Deseret News | Reader comments: TV rules expansion decisions

Reader comments
Sports on TV: TV rules expansion decisions

Broncofan in Boise | 8:17 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Yes, TV matters. Yes, TCU was added to the MWC for the TV market. But has TCU delivered the Dallas TV sets that everyone expected? No. Not even close.

Does a local TV market really matter? Maybe. Probably what is more important is whether the network on which a team is broadcasted is available from cable or satellite distributors. Right now, ESPN is available everywhere. CSTV is not. CSTV may be delivering more money, but it's not delivering more TV sets.

But what Boise State is finding out is that ESPN wants to broadcast its games because of the product on the field. Boise State has a national appeal--because of its exciting, entertaining play.

Ultimately, it's the university presidents that make a decision whether to invite or not. I do believe that the meeting in the Denver Airport in 1997 was comprised of 8 university presidents. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that Boise State's president is putting feelers out there for potential expansion.

As it stands today, Boise State fans don't want anything to do with the MWC. Utah and BYU fans are very unhappy with the CSTV arrangement. Why would Boise State fans want that?

short sighted | 8:47 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

This is pretty short sighted. Sure, an immediate increase in TV ratings and $$$ would be nice, but the long term advantage of having a better conference would eventually trump it.

I don't necessarily think the MWC should invite BSU, but it should definitely think further down the road than the next TV contract.

BSU has been the best nonBCS football team of the past 10 years - does anyone disagree? If they continue to have the kind of success they've had (a big if?), people from all over will watch them - and the MWC won't be the only conference knocking at their door.

Utah Fan | 10:04 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

What is taking so long to invite the Broncos to the MWC? I would have done it immediately after the last fantastic Fiesta Bowl! It would give the MWC 10 conference members with 5 teams on the east side of the Rockies and 5 on the west. Perfect geographic balance. Rivalries would be fierce. Fan interest would increase. I agree with BroncoFan in Boise that more people around the country would pay attention to the MWC. Do you think DirecTV and Dish Network would keep the mtn channel off their satellite systems with Boise State in the mix? I really doubt it. Scott Pierce needs to look at the bigger picture and the MWC Presidents need to act fast and get the Broncos in the league.

Comments continue below

Robin Day | 10:09 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Did you also see last night on ESPN that Mark May talked about the teams that were "off the mark". They proceeded to talk about UCLA being beat down by UTAH, but the whole time they showed 100% video clips of the STANFORD vs. UCLA highlights of Ben Olson getting sacked and UCLA getting scored on.

Now they can't even find the right game's video footage to show - or they didn't want to pay Vs. for the rights to show it maybe? Who knows - either way, they don't give a rip about our conference or our teams...unless it will make them money.

Leave BSU in the WAC . . . | 10:09 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

1) What does Boise State offer athletically other than football? Not a whole lot.

2) Is Boise State on par with MWC academic benchmarks? Nope.

3) To iterate the column above, why share revenue with a small-market program like BSU?

The MWC's main priority right now should be to develop and improve its current member programs, particularly underachiving, large-market programs like UNLV and SDSU. The resources and viewership available in those two markets alone is a potential goldmine for the MWC. Bring those two programs along competitively, and the MWC stands to gain far more than it could ever hope to by expanding.

BSU can stay in the WAC, as far as I'm concerned . . .

UTEP Fan | 10:42 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

I miss the good ol' days of the Wacky WAC. Please let UTEP come play with you guys. It's just not as easy to get for a game against UAB or to accept that our new 'rival' in Conf-USA is Houston.

Let's start a new league the AWAC (All Western Athletic Conference) it would consist of all the old WAC teams (pre-16 team expansion), with the addition of TCU (and Maybe even invite back the AZ teams). Alphabetically we would be ranke right behind the ACC.

Come on Cougs...you know you miss having your chearleaders and basketball players jumped on the way to the games.

Figh On...Miners!!!

Just a thought...or maybe a dream

BroncoFan in Boise | 11:05 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

To answer Leave BSU in the WAC's question: What does BSU offer besides football?

Short answer:
Regionally-recognized gymnastics
Nationally-recognized wrestling
Nationally-recognized mens tennis
Nationally-recognized womens tennis
Regionally-recognized M&W outdoor track
Regionally-recognized M&W indoor track
NCAA tourney appearance in 2007 for WBB
NIT appearance in 2005 for MBB
Humanitarian Bowl game

Facilities:
NCAA host site for M&W NCAA BB every 4 years
NCAA host site for NCAA national T&F Championships twice
1 of 2 indoor tracks in West
You can go see the football stadium upgrades on BSU's website.

Also, the fans in the MWC need to understand that the local market is not what drives TV revenue. It's the national appeal and marketability, which Boise State has right now.

In sum, Boise State could be an attractive addition to the conference. But BSU will only be interested when the MWC gets its act together.

To BroncoFan in Boise . . . | 11:47 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

You say you're not interested in BSU joining the MWC, and yet your rebuttal to my earlier post strongly suggests otherwise. It might help if you sounded a little less eager about the whole thing.

Re: facilities. BSU's football stadium is decent enough and appears to be easily expandable, but they've got to do something about that blue turf. I know it's become kind of a hallmark for the university and that the Bronco fans love it, but let's face facts here: it's ridiculous-looking and it only reinforces a national perception of BSU football as being a gimmick.

It's superficial, I realize, but a program of BSU's quality shouldn't be playing on anything other than grass or green turf.

Geoff J | 12:07 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

It seems to me that the assumption that Mr. Pierce is making in this article is that the only people interested in watching Boise State play football are in Boise Idaho. That is simply false. It is even more false when Boise State is perennially ranked in the top 25. People are interested in watching top 25 teams play on TV no matter where those people live. Fans of other top 25 teams especially like to watch (because the results affect their team).

I'm not saying Boise State will ever have a massive national following if they fall out of the top 25, but it is overly simplistic to look at this solely in terms of the size of the Boise TV market size.

BroncoFan in Boise | 12:16 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

I've been watching BYU and Utah as a fan since the late 70's, and have been interested in playing in the same conference as them since Boise State moved to D1 in 1996. There's no lie about that. I attended BYU football games with family as early as the mid-70's. There's plenty of connection to me and my family to the old WAC.

I'd love to play BYU and Utah every year in football and basketball. That would be truly enjoyable for mostly everyone here in southern Idaho.

But, until the CSTV issue is cleaned up--and it's a mess, by mostly everyone's account--Boise State shouldn't move to the MWC. I'm not eager to jump into a situation that doesn't improve Boise State's status. The current television contract with the MWC would not improve Boise State's status.

true blue | 12:48 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Mr. Pierce also failed to mention that there would be no advantage in recruiting either. TCU gave the mwc exposure in the dallas area.

Idaho is not a prime recruiting area. I would love to have a BSU-BYU rivalry. The programs are so similar, but it's not profitable.

responses | 3:05 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

First of all, who cares about anything outside of football and bball? Certainly not anyone making a decision. BSU bball is on par with the middle of the MWC, and BSU football has been better than the MWC's best.

Second, why rip on BSU's academics? AFA is the only great place academically in the MWC. BSU is certainly on par with the rest of the state schools in the conference.

Third, who doesn't wish they had thought of the smurf turf first? It was a great way to create instant tradition and recognizability in a school just starting a football program. BSU's stadium is the most recognizable outside the BCS.

Fourth, the others are right. It's not clear that BSU would gain anything by coming to the MWC, and it's not clear what the MWC would gain. I would think it would be better to stay in the WAC on ESPN than to leave TV behind and come into the MWC.

Dustin | 4:20 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

The perfect situation would be that Notre Dame joins the Big 10 and then since the Pac 10 would be the only conference without a conf. championship they invite Utah and BYU! I've heard that couldn't happen because of BYU's commitment not to play on Sunday but I've never read any article saying that does anybody have any info on that?

BSU academics | 4:45 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Actually, BYU, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado State are all rated as Tier I National Universities with nationally recognized graduate, law, and medical schools. BSU has a way to go before it can call itself "on par" with those schools.

Al Udeid Coug | 5:42 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Yo dog, don't knock the blue turf. I think it is amazingly distinctive and defining. What says ï¿½screw youï¿½ to the establishment more than changing the color of the playing field on national tv? BSU has amazing fans, has had one of the best football programs (even way before D1), and is a very up and coming school. I'd love to trade them for UNM or CSU but that's not going to happen.

The author's hit a nerve but he is right. My opinion or yours doesn't matter; the only important element of the argument is the money.

Case in point, the BCS is a mockery of competition and fairness. And until the conferences involved are guaranteed even more money than they have their grubby hands on right now, THEY WILL NOT LET ANYONE ELSE IN ON THEIR RACKET. Neither will the MWC. Unfortunately.

continued below.

Al Udeid Coug2 | 5:44 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

I think short term BSU would be a great idea. Long term, unless they can prove that they are going to really be a consistent national contender and bring a significant increase in the coffers, it doesn't matter. Why doesn't BYU or the U get accepted into the PAC-10? Because of inferior academics? inferior athletics? inferior marching bands? Or because of inferior money making capabilities?

It's a sad but very real truth.

The only solution is to have more babies so our market grows faster than L.A.s. Man, my wife is gonna be ticked when I tell her itï¿½s for the good of the conference.

BYU All Over | 7:34 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Hasn't anyone considered the revenues from a BCS bowl? One BCS bowl would probably make up for any lost revenue from dividing up the teams. Even if BSU loses to a team in the conferenc, that team can move up in the rankings and get a BCS birth. I think the MWC would be crazy not to take Boise State. Boise State has been in the national rankings long enough to prove they would be a great benefit to the conference!

Crose | 4:22 a.m. Sept. 22, 2007

I am a staunch BSU Fan and where I agree with the basic tenets of this argument there was one thing left out. BSU has had phenominal success any and all MWC Teams that it has played against. Why would the MWC want BSU. No more revenue and many more losses?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.