NCAAbbs

Full Version: WAC deal with ESPN reportedly worth $1 million
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Quote:
Posted on: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

WAC deal with ESPN reportedly worth $1 million


By Ferd Lewis
Advertiser Staff Writer

Now that the Western Athletic Conference has reached agreement with ESPN on a new multi-year cable television contract said to provide more exposure and heftier rights fees, the conference must decide how to divide it up.

Members of the WAC's Board of Directors and their representatives voted to accept the deal yesterday in a conference call, according to people familiar with the process.

Although details have yet to be announced pending what has traditionally been a joint ESPN and WAC announcement, it is believed the deal will more than double the rights fees of the previous contract to more than $1 million.

An ESPN spokesman was not immediately available for comment and WAC commissioner Karl Benson declined comment.

The last contract guaranteed the WAC at least four football and two men's basketball appearances per season and less than $400,000 in fees.

Negotiations on a new deal began more than a year ago when the WAC turned down a deal reportedly similar to the $600,000 package accepted by the Mid-American Conference.

Fresno State athletic director Scott Johnson refused to give details of the deal but said, "I'm happy with the contract. It gives us some security and something to grow with."

Now comes the issue of how to divvy it up. "We're going to talk about performance-enhanced revenue distribution and I think that is the key to how it is divided," Johnson said.

The WAC last year adopted a plan that will pay a so-called "inconvenience fee" to members that play non-Saturday football games. But some members want schools that appear to receive a larger share of the money. In the past all members have shared equally in distribution.



Now Why would anyone Want to Leave the WAC?

Top USM Eagle Wrote:
Now Why would anyone Want to Leave the WAC?

Not sure if this was meant sarcastically... but here's one Rice fan's straight-up answer. :D

1) Play some teams closer to home -- particularly UH. For a while it looked like we'd have Rice, SMU, TCU, and UH all together and consolidated to fight the Big-$-XII for some press coverage; but even though that didn't pan out, three is still better than two. And we've still got our pal Tulsa.

2) Kick-a$$ baseball.

3) We figured they (W-WAC) were gonna ditch us first chance they got, so... c'est la vie.

4) Did I mention kick-a$$ baseball? :D

The WAC is not a bad league, not bad at all -- it's just that the public image has suffered because certain Western teams keep chasing after a MWC invite, like Charlie Brown with that damn football. :rolleyes: I wish them well, and get tired of seeing folks trash the WAC, honestly. It's just that C-USA was a big step in the right direction for Rice.

May I ask how this is going to happen? What, are they going to show Boise vs. everyone else? Freshno vs. La Tech isn't exactly a great matchup.

In the "new WAC", I see only one matchup that could possibly draw me to actually watch- Boise vs. Hawaii. Maybe, MAYBE Fresno vs. Boise, but I doubt it.
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane Gang Wrote:
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane, I'm curious though. The WAC is losing one of it's bowl teams last year in Tulsa, and are losing Rice and SMU. How did they get this deal? The WAC will lose another school, probably UTEP. That leaves Boise, Hawaii, and possibly Fresno as the only quality football schools. I don't understand how they got a bigger contract for a conference that is probably going to lose some more teams, with only a couple quality football programs.

Boise vs. Hawaii seems to be the ONLY intriguing matchup.

Cane Gang Wrote:
If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Dude. Did you have to say "hop"? :laugh:

And whatever happened to that froggie emoticon that OldCoog made awhile back? 03-wink

Yes, though, I think the Bronco fans would welcome a little conversation.

Ivan Ho

Good for the WAC! 04-cheers
It is good to see non-BCS programs getting a chance to showcase their talent on national TV.

The Knight Time Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane, I'm curious though. The WAC is losing one of it's bowl teams last year in Tulsa, and are losing Rice and SMU. How did they get this deal? The WAC will lose another school, probably UTEP. That leaves Boise, Hawaii, and possibly Fresno as the only quality football schools. I don't understand how they got a bigger contract for a conference that is probably going to lose some more teams, with only a couple quality football programs.

Boise vs. Hawaii seems to be the ONLY intriguing matchup.

Since this is a football/basketball combined agreement, don't count out Nevada. The Wolfpack have good hoops and the football team went into Seattle and beat Washington this past season.

Otherwise, you named the three big schools. All three have rabid followings in their area. Fresno in particular owns central California and just opened a brand new 16,000 seat arena last season.

They're also adding Utah State in 2005, and they bring good hoops and a pretty decent alumni base.

And despite what anyone on this board might think about them, La Tech does beat BCS teams and has a reputation for high scoring games. Whenever they play Hawaii or Boise, the scoreboard operator tears his rotator cuff. Makes for good TV.

The Knight Time Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane, I'm curious though. The WAC is losing one of it's bowl teams last year in Tulsa, and are losing Rice and SMU. How did they get this deal? The WAC will lose another school, probably UTEP. That leaves Boise, Hawaii, and possibly Fresno as the only quality football schools. I don't understand how they got a bigger contract for a conference that is probably going to lose some more teams, with only a couple quality football programs.

Boise vs. Hawaii seems to be the ONLY intriguing matchup.

Actually, by losing SMU, Tulsa, and now maybe UTEP, the WAC becomes a much stronger conference. Boise has finished in the Top 15 the last 2 years, Fresno has finished around 30 for the last 3 years, Hawaii has been right there with Fresno. Tech won the championship in 2001 and of course has represented well out of conference against the BCS schools. And Nevada knocked off Washington last year at Washington. If the WAC could just get rid of San Jose State now, I'm pretty sure they would be the best non-BCS conference by losing all the lower-tier WAC teams. But, the schools the WAC lost do have alot of "potential."

And as for attractive match-ups, Boise beat Tech 43-37 last year in Ruston, Hawaii beat Tech 44-41 and Tech missed a last-second FG to tie, and Tech led Fresno 6-0 at halftime before losing 16-6 in Fresno. Any of those three matchups should be appealing to those who care about non-BCS football.

The Knight Time Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane, I'm curious though. The WAC is losing one of it's bowl teams last year in Tulsa, and are losing Rice and SMU. How did they get this deal? The WAC will lose another school, probably UTEP. That leaves Boise, Hawaii, and possibly Fresno as the only quality football schools. I don't understand how they got a bigger contract for a conference that is probably going to lose some more teams, with only a couple quality football programs.

Boise vs. Hawaii seems to be the ONLY intriguing matchup.

Because they were ridiculously underpaid before.
Fresno, Hawaii and Boise are 3 solid properties

The Knight Time Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane, I'm curious though. The WAC is losing one of it's bowl teams last year in Tulsa, and are losing Rice and SMU. How did they get this deal? The WAC will lose another school, probably UTEP. That leaves Boise, Hawaii, and possibly Fresno as the only quality football schools. I don't understand how they got a bigger contract for a conference that is probably going to lose some more teams, with only a couple quality football programs.

Boise vs. Hawaii seems to be the ONLY intriguing matchup.

The WAC won't lose much at all in Football with Rice, SMU, and Tulsa.

Tulsa had a great year last year...but it was still their first winning season since 1991.

SMU, has had only ONE winning season since 1989.

Rice, obviously GREAT in Baseball (nothing to do with new contract) has had a few good years but obviously not a "power" like TCU over the past 5 years.

It should be a HUGE benefit for SMU, RICE, Tulsa to be playing most of their games "close-to-home" with schools many of their fans/alumni can relate to.

WAC is focusing more on schools in the West Coast.

Games start later out in Mountain/Pacific/Hawaii time zones....and with less teams, more of the same good teams will get on TV.

KL

$1 million is a horrible television contact. C-USA's contract is worth almost ten times that.

The only reason it is a better contract is because whoever negotiated the previous contract was probably drunk. Also, now they have the option of going to a regional Fox network to leverage against ESPN.

There is no way that the WAC is "stronger by subtraction".

They have lost more than half of their market size. Their entire central time zone presence, and added New Mexico State and Utah State. From an all-sports perspective, they are definitely weaker. From an exposure presence as well they are weaker.

Losing SMU, Rice, and Tulsa was a very bad thing for the WAC, and thats why Benson fought like hell to keep it from happening, to no avail.

OUGwave Wrote:
$1 million is a horrible television contact. C-USA's contract is worth almost ten times that.

For now, at least.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:
$1 million is a horrible television contact. C-USA's contract is worth almost ten times that.

For now, at least.

Well at least you've got hope, ay buddy? Schadenfreude is for the extremely weak.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:
$1 million is a horrible television contact. C-USA's contract is worth almost ten times that.

For now, at least.

I have a question. Is that $10 million contract that CUSA currently has for $10 million over 4 years? The previous WAC contract was for $333,333 per year. Having been under the impression that the TV contracts (at the time) were $10 mil vs. 1/3 of a mil per year, then the move to CUSA was a no-brainer. But if we're talking 2.5 mil per year vs. 1 mil, then it makes the decision to accept an invite (if it is offered) a closer call, especially considering that the CUSA contract is expected to decrease.

Our AD was very involved in the ESPN negotiations last week, so the incentive-based distribution may be the WAC's effort to keep UTEP in the WAC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still in favor of the move if offered, but the decision isn't as cut and dry as I believed.

Can someone clarify?

MondoMiner Wrote:
Is the that $10 million contract that CUSA currently has for $10 million over 4 years?  The previous WAC contract was for $333,333 per year.  Having been under the impression that the TV contracts (at the time) were $10 mil vs. 1/3 of a mil per year, then the move to CUSA was a no-brainer.  But if we're talking 2.5 mil per year vs. 1 mil, then it makes the decision to accept an invite (if it is offered) a closer call, especially considering that the CUSA contract is expected to decrease.

Our AD was very involved in the ESPN negotiations last week, so the incentive-based distribution may be the WAC's effort to keep UTEP in the WAC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still in favor of the move if offered, but the decision isn't as cut and dry as I believed.

Can someone clarify?

Mondo,

I think the CUSA contract was for $80 million over 8 years. That would come out to $10 million per year.

Big difference between the WAC and CUSA. :)

DFWMINER Wrote:
Big difference between the WAC and CUSA.  :)

If that's correct, then again, it's a no-brainer.

T_Won Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:
The WAC tv contract is well deserved. There are some good teams with good support in the WAC. They should get some exposure.

Our decision to leave came down to 1) geography - reducing travel budgets and building regional rivals, 2) instability issue was always hanging out there, and 3) C-USA does offer more financial benefits.

All help the bottom line. Number 3 directly, of course. Number 1 by containing costs and helping us at the gate. Number 2 by giving our boosters some confidence to invest in the program.

If you guys get a minute, you ought to hop over to the WACbbs board. Just getting off the ground. Lots of friendly Boise State fans wanting to talk a little pigskin over there...

Cane, I'm curious though. The WAC is losing one of it's bowl teams last year in Tulsa, and are losing Rice and SMU. How did they get this deal? The WAC will lose another school, probably UTEP. That leaves Boise, Hawaii, and possibly Fresno as the only quality football schools. I don't understand how they got a bigger contract for a conference that is probably going to lose some more teams, with only a couple quality football programs.

Boise vs. Hawaii seems to be the ONLY intriguing matchup.

Actually, by losing SMU, Tulsa, and now maybe UTEP, the WAC becomes a much stronger conference. Boise has finished in the Top 15 the last 2 years, Fresno has finished around 30 for the last 3 years, Hawaii has been right there with Fresno. Tech won the championship in 2001 and of course has represented well out of conference against the BCS schools. And Nevada knocked off Washington last year at Washington. If the WAC could just get rid of San Jose State now, I'm pretty sure they would be the best non-BCS conference by losing all the lower-tier WAC teams. But, the schools the WAC lost do have alot of "potential."

And as for attractive match-ups, Boise beat Tech 43-37 last year in Ruston, Hawaii beat Tech 44-41 and Tech missed a last-second FG to tie, and Tech led Fresno 6-0 at halftime before losing 16-6 in Fresno. Any of those three matchups should be appealing to those who care about non-BCS football.

So replacing SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP with New Mexico State, Utah State, North Texas, Wichita State, et al, will make the WAC a "stronger" league? Right. You can't have a conference with three teams. Your bottom is going to be weak as the MAC.

Quote:
Freshno vs. La Tech isn't exactly a great matchup.


It isn't now but it could be. You never know. David Carr vs. Tim Rattay could be a could shoot out. You never know when one of the schools will get another run like they have had in the last 4-5 years. If they each have one at the same time, that could be a really good game.

Reference URL's