(07-03-2014 09:40 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  Hair Thompson's prowess includes the Mtn. TV network. 'Nuff said.

I forgot about that.

Yes, but then that was replaced with an ESPN deal. Go figure.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-03-2014 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:40 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  Hair Thompson's prowess includes the Mtn. TV network. 'Nuff said.

I forgot about that.

Yes, but then that was replaced with an ESPN deal. Go figure.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6bk5S2_Zc

(07-03-2014 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:40 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  Hair Thompson's prowess includes the Mtn. TV network. 'Nuff said.

I forgot about that.

Yes, but then that was replaced with an ESPN deal. Go figure.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Under Thompson's watch the MWC also lost its top 3 teams in Utah, TCU and BYU. This from a commissioner who had been on the job since the league launched in 1999. Instead of delivering a great media deal and access to the BCS he watched them leave. Well done. I league with those 3 and Boise would have been formidable in football.

Aresco inherited a dumpster fire at the time and I am sure had AD's double talking him left and right about how they wanted to stay only to get a call later and say they were leaving. I am sure that would wear on a man after a while.

I honestly don't think anyone could have foreseen the B10 taking Rutgers and MD which resulted in the ACC coming back to the American for another team. So you can't blame Aresco for not seeing that, as no one did. Most thought it was laughable in regards to the quality of the athletic programs they were bringing in and some still feel that way today.

In any event, I am not going to say Aresco did everything right but I also think he has done a decent job with the hand he was dealt. I would say if things stay quiet lets judge him on the next tv deal and how he develops our bowl lineup, etc.. For me the next cycle will define him. If we produce and garner solid rating we need to greatly improve on where we are today. Otherwise I will agree with you and say he has failed the league.

(07-03-2014 05:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 07:09 PM)pesik Wrote:  your entire argument of we signed an "offer" with nbcsports first is weak as you have no clue what his plans were or if that was just an early phase in his plans, the espn matching clause wasnt a surprise he didnt know about and espn matching every previous deal wasnt a well kept secret.. you can argue he didnt know if theyd match, but that doesn't mean he didnt plan for it with research and previous knowledge

Correct, it doesn't mean that. But absent evidence that he did plan for it, we can't make that presumption. It's just speculation so can't be used as evidence of Aresco cunning or whatever. We don't even know if Aresco wanted ESPN to match or not. As you said, NBC might have been planning to air our games around Notre Dame game and maybe Aresco was looking forward to that. Certainly, a large number of posters on this forum did not want ESPN to match.

What we do know for a fact is that Aresco did sign a TV deal with NBCSN. That deal was for a pittance amount of money on a fledgling, upstart network.

It's actually irrelevant. The ESPN original offer was going to air fewer games on the major ESPN networks than the old ESPN agreement. The fledgling conference could not become more well known with fewer games on tv. NBC-Sports offered to put nearly every game on national television. Keep in mind that for 9 of the future 12 teams, CBS-Sports had been the only real national exposure either had recieved for the last 6 year. CBS-Sports only had about 45-50 million subscribers while NBC-Sports had about 80 million. Additionally, NBC was offering a few NBC-Broadcast network slots for AAC football games (the number had no minimum for this, which the AAC didn't like and this is one place where ESPN later "overmatched").

Bottom line, the NBC-Sports deal, had it not been matched, was still a MUCH better deal than being buried like the Sunbelt on ESPN-3. That NBC deal was signed for a reason.

(07-03-2014 10:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 05:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 07:09 PM)pesik Wrote:  your entire argument of we signed an "offer" with nbcsports first is weak as you have no clue what his plans were or if that was just an early phase in his plans, the espn matching clause wasnt a surprise he didnt know about and espn matching every previous deal wasnt a well kept secret.. you can argue he didnt know if theyd match, but that doesn't mean he didnt plan for it with research and previous knowledge

Correct, it doesn't mean that. But absent evidence that he did plan for it, we can't make that presumption. It's just speculation so can't be used as evidence of Aresco cunning or whatever. We don't even know if Aresco wanted ESPN to match or not. As you said, NBC might have been planning to air our games around Notre Dame game and maybe Aresco was looking forward to that. Certainly, a large number of posters on this forum did not want ESPN to match.

What we do know for a fact is that Aresco did sign a TV deal with NBCSN. That deal was for a pittance amount of money on a fledgling, upstart network.

It's actually irrelevant. The ESPN original offer was going to air fewer games on the major ESPN networks than the old ESPN agreement. The fledgling conference could not become more well known with fewer games on tv. NBC-Sports offered to put nearly every game on national television. Keep in mind that for 9 of the future 12 teams, CBS-Sports had been the only real national exposure either had recieved for the last 6 year. CBS-Sports only had about 45-50 million subscribers while NBC-Sports had about 80 million. Additionally, NBC was offering a few NBC-Broadcast network slots for AAC football games (the number had no minimum for this, which the AAC didn't like and this is one place where ESPN later "overmatched").

Bottom line, the NBC-Sports deal, had it not been matched, was still a MUCH better deal than being buried like the Sunbelt on ESPN-3. That NBC deal was signed for a reason.

Nobody - not me at least - has ever said the NBC deal was worse then the deals noob schools had in C-USA or the Sun Belt. That's an awful standard of comparison but maybe explains why Aresco didn't receive more membership grief for negotiating such a bad deal?

And it's no mystery what the reason is that we signed the NBC deal: Awful as it was, it was the best deal he could wrangle.

(07-03-2014 10:19 AM)PT_american Wrote:  I honestly don't think anyone could have foreseen the B10 taking Rutgers and MD which resulted in the ACC coming back to the American for another team. So you can't blame Aresco for not seeing that, as no one did. Most thought it was laughable in regards to the quality of the athletic programs they were bringing in and some still feel that way today.

That's not a valid standard for commissioner job performance. The job of a commissioner is to see what you and I (who aren't getting paid $1+ million) don't see.

In any event, Aresco was adamant that he DID see what was coming. When he took the Big East job, he said he thought the conference membership was stable and said he wouldn't have taken the job if he didn't believe that. He couldn't have been more wrong, there's no denying that.

(07-03-2014 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 10:19 AM)PT_american Wrote:  I honestly don't think anyone could have foreseen the B10 taking Rutgers and MD which resulted in the ACC coming back to the American for another team. So you can't blame Aresco for not seeing that, as no one did. Most thought it was laughable in regards to the quality of the athletic programs they were bringing in and some still feel that way today.

That's not a valid standard for commissioner job performance. The job of a commissioner is to see what you and I (who aren't getting paid $1+ million) don't see.

In any event, Aresco was adamant that he DID see what was coming. When he took the Big East job, he said he thought the conference membership was stable and said he wouldn't have taken the job if he didn't believe that. He couldn't have been more wrong, there's no denying that.

You say this in public because part of your negotiations are in public. He has to say the league appears stable. Did you ever hear a fruit huckster yell "Rotten apples!"?

(07-03-2014 09:40 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  Hair Thompson's prowess includes the Mtn. TV network. 'Nuff said.

I forgot about that.

He managed to get BSU (and SDSU) back from us while locked into a dismal TV contract and we were negotiating one with a TV Expert Commissioner. That shouldn't have happened in my opinion. When the MWC seemed to be all but dead when BSU and SDSU were leaving, I never heard the same doubt come from Thompson that I heard in an interview (to invite another school) come from Aresco. The positive is that we have made it through a terrible storm, which I'm sure has given Aresco the experience necessary to keep us headed in the right direction as a conference. Moreover, I’m also sure ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane will give us their best effort to ensure that we continue succeeding, and I welcome all three schools into the conference …..

Should we add the exit fee between BSU and the AAC to the list?

(07-03-2014 04:17 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Should we add the exit fee between BSU and the AAC to the list?

In whose favor?

Hair Thompson retained his best remaining asset for $3 million.

Aresco recovered less than half of the contracted exit fee.

(07-03-2014 04:26 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 04:17 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Should we add the exit fee between BSU and the AAC to the list?

In whose favor?

Hair Thompson retained his best remaining asset for $3 million.

Aresco recovered less than half of the contracted exit fee.

Split decision.

(07-03-2014 09:40 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  Hair Thompson's prowess includes the Mtn. TV network. 'Nuff said.

I forgot about that.

Ummm...you mean the first conference ever to start their own network and only to have other conferences follow? Put into terms where a non-power conference was getting an unheard of $1.2 million per school/year when CUSA, WAC were only getting 200k?
It gave the MW fans of the lower teams a chance to see their team on TV. Sorry, that was a great move by Thompson.

This thread has jumped the shark.

(07-02-2014 05:36 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:30 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:05 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Underdog
You do realize that all of the exCUSA schools will be making MORE money yearly from TV contract,exit fees and basketball units than had they returned to CUSA. Also the tv exposure it's better than what they had in CUSA.

So why in the world would they have returned to CUSA for? To make less money have less exposure and playing FAU,FIU,North Texas etc?

Cubanbull… they didn't know what you've posted would happen until after they boarded a ship facing monumental obstacles: They saw Louisville and Rutgers get plucked, the C7 split with the Big East Name, BSU and SDU returned to the MWC, UCONN and Cinci threaten to form their own conference, we were negotiating a TV contract without a name for our conference, we got much less than expected $, the media was bombing us with negative PR, instability was growing, etc.... I’ve tried to stress that under those extreme circumstances, the presidents and ADs for Memphis, Houston, SMU, and UCF had the commitment and courage to board a once sinking ship and sail with other members into uncharted waters called “Uncertainty?” They should pe praised for this, and not Aresco who doubted at one point that we would reach our destination. Once aboard, the aforementioned schools became aware of what you’ve mentioned in your post. However, many here want to give Aresco credit for the commitment and courage displayed by the presidents and ADs for Memphis, Houston, SMU, and UCF, which I refuse to do....

I don't believe Aresco is the great savior but I think he has done a good job and dome of you guys are not willing to give him enough credit. But I know I don't change your opinion or others. So be it.

As for the question that started this thread. I think let's come back in 5 years and see where both conferences stand.

Cubanbull.... What credit does he really deserve? He didn't win the bowl game against Baylor or the NCAA Tournament. He also didn't display the same courage (which I've posted repeatedly in this thread) as the presidents and ADs for Memphis, Houston, SMU, and UCF did by joining a very unstable conference. Nevertheless, he did get us the exposure necessary to rebrand this conference, which I give him credit for. However, even that accomplish would not have been possible if the aforementioned schools had not been willing to leave the safety of CUSA and embark on a dangerous endeavor to build a new conference.

Regarding your comment about 5 years from now, if we aren’t making at least $5 mil per school (and possibly have added some MWC inventory), I would have to question Aresco’s abilities even more as a commissioner because the schools that we’ve added have demonstrated that they have the ability and commitment (along with UCONN, Cinci, USF, and Temple) to get us to the $5 mil mark……

it only took 18 pages for this to make it to the smack forum...well done.

What a dumb thread. Who thought of this?

(07-03-2014 06:14 PM)shere khan Wrote:  it only took 18 pages for this to make it to the smack forum...well done.

You're off by 18 pages....