G
GolfDiveNCougsIt feels like this sentiment has been floating around in multiple threads already, so I'm not claiming anything new here. However, I think the point is good enough to warrant its own topic.
Most people have been understandably emotional about the responses to BYU's "attempt" at a clean independence break. Anger has been pointed towards Reno, Fresno, Utah State, Thompson, some have even been mad at BYU/Holmoe/Samuelson. People are advocating what can only be viewed as an EMOTIONAL response by BYU to the situation, if not in the action specifically, at least in the reason for the action (i.e. if BYU goes Indy and other sports end up in WCC, it's to show those backstabbin' %#@$^&*'s, and NOT because in the end it's the best option, even if it were).
What I think people don't REALLY get here is the actual reasons everything happened.
Put simply, the conference NEEDS BYU. Needs BYU for their very economic survival. The conference wasn't trying to screw BYU over, they were trying to KEEP them here. Sure, a move like that would piss people off, burn bridges, what have you, but in the end, if it worked, a disgruntled BYU, even one whose flight-risk status after next year remains unchanged, is STILL better than a BYU in ANY emotional state --good, bad, or otherwise-- who's already flown.
This is how I see it broken down. (No, I don't have sources)
The conference's existing contract is with a CBS/Comcast marriage, affectionately known as the mtn. Somebody in an earlier post estimated that 60% of all advertised businesses on the mtn are Utah based businesses. That's a big wad o' cash to the mtn, who I'm sure is already sweating since the minority draw from that market is already gone.
Couple that with the fact that even advertizers who AREN'T just regional to Utah realize that the VAST MAJORITY of the viewership is IN the State of Utah. Sure there are as many Sonic's in San Diego or Fort Worth or Albequerque as there are in Provo. Oooops... if there aren't near as many TELEVISION SETS tuned to those commercials in any of those cities as there are in Provo, Sonic ain't gonna want to pay the same coin for the lesser exposure.
Now, I'm trying to be objective here. Sure I love my team, and I'll freely admit that my goggles have a slight sapphire perma-tint. But I think it is being no less than realistic to say that the mtn gets its viewership from one school more than any other, and I'd be willing to bet that BYU's presence on that channel pulls more eyes than any 3 other schools in the conference COMBINED, now that Utah's gone. And everybody knows this!
And you'd better believe anybody advertising for the mtn knows exactly who is watching that channel. If BYU walks, advertisers walk, and the mtn DIES. Instantly if not sooner. Interestingly, we've seen no real chatter on exactly what Comcast and CBS think of this whole deal. I'd have to bet that it's because most people who'd display their chatter on message boards don't/haven't taken the thought process that far. Would Comcast be content to let the mtn die? Dunno. CBS has stated that it wants to make a run at the ABC/ESPN sports monopoly -- I mean, media giant. Would they pick up the mtn pieces if it crumbled and change the scope of the channel/bring in other small (or not-so-small) conferences in on it as well -- basically turn it into CBSCS even littler brother? Dunno. If I were to go with my gut, I'd say that CBS and Comcast would cut their losses and walk away from the Mountain West (State of Utah-less) Conference, since there's no MARKETABLE product to advertise for.
And that would leave the MWC to go crawling back to ESPN (sure, or Fox Regional or somebody else) for similar table scraps as the ones they were getting that drove them to concocting the mtn in the first place. This time, though, they'd have no BYU, and no Utah. No matter how many Nevadas and Fresnos you bring in, it's still a grossly inferior product.
So does all that mean that the MWC dies instantly with the mtn? No. Of course not. What it DOES, however, is relegate the MWC right back to the media-black-hole of the rest of the mid-"majors," and, MUCH more importantly, stretch athletic budgets TWICE as thin, or moreso, as they already are. Your average MWC school would likely realize less than HALF of the media dollars in a non-BYU, ESPN-scraps-contracted MWC they recieve now. THAT'S what BYU's presence has done for 7-8 other schools for over a decade now in the MWC, and twice as long in the WAC before that. Val Hale said as much. We've had a few threads reference his comments about his experiences with ESPN-scraps negotiations round 1, ten years ago. ESPN told the new MWC the only reason they're even being offered what they were offered was because BYU was on the table. Without them, it've been much less. Again, do programs keel over instantly in those conditions? No. But it's the difference between a meager but sustainable diet, and bread and water. NOBODY'S eating like kings here. Yes, you'll stay alive on just bread and water, but for how long, and how strong will you be the next time you're in a fight, even with somebody who's only benefitted from the simple yet sustainable diet?
THOSE are the things that University Presidents are thinking. Someone made a very valid point that all Thompson is doing is representing the Presidents. TRUST me, even if the Presidents DID resent BYU, and would LOVE to stick it to them (and, boy, I'm not saying they wouldn't!), the Nevada/Fresno move was NOT made for that reason. It was made to try to KEEP BYU WHERE THEY WERE. If nothing else, it bought them time. They're NOW in a collective position of figuring out where the sink-or-swim point is. Will advertisers stick around on the mtn if the mtn lost 2 BYU home games? 3? 4? What is the ACTUAL COST, TO THE OTHER SCHOOLS, of giving BYU full broadcasting autonomy? Would that put the mtn, the rest of the schools' sole paycheck, underwater irrecoverably?
University Presidents get to where they are because they show that they can make THOSE kind of calls. NOT because they're willing to be cavalier about settling scores.
With all that in mind, on to the rest of the fallout...
Sure, Fresno and Nevada were slimy for making a WAC deal (that was specifically designed to keep them from bailing if-and-when a MWC invite came) and then breaking it DAYS later, when the MWC invite DID come. No, THEY didn't do it to screw BYU either. They did it because it was an UPGRADE. From a getting-in-on-the-action perspective (and I'm not saying this was the BIGGEST factor in their decision, but they knew where the MWC bread was buttered, so I can't think the "BYUconomics" weren't at least A factor), the action was better with BYU Football INCLUDED in the MWC than EXCLUDED in the WAC. Look at it from their perspective. Their conference just lost its only media gem to the MWC. The next re-up on THEIR ESPN-scraps contract would likely take a big hit too. They were looking at either getting BYU Basketball in exchange for Boise State football, or possibly getting BYU Football AND Basketball, oh, yeah, in a FAR superior conference that now includes BSU. The only concern for them was that despite making the WAC uninhabitable for BYU, BYU might bail somewhere else anyway. What would that leave them? That would leave them with Boise State and a bunch of also-rans. Lookee there, it's almost exactly where they came from, with an upgrade of Horned Frog, and more money than they were getting before. NO BRAINER. Sure it was slimy. I'd have done the same thing!!!
(Side note, NOT the purpose of my post...To be honest, I'm kind of relieved. I didn't like the idea of BYU Basketball playing in the WAC anyway, even WITH UNR and FSU. I'm a basketball-first man as well. If we're not getting any more respect beating legit teams in the MWC than Gonzaga is beating patsies in the WCC, why the heck NOT go WCC and walk into March with an overall better record, and a juicy looking home win and close away loss against "powerhouse" and media-darling Gonzaga??? Yes, sucks for many other sports, but isn't that a relatively small price to pay, especially since this looks to be temporary anyhow???)
What BYU has to decide is how strong-arm they're gonna go on the rest of the University Presidents. I don't think many people in the national media would blame BYU for walking. That doesn't mean that if BYU does, the MWC University Presidents won't do their DAMNDEST to make BYU look bad. Interestingly, THAT'S one thing the BYU Board of Trustees (read...well, you know) is often very particular about. They don't often subscribe to the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" mantra.
How many of BYU's home games is BYU's minimum demand? Is there a minimum amount of home games BYU needs full autonomy for in order to get ESPN to deal??? If the Presidents give up whatever amount of home games that is, will ESPN pay us as much for them if they can't be counted towards their WAC-scraps quota as well (purported to being a point of great interest to ESPN in the rumored agreement). What rebroadcast rights will BYU have? Will Basketball be given any autonomy whatsoever, or will they still get the same disrespect they've gotten in recent years? THESE are now the questions with which Samuelson and the rest of the Presidents are playing Chicken. BYU is saying "Well, good on you, you kept us from walking away a week ago. Now what are you going to give us to keep us from walking somewhere else?" (not knowing, of course, if BYU is realistically considering anywhere else to walk to). How much less (especially with 2-3? more mouths to feed) are those Presidents willing to recieve in order to keep BYU at the table? Shoot, from their perspective, would that really be much less than they would be getting if BYU walked and the mtn crumbled? BIG ol' game o' Chicken. In the mean time, BYU has got this HUGE Media Facility that they're DYING to show off to the world and the Big 12, and is likely looking for a reason to use it. If the MWC is stupid and doesn't budge, or at least budge FAR enough, now WOULD be a great time to show the world just what BYU could do with its new gadgets!
Am I off-base with all of this here? What have I got clear, what am I missing? I'd be interested to hear feedback.
Most people have been understandably emotional about the responses to BYU's "attempt" at a clean independence break. Anger has been pointed towards Reno, Fresno, Utah State, Thompson, some have even been mad at BYU/Holmoe/Samuelson. People are advocating what can only be viewed as an EMOTIONAL response by BYU to the situation, if not in the action specifically, at least in the reason for the action (i.e. if BYU goes Indy and other sports end up in WCC, it's to show those backstabbin' %#@$^&*'s, and NOT because in the end it's the best option, even if it were).
What I think people don't REALLY get here is the actual reasons everything happened.
Put simply, the conference NEEDS BYU. Needs BYU for their very economic survival. The conference wasn't trying to screw BYU over, they were trying to KEEP them here. Sure, a move like that would piss people off, burn bridges, what have you, but in the end, if it worked, a disgruntled BYU, even one whose flight-risk status after next year remains unchanged, is STILL better than a BYU in ANY emotional state --good, bad, or otherwise-- who's already flown.
This is how I see it broken down. (No, I don't have sources)
The conference's existing contract is with a CBS/Comcast marriage, affectionately known as the mtn. Somebody in an earlier post estimated that 60% of all advertised businesses on the mtn are Utah based businesses. That's a big wad o' cash to the mtn, who I'm sure is already sweating since the minority draw from that market is already gone.
Couple that with the fact that even advertizers who AREN'T just regional to Utah realize that the VAST MAJORITY of the viewership is IN the State of Utah. Sure there are as many Sonic's in San Diego or Fort Worth or Albequerque as there are in Provo. Oooops... if there aren't near as many TELEVISION SETS tuned to those commercials in any of those cities as there are in Provo, Sonic ain't gonna want to pay the same coin for the lesser exposure.
Now, I'm trying to be objective here. Sure I love my team, and I'll freely admit that my goggles have a slight sapphire perma-tint. But I think it is being no less than realistic to say that the mtn gets its viewership from one school more than any other, and I'd be willing to bet that BYU's presence on that channel pulls more eyes than any 3 other schools in the conference COMBINED, now that Utah's gone. And everybody knows this!
And you'd better believe anybody advertising for the mtn knows exactly who is watching that channel. If BYU walks, advertisers walk, and the mtn DIES. Instantly if not sooner. Interestingly, we've seen no real chatter on exactly what Comcast and CBS think of this whole deal. I'd have to bet that it's because most people who'd display their chatter on message boards don't/haven't taken the thought process that far. Would Comcast be content to let the mtn die? Dunno. CBS has stated that it wants to make a run at the ABC/ESPN sports monopoly -- I mean, media giant. Would they pick up the mtn pieces if it crumbled and change the scope of the channel/bring in other small (or not-so-small) conferences in on it as well -- basically turn it into CBSCS even littler brother? Dunno. If I were to go with my gut, I'd say that CBS and Comcast would cut their losses and walk away from the Mountain West (State of Utah-less) Conference, since there's no MARKETABLE product to advertise for.
And that would leave the MWC to go crawling back to ESPN (sure, or Fox Regional or somebody else) for similar table scraps as the ones they were getting that drove them to concocting the mtn in the first place. This time, though, they'd have no BYU, and no Utah. No matter how many Nevadas and Fresnos you bring in, it's still a grossly inferior product.
So does all that mean that the MWC dies instantly with the mtn? No. Of course not. What it DOES, however, is relegate the MWC right back to the media-black-hole of the rest of the mid-"majors," and, MUCH more importantly, stretch athletic budgets TWICE as thin, or moreso, as they already are. Your average MWC school would likely realize less than HALF of the media dollars in a non-BYU, ESPN-scraps-contracted MWC they recieve now. THAT'S what BYU's presence has done for 7-8 other schools for over a decade now in the MWC, and twice as long in the WAC before that. Val Hale said as much. We've had a few threads reference his comments about his experiences with ESPN-scraps negotiations round 1, ten years ago. ESPN told the new MWC the only reason they're even being offered what they were offered was because BYU was on the table. Without them, it've been much less. Again, do programs keel over instantly in those conditions? No. But it's the difference between a meager but sustainable diet, and bread and water. NOBODY'S eating like kings here. Yes, you'll stay alive on just bread and water, but for how long, and how strong will you be the next time you're in a fight, even with somebody who's only benefitted from the simple yet sustainable diet?
THOSE are the things that University Presidents are thinking. Someone made a very valid point that all Thompson is doing is representing the Presidents. TRUST me, even if the Presidents DID resent BYU, and would LOVE to stick it to them (and, boy, I'm not saying they wouldn't!), the Nevada/Fresno move was NOT made for that reason. It was made to try to KEEP BYU WHERE THEY WERE. If nothing else, it bought them time. They're NOW in a collective position of figuring out where the sink-or-swim point is. Will advertisers stick around on the mtn if the mtn lost 2 BYU home games? 3? 4? What is the ACTUAL COST, TO THE OTHER SCHOOLS, of giving BYU full broadcasting autonomy? Would that put the mtn, the rest of the schools' sole paycheck, underwater irrecoverably?
University Presidents get to where they are because they show that they can make THOSE kind of calls. NOT because they're willing to be cavalier about settling scores.
With all that in mind, on to the rest of the fallout...
Sure, Fresno and Nevada were slimy for making a WAC deal (that was specifically designed to keep them from bailing if-and-when a MWC invite came) and then breaking it DAYS later, when the MWC invite DID come. No, THEY didn't do it to screw BYU either. They did it because it was an UPGRADE. From a getting-in-on-the-action perspective (and I'm not saying this was the BIGGEST factor in their decision, but they knew where the MWC bread was buttered, so I can't think the "BYUconomics" weren't at least A factor), the action was better with BYU Football INCLUDED in the MWC than EXCLUDED in the WAC. Look at it from their perspective. Their conference just lost its only media gem to the MWC. The next re-up on THEIR ESPN-scraps contract would likely take a big hit too. They were looking at either getting BYU Basketball in exchange for Boise State football, or possibly getting BYU Football AND Basketball, oh, yeah, in a FAR superior conference that now includes BSU. The only concern for them was that despite making the WAC uninhabitable for BYU, BYU might bail somewhere else anyway. What would that leave them? That would leave them with Boise State and a bunch of also-rans. Lookee there, it's almost exactly where they came from, with an upgrade of Horned Frog, and more money than they were getting before. NO BRAINER. Sure it was slimy. I'd have done the same thing!!!
(Side note, NOT the purpose of my post...To be honest, I'm kind of relieved. I didn't like the idea of BYU Basketball playing in the WAC anyway, even WITH UNR and FSU. I'm a basketball-first man as well. If we're not getting any more respect beating legit teams in the MWC than Gonzaga is beating patsies in the WCC, why the heck NOT go WCC and walk into March with an overall better record, and a juicy looking home win and close away loss against "powerhouse" and media-darling Gonzaga??? Yes, sucks for many other sports, but isn't that a relatively small price to pay, especially since this looks to be temporary anyhow???)
What BYU has to decide is how strong-arm they're gonna go on the rest of the University Presidents. I don't think many people in the national media would blame BYU for walking. That doesn't mean that if BYU does, the MWC University Presidents won't do their DAMNDEST to make BYU look bad. Interestingly, THAT'S one thing the BYU Board of Trustees (read...well, you know) is often very particular about. They don't often subscribe to the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" mantra.
How many of BYU's home games is BYU's minimum demand? Is there a minimum amount of home games BYU needs full autonomy for in order to get ESPN to deal??? If the Presidents give up whatever amount of home games that is, will ESPN pay us as much for them if they can't be counted towards their WAC-scraps quota as well (purported to being a point of great interest to ESPN in the rumored agreement). What rebroadcast rights will BYU have? Will Basketball be given any autonomy whatsoever, or will they still get the same disrespect they've gotten in recent years? THESE are now the questions with which Samuelson and the rest of the Presidents are playing Chicken. BYU is saying "Well, good on you, you kept us from walking away a week ago. Now what are you going to give us to keep us from walking somewhere else?" (not knowing, of course, if BYU is realistically considering anywhere else to walk to). How much less (especially with 2-3? more mouths to feed) are those Presidents willing to recieve in order to keep BYU at the table? Shoot, from their perspective, would that really be much less than they would be getting if BYU walked and the mtn crumbled? BIG ol' game o' Chicken. In the mean time, BYU has got this HUGE Media Facility that they're DYING to show off to the world and the Big 12, and is likely looking for a reason to use it. If the MWC is stupid and doesn't budge, or at least budge FAR enough, now WOULD be a great time to show the world just what BYU could do with its new gadgets!
Am I off-base with all of this here? What have I got clear, what am I missing? I'd be interested to hear feedback.