I have been reading other media sources online, won't mention organizations or media outlets, but its apparent that excitement has erupted. Listening to ESPN news a while back, they mentioned (in which I wasn't aware of) uniform NCAA TV deals among Division 1 Conferences were coming.
Face it, when you don't know what they're talking about, I at least listened in as a clueless news reader. Yes, there may be people that can claim they knew and perhaps some may have had insider knowledge. My advice to those claiming that, "don't ever go investing on Wall Street with that attitude, as there are Federal Prisons awaiting for insider trading". :)
Meanwhile, as I began to educate myself with ESPN's report regarding fairness in the NCAA as promised to the Congress. I realized that U of Utah and BYU's pull with their Congressional members are just now coming to fruition. When they subjected the NCAA to hearings before Congress in the late 1990s.
If I'm not mistaken Wyoming's Congress Rep and Colorado's Rep also helped with the interest of bringing the NCAA to account for Collegiate Competition. The main focal point was finances, to where (at that time) the P6 Conferences had monopolized the TV Contracts. The Congressional members questioned "why were the Power Conferences more entertaining than the rest of the Division 1 Conferences" in their inquest.
The NCAA Governors then turned to the P6 Commissioners and Presidents -> as they replied larger populated areas for ratings. That's when the FCC Chairman (in attendance) abruptly interrupted the lame excuse that ratings dictate that. The FCC Chairman let the Networks know that ratings are for selling air time to Advertisers. The air ways are for the public's interest in educational and entertainment interests.
The FCC Chairman went on to discuss how advertisements are for personal corporate interests that do not serve the public. Then suggested reviewing all broadcast licenses if FCC rules aren't being applied equally. That's when the Networks promised they would clean up by becoming more involved throughout the Division 1 Schools.
Congress laid down a rule that the NCAA must work with the P6's at that time to include other Division 1 Conferences. Well, after that Congressional "chew out", the twelve Conferences (with Big East and WAC) met with the NCAA. The secret decision between the P6s was to eliminate one Power Conference for more money as verses P6 Conferences. During that time of realignment, Utah and TCU were invited out to the redesigned P5 from the old P6 alignment.
This is when the realignments began and took place, in a sucker offer, Boise was asked to join the Big East, causing Boise to bolt without hesitation. Then SDSU and AFA were invited by request to the Big East by Boise. All the while the Big East teams were leaving for other Power Conferences, creating a huge vacuum for Power football programs. Which forced the Big East to become and all Basketball Conference.
Then the MWC decided to expand to keep pace the with the new P5-12 school minimum by raiding the WAC best to join. But needing six for the six remaining MWC schools required choosing the best six possible WAC schools. Which once again, in similar manner to the Big East - the WAC also imploded to a basketball conference.
Afterwards, the Big East quietly made invites syphoning schools like Boise. As
SDSU and AFA caught wind of that and declined the invitations to join leaving Boise the only team remaining till they quietly learned of as example Va. Tech leaving as with others.
So Boise kept quiet, playing what appeared to be liars poker with the MWC that they had a change of heart. The MWC seemed to feel sorry but angered at Boise for fleeing after a short time in the Conference.
There was a wide consensus among the MWC Governors that Boise can still be valuable as a BCS-NY6 or NCS4 buster. They asked the Conference Presidents to get with their ADs and Coaches as to Boise's reentry. That's when the Presidents and Staffs approved of the Governors recommendation regarding Boise. But Boise would accept a reentry conditionally that should had warned the Conference Governors, same conditions as before.
ESPN came in 2015 with promises of more money which they never delivered, except for Boise through the 5 year deal. Boise was to get $1.8 million per home game while the rest were suppose to get $1.3 million per home. End results were Boise $1.8 million unshared and the rest received $800k to $1 million varying per home game that were shared revenues.
Boise made lots of money as did ESPN but the Conference once again were treated like pre-Congressional hearing days. That's when the MWC began a search for better network pay as ABC had talk s much higher than ESPN but CBS and Fox joined together. Their bid for the MWC was as a Conference just as ABC had bid, as each network has and uses a national network audience.
Now all schools are guaranteed the same but slightly less with Fox side deal with Boise home games. But now Boise gets to double dip in the shared Conference coffers as an equal, when they do not act as an equal. And since Boise hasn't been able to replicate their BCS busting ways of the past. The same fairness question and inquiry presented by the Congress is pointing right at Boise.
When we look at the ESPN annual revenue outflow pay to the MWC, ESPN has paid somewhere between $180 million to no more than $200 million over five years. Which is far - far less than what CBS/Fox is contracted to pay from 2020 through 2025 which is the end of that contract period.
This is at least $70 million to as much as $90 million more for the Conference from the previous contract. Lets break that down, shouldn't we?
$90 million between 12 schools including Boise is $7.5 million per contract school extra but when the shared principle comes in. Its become an estimated $4.7 million extra per home contract game. And when each school gets their redistributed share closer to $5 million over five years.
This is on average minimum $1 million+ extra for every school over the contract life. Over and beyond what the schools have been collecting annually, that's a real big deal. Keep this in mind, this is TV revenues only I'm referring to. Or extra revenue the Conference schools need. Also keep in mind that these are rough estimates. But does place in perspective that the Conference has done well enough that Networks are now bidding on a Conference not just Boise.
If you're going to argue this or that about what I wrote, be advised, I've looked elsewhere to see if I could get a glimpse of the details, but to no avail. Perhaps one of the School's ADs would be willing to disclose the details?
And that's where we're at, thanks for reading.