few years, but that's what they should be keeping their eyes on. Take care of immediate needs while working toward the future. Colorado State is like the most-watched team in the Mountain West (Denver market) and definitively one of two the most prestigious schools. Air Force is the third-most watched team in the Mountain West with inroads in the Denver market and is a strong national brand. Utah State has a bigger following than Fresno, San Diego State, San Jose State, or UNLV. Nevada and New Mexico are in great locations, if nothing else. Hawai'i and Wyoming are the two that bring the least to the table from my perspective. Everyone else has pros that generally outweigh the cons. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 3, 2023 11:32:00 GMT -8
Agree that San Diego State, UNLV and San Jose State could make some major inroads in their metro areas. New Mexico and Colorado State are bigger question marks IMO but could have upward mobility, I suppose. To me, Boise State and Fresno State are important because of the national name recognition they bring to the table, along with historical success in football. Where I start wavering is Nevada, Air Force, Utah State, Hawaii and Wyoming. They just don't move the needle enough in most areas. I posted in another thread about this. IMO, what OSU and WSU need to be working toward is the creation of a conference that will be entrenched at the No. 5 spot nationally. I just don't buy the idea that adding OSU and WSU to the entire MWC gets to that level. For this to work, you have to get the best schools available from top to bottom. Maybe that can't be done for a few years, but that's what they should be keeping their eyes on. Take care of immediate needs while working toward the future. Colorado State is like the most-watched team in the Mountain West (Denver market) and definitively one of two the most prestigious schools. Air Force is the third-most watched team in the Mountain West with inroads in the Denver market and is a strong national brand. Utah State has a bigger following than Fresno, San Diego State, San Jose State, or UNLV. Nevada and New Mexico are in great locations, if nothing else. Hawai'i and Wyoming are the two that bring the least to the table from my perspective. Everyone else has pros that generally outweigh the cons. Colorado State played Michigan last year. And I'm guessing that Colorado is going to dominate the Denver market moving forward. But I'm not really opposed to Air Force or Colorado State for that matter. I did notice that several of the teams were kind of bunched up in last year's TV viewership. My guess is Boise State almost always is at or near the top and almost all the other teams go up or down depending on their success in a given season. Maybe you switch out a Fresno State for someone else. Agree on Hawaii and Wyoming. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 3, 2023 11:40:02 GMT -8
I know you gotta pay. Pardon me if I missed adding the word “paid’. I bet that for every Reser ticket OSU sells, there are a number of people who have upgraded their cable or streaming packages to get the Pac-12 channel. For my wife and I, it already costs us money to watch the Beavs. There’d be little change for us. I’m betting that’s the case for a great many. My point was that you are not going to draw in many casual fans that just try it out. It’s going to be hardcore fans subscribing. I'm not sure I agree. You just have to "capture" them once. The Apple portion can be bundled will all sorts of offers or other deals. And from the details leaked, it sounded like the PAC-10 would have had 50% of the proceeds after a certain amount. That means they can cut into that to get additional customers. Plus, unlike hoping that X number of people are watching your specific college play games on TV, you can hope that all of your fellow conference members can get enough subscribers once to get you over the top. The casual fans who don't currently watch the teams would be the problem, as they'd never be seen outside of Apple subscribers. You'd have a hard time growing the market. But I'm presuming Apple has some sort of marketing idea/$$$ behind that. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 3, 2023 11:45:03 GMT -8
My point was that you are not going to draw in many casual fans that just try it out. It’s going to be hardcore fans subscribing. I'm not sure I agree. You just have to "capture" them once. The Apple portion can be bundled will all sorts of offers or other deals. And from the details leaked, it sounded like the PAC-10 would have had 50% of the proceeds after a certain amount. That means they can cut into that to get additional customers. Plus, unlike hoping that X number of people are watching your specific college play games on TV, you can hope that all of your fellow conference members can get enough subscribers once to get you over the top. The casual fans who don't currently watch the teams would be the problem, as they'd never be seen outside of Apple subscribers. You'd have a hard time growing the market. But I'm presuming Apple has some sort of marketing idea/$$$ behind that. It’s going to depend on what the subscription cost and terms are. If it’s an extra $100-$200 in addition to a basic apple+ subscription, we are going to have a difficult time with casual fans. |
|
