MWC expansion and tv contract

[Schmoe]

I'll take the MTN and Saturday games at normal times over ESPN's eleven o'clock Thursday night games anytime. I just want the MTN to step up their game as far as quality commentators, camerawork, etc.

[hawkwing]

I'll take the MTN and Saturday games at normal times over ESPN's eleven o'clock Thursday night games anytime. I just want the MTN to step up their game as far as quality commentators, camerawork, etc.

I'd even take the Thursday night games over the Tues, Wed, and Sunday night games we were being forced into with the new ESPN contract.

[FragOut]

but where does the mountain go from here?

We all see a need for the network to improve (a few more cameras, better cameramen, better announcers). How is this going to happen? the network isn't likely to shell out more money to improve these things until viewership increases. viewership isn't likely to improve until improvements are made and availability of the network increases.

I for one believe that if the network made some further investments into their future such as making the changes mentioned above along with decreasing their asking price for cable providers to pick up the network though this would likely decrease profits for the next few years I think it would pay large dividends in say 5-10 years. But with the way the MTN is negotiating right now, I just don't see them making these kind of investments.

[FragOut]

I also recognize, though, that there is a serious glass ceiling on tv ratings for a MWC sports channel. Most college football fans want to see their team play and maybe one or two other teams (like perhaps their teams rivals). So the vast majority of college football fans will not tune into a MWC football game regardless of the teams rank.

Those who run the MTN may see it this way as well and believe they've already just about reached their ceiling so why bother attempting to increase their ratings.

I think, however, that there are still many many fans who would watch if they didn't have to change cable providers or spend a lot more money to do so. I believe that there are more than enough of these fans that would make spending the money to make the improvements worthwhile from a business standpoint.

[gmj81]

Some of you folks refuse the acknowledge the progress that has been made here since day 1. Does anyone else remember that CSTV broadcast against Stanford in '04? Or maybe it was '03, I don't remember exactly. Things have come a long way since then. Every week I see posts complaining about the Mtn and the same people never seem to be satisfied with the changes being made. In fact, most of these people refuse to even acknowledge the fact that change has been made.

Seriously people, most of us can now watch nearly every single game BYU plays. Unless you lived in Utah prior to the current TV contract, it was virtually impossible to even get half of the games. I don't really care about the commentating or the sideline reporting as long as I get to watch my Cougs. Yet that's what a lot of people are nitpicking at now. Sure it would be nice to have a little bit better talent manning the booths and roaming the sideline but it's not going to make or break the success of the network or the conference. One step at a time, one foot in front of the other.

I remember when people were pissed about having to "actually pay" to watch BYU play. A lot of folks balked when Thompson said that the trend was going to "no free TV anymore". Guess what? Since then, Thompson has been proven right as most golf, NBA, and MLB games are now on cable networks such as TBS, TNT, ESPN, etc. I remember when you could watch three or four NFL games on both CBS/NBC and Fox a week, plus Monday night football. Now, there's Sunday night football on NBC and maybe one or two games each week on CBS and Fox but Monday night football is on ESPN and every other game is carried on other cable stations.

Then people started complaining about distribution. Mind you, this was in the first year of an experiment that had never been done before (a tv network devoted specifically to one college sports conference). But by year three, we had most cable providers within the footprint of the MWC carrying the network and DirecTV picking up the satellite end of things. Essentially now, anybody who wants to watch the games, can. Yet still people claimed that because we weren't seen on ESPN, it was hurting us in the polls:

One, just because you play on ESPN doesn't mean people automatically tune in. ESPN occasionally shows spelling bees too. Do you think that just because those are on ESPN people are going to be riveted to the TV? So they aren't going to watch a game they don't care either about whether it's on the Mtn, ESPN, ABC or PBS. I crunched the numbers a few years back that showed that the TV ratings for an ESPN Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday night game were below the TV ratings of a VS broadcast and only the Thursday night games (usually Big East or ACC) were on par as I recall. Again people just don't care to watch Louisiana Tech or Central Michigan or San Jose State play on Wednesday night. But if they have some interest in the teams or it has some significance to the college football landscape, then they might tune in for it if they can find it on their dial. I could have watched UNC-VaTech a few week's back but didn't because I had no interest in the teams and the outcome wouldn't have significantly altered the college football landscape any. But I watched the UNC-FSU game the week before because FSU was a former BYU opponent and I want to see them do well so the win over BYU looks better. Likewise, most college football fans' reasons for watching different games centers on how it relates to their team. They just can't watch them all.

Two, the MWC is a lock to receive their third BCS bowl bid in five years. The last two, the MWC champ has been heavily in the national title discussion; last year with people talking about Yewtah's lack of access, and this year actually debating that TCU might be the better team than any of the other top five. Certainly the "lack of exposure" or distribution doesn't seem to be hurting the MWC any. The powers that be aren't going to put TCU in the national championship game over the traditional powerhouses like Florida and Texas even if every one of their games were on a primetime local network and UF's/UT's games were all on cable. The only way that the MWC is going to change perceptions is by beating these teams head-to-head, one game at a time. And that's going to take time.

Three, any joker pollster who says they can't find the MWC games on TV so they can't vote them highly is just spewing a line of BS. I seriously doubt if any of these guys watch more than three or four games a week and then just flip through the highlights and box scores for the rest of the games. And they aren't watching BSU take down Lousiana Tech on Friday night either even if it is on ESPN because they think that Boise will just automatically win that one and the box score will tell them everything they need to know. Using the coverage issue against the MWC teams is just an excuse to defend their bias. Again, any of these games could be seen by anybody if they really wanted to. And what's more, three to four games a year for all the MWC teams are played on ESPN or ABC or TBS, etc. And the big three in the MWC have at least an additional three to four games a year on VS/CBSC which are easily accessible to any true sports follower (like a pollster should be).

Another common gripe about the Mtn is that the camera work is shoddy, there aren't enough cameras, it's not in HD. I acknowledge the fact that the first year or two it was frustrating how often the cameraman seemed to be fooled but it has gotten much better. Sure it still happens from time to time but it also happens occasionally on ESPN too. More and more games are being broadcast in HD. Still many say, "It's not all so it's not good enough." Some people even complained that the HD just isn't as good of quality as ESPN's HD. I can't speak to that since I don't have HD and most of the games where it has been available anyway I have been at the stadium. But I just can't help but think how glass-half-empty these people are. No matter how much things continue to improve, they still continue to piss and moan because we're not with ESPN. It's just seems like they are unwillingly to let their vendetta go even though there is progress being made and the conference is making much more money than they would have had they stayed with ESPN. A lot of times when organizations/people decide to make a change and deviate from what they are used to, it takes some time to readjust and figure things out in their new environment. But there's no denying we had hit a glass ceiling with ESPN, even peaked and we're coming back down. They weren't even willing to match the last contract in place with the MWC but offered less money and worse time slots.

I realize that there's been some bumps in the road for the programs and the fans in this new deal and it hasn't always been pleasant. I'm not saying people can't have gripes or complaints about the sister networks. I just think most people that are expressing those frustrations blow them way out of proportion and refuse to acknowledge the progress made and better place we are in than we would have been if we hadn't taken action. It was a bold move that you have got to give credit for. Even the BCS conferences are following suit now and creating their own networks. They have the benefit of being able to learn from the MWC's/Mtn's mistakes though. The pioneer's always have it tough but they are usually much better off for having had the courage to go off into the unknown. There are times when I wish the quality of the broadcasts were a little better or the on-screen talent was more knowledgeable, etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, and most of this stuff takes money which isn't in great abundance right now anyway. But step by step, things are getting better and it is being confirmed more for me with each passing season that the conference made the right move.

[BlueBlue]

I love the MTN...

Disclaimer - I have a crush on Emmy award-winning reporter and Harvard graduate Sammy Linebaugh. There, I said it.

[CAFB_04-12]

Some of you folks refuse the acknowledge the progress that has been made here since day 1. Does anyone else remember that CSTV broadcast against Stanford in '04? Or maybe it was '03, I don't remember exactly. Things have come a long way since then. Every week I see posts complaining about the Mtn and the same people never seem to be satisfied with the changes being made. In fact, most of these people refuse to even acknowledge the fact that change has been made.

Seriously people, most of us can now watch nearly every single game BYU plays. Unless you lived in Utah prior to the current TV contract, it was virtually impossible to even get half of the games. I don't really care about the commentating or the sideline reporting as long as I get to watch my Cougs. Yet that's what a lot of people are nitpicking at now. Sure it would be nice to have a little bit better talent manning the booths and roaming the sideline but it's not going to make or break the success of the network or the conference. One step at a time, one foot in front of the other.

I remember when people were pissed about having to "actually pay" to watch BYU play. A lot of folks balked when Thompson said that the trend was going to "no free TV anymore". Guess what? Since then, Thompson has been proven right as most golf, NBA, and MLB games are now on cable networks such as TBS, TNT, ESPN, etc. I remember when you could watch three or four NFL games on both CBS/NBC and Fox a week, plus Monday night football. Now, there's Sunday night football on NBC and maybe one or two games each week on CBS and Fox but Monday night football is on ESPN and every other game is carried on other cable stations.

Then people started complaining about distribution. Mind you, this was in the first year of an experiment that had never been done before (a tv network devoted specifically to one college sports conference). But by year three, we had most cable providers within the footprint of the MWC carrying the network and DirecTV picking up the satellite end of things. Essentially now, anybody who wants to watch the games, can. Yet still people claimed that because we weren't seen on ESPN, it was hurting us in the polls:

One, just because you play on ESPN doesn't mean people automatically tune in. ESPN occasionally shows spelling bees too. Do you think that just because those are on ESPN people are going to be riveted to the TV? So they aren't going to watch a game they don't care either about whether it's on the Mtn, ESPN, ABC or PBS. I crunched the numbers a few years back that showed that the TV ratings for an ESPN Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday night game were below the TV ratings of a VS broadcast and only the Thursday night games (usually Big East or ACC) were on par as I recall. Again people just don't care to watch Louisiana Tech or Central Michigan or San Jose State play on Wednesday night. But if they have some interest in the teams or it has some significance to the college football landscape, then they might tune in for it if they can find it on their dial. I could have watched UNC-VaTech a few week's back but didn't because I had no interest in the teams and the outcome wouldn't have significantly altered the college football landscape any. But I watched the UNC-FSU game the week before because FSU was a former BYU opponent and I want to see them do well so the win over BYU looks better. Likewise, most college football fans' reasons for watching different games centers on how it relates to their team. They just can't watch them all.

Two, the MWC is a lock to receive their third BCS bowl bid in five years. The last two, the MWC champ has been heavily in the national title discussion; last year with people talking about Yewtah's lack of access, and this year actually debating that TCU might be the better team than any of the other top five. Certainly the "lack of exposure" or distribution doesn't seem to be hurting the MWC any. The powers that be aren't going to put TCU in the national championship game over the traditional powerhouses like Florida and Texas even if every one of their games were on a primetime local network and UF's/UT's games were all on cable. The only way that the MWC is going to change perceptions is by beating these teams head-to-head, one game at a time. And that's going to take time.

Three, any joker pollster who says they can't find the MWC games on TV so they can't vote them highly is just spewing a line of BS. I seriously doubt if any of these guys watch more than three or four games a week and then just flip through the highlights and box scores for the rest of the games. And they aren't watching BSU take down Lousiana Tech on Friday night either even if it is on ESPN because they think that Boise will just automatically win that one and the box score will tell them everything they need to know. Using the coverage issue against the MWC teams is just an excuse to defend their bias. Again, any of these games could be seen by anybody if they really wanted to. And what's more, three to four games a year for all the MWC teams are played on ESPN or ABC or TBS, etc. And the big three in the MWC have at least an additional three to four games a year on VS/CBSC which are easily accessible to any true sports follower (like a pollster should be).

Another common gripe about the Mtn is that the camera work is shoddy, there aren't enough cameras, it's not in HD. I acknowledge the fact that the first year or two it was frustrating how often the cameraman seemed to be fooled but it has gotten much better. Sure it still happens from time to time but it also happens occasionally on ESPN too. More and more games are being broadcast in HD. Still many say, "It's not all so it's not good enough." Some people even complained that the HD just isn't as good of quality as ESPN's HD. I can't speak to that since I don't have HD and most of the games where it has been available anyway I have been at the stadium. But I just can't help but think how glass-half-empty these people are. No matter how much things continue to improve, they still continue to piss and moan because we're not with ESPN. It's just seems like they are unwillingly to let their vendetta go even though there is progress being made and the conference is making much more money than they would have had they stayed with ESPN. A lot of times when organizations/people decide to make a change and deviate from what they are used to, it takes some time to readjust and figure things out in their new environment. But there's no denying we had hit a glass ceiling with ESPN, even peaked and we're coming back down. They weren't even willing to match the last contract in place with the MWC but offered less money and worse time slots.

I realize that there's been some bumps in the road for the programs and the fans in this new deal and it hasn't always been pleasant. I'm not saying people can't have gripes or complaints about the sister networks. I just think most people that are expressing those frustrations blow them way out of proportion and refuse to acknowledge the progress made and better place we are in than we would have been if we hadn't taken action. It was a bold move that you have got to give credit for. Even the BCS conferences are following suit now and creating their own networks. They have the benefit of being able to learn from the MWC's/Mtn's mistakes though. The pioneer's always have it tough but they are usually much better off for having had the courage to go off into the unknown. There are times when I wish the quality of the broadcasts were a little better or the on-screen talent was more knowledgeable, etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, and most of this stuff takes money which isn't in great abundance right now anyway. But step by step, things are getting better and it is being confirmed more for me with each passing season that the conference made the right move.

Wow, gmj81, you win the "longest-post-on-Cougar-Corner-for-2009" award.

Plus, I agree with everything you said.

[Schmoe]

I love the MTN...

Disclaimer - I have a crush on Emmy award-winning reporter and Harvard graduate Sammy Linebaugh. There, I said it.

Don't we all? I thought this was commonly accepted as part of watching the MTN.