MWC Root Sports contract

[MtnBuff]

Recently we have been upset with Larry Scott for some missteps and because the PAC12 Network isn't fully available yet.

Keep in mind that things could be much worse. My MWC friends are all excited about having a new "$2 Million a year deal with Root Sports Rocky Mountain."

I did a little looking and in fact they are getting $500,000 a year for the rights and claiming the other $1.5 million in savings since they don't have to pay their own producation cost to get the games on TV.

The way the amount comes to $2 million is that ROOT SPORTS Rocky Mountain will be producing these games themselves, this taking on the cost. Last season, some of these games were produced locally but picked up on ROOT SPORTS. The rights fees being paid are $500,000 per year but New Mexico athletic director Paul Krebs esitmates that the production savings are near $1.5 million, so that is where $2 million

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2013-m.../18/4344364/mountain-west-tv-deal-root-sports

MWC is up to how many schools next year? Getting excited about actual revenue distributions of $50,000 per team per year.:lol:

 

[Junction]

Recently we have been upset with Larry Scott for some missteps and because the PAC12 Network isn't fully available yet.

Keep in mind that things could be much worse. My MWC friends are all excited about having a new "$2 Million a year deal with Root Sports Rocky Mountain."

I did a little looking and in fact they are getting $500,000 a year for the rights and claiming the other $1.5 million in savings since they don't have to pay their own producation cost to get the games on TV.



http://www.mwcconnection.com/2013-m.../18/4344364/mountain-west-tv-deal-root-sports

MWC is up to how many schools next year? Getting excited about actual revenue distributions of $50,000 per team per year.:lol:

So with the production costs, were MWAC schools actually LOSING money on TV broadcasts last year? :rofl:

 

[Gold]

The article mentioned MWC having a deal with ESPN and CBS Sports. Not sure if that is added revenue or what.

But those are stingy terms. I think ROOT is owned by DirecTV. I don't know what to read from this MWC deal that has anything to do with the P12 network, other than proof DTV is actively negotiating with other conferences. And they're making cheap deals.

 

[MtnBuff]

The article mentioned MWC having a deal with ESPN and CBS Sports. Not sure if that is added revenue or what.

But those are stingy terms. I think ROOT is owned by DirecTV. I don't know what to read from this MWC deal that has anything to do with the P12 network, other than proof DTV is actively negotiating with other conferences. And they're making cheap deals.

The article stated that it includes about 10 football and 25 basketball games. I am pretty sure this is their third level so yes it is added revenue.

The DirecTV point is a good one. DTV may think that having MWC games gives them enough exposure in the western US that they can continue to not carry the PAC12. I think they are two completely different audiences but for a TV exec from the east coast Fresno State and SDSU may seem like fair replacements for Stanford and USC. Time (and $$$$ will tell.)

 

[tante]

Jizla was right, we should have went to the MWC.

 

[NashBuff]

Jizla was right, we should have went to the MWC.

Yup after reading Buffnik's rant about the T&F facilities and program.

Even the Big Sky has a TV contract with ROOT Sports.

The CU adminstration is happy with supporting a MWC level team in the Pac-12 that happens to be in Boulder.

 

[Buffnik]

And despite that kind of media contract, New Mexico is able to afford playing men's tennis, men's soccer and men's baseball in addition to offering all of the other sports that CU does.

 

[NashBuff]

And despite that kind of media contract, New Mexico is able to afford playing men's tennis, men's soccer and men's baseball in addition to offering all of the other sports that CU does.

Baseball makes sense in Albquerque since it doesn't snow there that much but surely CU could have men's tennis and soccer in addition to lacrosse. CU sure isn't helping the Pac-12 Networks fill their programming slate with more sports.

I have came to the conculsion that baseball nor softball will be in Boulder anytime soon if ever but surely men's soccer or men's lacrosse could get here sooner than later. That gap in the spring sports calendar is a glaring one for CU fans and that needs to be addressed soon. Women's lacrosse will not address that gap.

We got to keep hounding on Bohn and the CU adminstration about that gap in the spring.

 

[MtnBuff]

New Mexico is a different situation. There are no major league sports in the entire state and UNM is clearly the flagship university. They get a lot of support for all their athletic programs both financially and in the media. Colorado is a Broncos state with other pro sports also getting attention and a hostile media.

That in mind, Bohn and the administration have to do what it takes to create a situation where the people of the state take a more positive ownership in the university and it's athletic programs. The non-revenue sports do cost money but they are also often a way that connections can be made in state.

 

[skibum]

So, I had a hypothesis which was that CU's relatively low percentage of in-state students might drive some of the "lack of state pride" sentiment. If, by percentage, a relatively smaller number of high school students end up at CU, vs other states, there might be something to it. Or in other words, if in any given high school, very few college bound students head to Boulder, that could have knock-on effects down the line as the population of the state feels less vested in the institution, as they personally know few people who benefited from this particular state-run institution.

I just grabbed a couple of states with obvious "flagship" schools that appear to have and benefit from the "state pride" aspect. The first raw number of percentage of in-state students looks like we might have a possible explanation (I tossed CSU in just for the hell of it):

School	% in state students
University of Colorado - Boulder	65%
Colorado State University	88%
University of Texas - Austin	95%
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor	65%
Ohio State University	88%

Michigan is the only one on that list with which we are peers in terms of % of in-state students. But that by itself isn't enough to make the case. What I was really interested in is what percentage of college attending high school graduates from each state attend that school? If, say, 20% go to the school, that could show a pretty good correlation with support for the school. Conversely, if only 2 or 3% go to the school, that would seem to me to be setting up a situation for lack of support among the broader population (i.e. no one I know has benefited from, or cares about the school, so why should I?)

School	% of in-state, college bound high school graduates attending
University of Colorado - Boulder	12%
Colorado State University	14%
University of Texas - Austin	6%
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor	6%
Ohio State University	11%

Or, in other words, another potential excuse eliminated. CU educates a larger percentage of college-bound students graduating from in-state high schools than does UT, Michigan or OSU, and we experience far less support from the general population. Clearly our administration has been, and is, doing something very wrong...

Edit to add the numbers for the cornholers:
% of students in state: 84%; % of in-state college-bound high school graduates heading to stinkoln: 27%. I think this single statistic probably explains a lot of the kNU cult - one out of every 4 college-bound high school graduates in Nebraska goes to kNU - wow, no wonder they lost their AAU status.

 

[skibum]

meant to put that post in nik's meltdown thread, but I suppose it works here too..

 

[dply]

65% seems a bit high. Where are those numbers from?

 

[skibum]

the 65% number is from here:
http://www.collegexpress.com/college/university-of-colorado-boulder/2800154/details/#studentBody

the other numbers are calculated from one guesstimate, and then census numbers and numbers published by the "National Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis." The guesstimate is that incoming freshman for each school is approximately the total number of undergrads divided by 4.5. When I found the actual incoming class size for both CU and Michigan the undergrads/4.5 formula was surprisingly very close, so I ran with it. Next I found the census projection of total number of students graduating high school in a year per state, and then found the % of high school graduates going directly to college by state. That yielded the total number of college bound high school graduates in a year. I took the percentage of in-state students at each school, and multiplied by the estimated incoming class size to yield the total number of in-state students heading to each particular school, and divided it by the total college-bound high school graduates number to give the final %. Excel spreadsheets are awesome.

 

[dply]

the 65% number is from here:
http://www.collegexpress.com/college/university-of-colorado-boulder/2800154/details/#studentBody

the other numbers are calculated from one guesstimate, and then census numbers and numbers published by the "National Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis." The guesstimate is that incoming freshman for each school is approximately the total number of undergrads divided by 4.5. When I found the actual incoming class size for both CU and Michigan the undergrads/4.5 formula was surprisingly very close, so I ran with it. Next I found the census projection of total number of students graduating high school in a year per state, and then found the % of high school graduates going directly to college by state. That yielded the total number of college bound high school graduates in a year. I took the percentage of in-state students at each school, and multiplied by the estimated incoming class size to yield the total number of in-state students heading to each particular school, and divided it by the total college-bound high school graduates number to give the final %. Excel spreadsheets are awesome.

We try to keep it close to a 55% in-state to 45% out of state. Granted I haven't been to one of those meetings in about 2 years but I think people in my office would be freaking out a bit more if it were to jump up to 65%.

That 65% might include random things that we don't include though.

 

[skibum]

We try to keep it close to a 55% in-state to 45% out of state. Granted I haven't been to one of those meetings in about 2 years but I think people in my office would be freaking out a bit more if it were to jump up to 65%.

I'm wondering if the 65% is for the entire student body (i.e. including grad students); that would probably square the numbers with what you know, as many grad students can manage to get residency pretty easily.

 

[dply]

I'm wondering if the 65% is for the entire student body (i.e. including grad students); that would probably make more sense, as many grad students can manage to get residency pretty easily.

Yeah, I'm thinking grad students and continuing ed students. We love out of staters and the money they bring at CU. :lol:

 

[GoBeers]

New Mexico is a different situation. There are no major league sports in the entire state and UNM is clearly the flagship university. They get a lot of support for all their athletic programs both financially and in the media. Colorado is a Broncos state with other pro sports also getting attention and a hostile media.

That in mind, Bohn and the administration have to do what it takes to create a situation where the people of the state take a more positive ownership in the university and it's athletic programs. The non-revenue sports do cost money but they are also often a way that connections can be made in state.

And despite that kind of media contract, New Mexico is able to afford playing men's tennis, men's soccer and men's baseball in addition to offering all of the other sports that CU does.

I wouldn't exactly say UNM can 'afford' their non-rev sports, while CU cannot... they used a 41% school subsidy for their athletic department in 2011, and with no new media, that will not change. Their administration is just choosing to subsidize additional sports... if one looks the other mountain west schools, the subsidy levels are all very high too, like 40-50% and 15-20 million per year. Wyoming is at 50%, Colorado State at 48%, UNLV at 54% (which is $32 million). All of the incoming WAC schools are in the $10-15 million subsidy range too, and they have even smaller total budgets.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

The new contract with ROOT is a win for the schools in Root Rocky Mountain territory (CSU, UNM, AF, WY, USU) in that they won't be paying for production costs anymore and will get games on BASIC cable in the Root RM region and still make a few bucks. Root wins because it has almost zero content outside of the Rockies these days, and Fox Sports is moving a lot of their good college content away from their FSN platform (which ROOT subscribed to) to Fox Sports 1 and 2. Not sure how this works well for the CA and NV schools - for instance can Comcast Sports Bay Area sub-license the SJSU's Root games to get them on basic cable in the Bay Area? Same question for Nevada games in Reno and Fresno St (I think those are both still CSN-Bay Area, aka SF Giants, territory)? Who would carry SDSU in San Diego? If the idea is to get those viewers to get a satellite dish and pay for a sports package to get Root, that is like plan C for the entire conference.

Michigan is the only one on that list with which we are peers in terms of % of in-state students. But that by itself isn't enough to make the case. What I was really interested in is what percentage of college attending high school graduates from each state attend that school? If, say, 20% go to the school, that could show a pretty good correlation with support for the school. Conversely, if only 2 or 3% go to the school, that would seem to me to be setting up a situation for lack of support among the broader population (i.e. no one I know has benefited from, or cares about the school, so why should I?)

School	% of in-state, college bound high school graduates attending
University of Colorado - Boulder	12%
Colorado State University	14%
University of Texas - Austin	6%
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor	6%
Ohio State University	11%

Or, in other words, another potential excuse eliminated. CU educates a larger percentage of college-bound students graduating from in-state high schools than does UT, Michigan or OSU, and we experience far less support from the general population. Clearly our administration has been, and is, doing something very wrong...

Edit to add the numbers for the cornholers:
% of students in state: 84%; % of in-state college-bound high school graduates heading to stinkoln: 27%. I think this single statistic probably explains a lot of the kNU cult - one out of every 4 college-bound high school graduates in Nebraska goes to kNU - wow, no wonder they lost their AAU status.

Interesting numbers. There is definitely more CU apathy in Colorado/Denver than there is with Texas/Michigan/Ohio State. Part of that is the last decade on the field, but the question is how to encourage more local fans to follow CU. One big issue with the comparison to OSU, Mich, and Texas is the sheer size of those states and of their flagship schools. Texas (52k) and Ohio State's (57k) enrollments dwarf CU's. 2x as many grads means an alumni base that would buy 2x the number of tickets... if the interest level were the same between the schools. A possible answer to CU's problems lies in how Michigan does football tickets - I'm pretty sure they allow Deerborn and Flint campus students and alumni football ticket privileges. Include those campuses and UM's population is 60k. And they have done very well in being more inclusive to the point that lots of people in the state feel Michigan is their team even if they have no chance of going to a single class in Ann Arbor. Sure they have won a ton too, so it may not be the best example.

Could an easy way be just trying really hard to get other CU campus students to Boulder for games and welcome them there? Might not pay off tomorrow, but could as they graduate and make more and more money in 10,20,30 years. And a lot of CU Denver students have more local ties and won't leave the state at as high of a rate after graduation. Just need enough to regularly sell out the stadium w/o cut rate ticket deals (hard to separate ticket sales from how the team is doing, but it would really help in the average 6-6 years too, obviously a ranked teams will draw very well). When I know I can get $10-15 seats from the box office, there's no way they are selling me better seats for $50-$70.