retrofade wrote: Big loser? I don't see how you figure. Even if your belief about the TV contract is true, we're still getting more money, and the MWC is positioned to be the #6 conference in the country. That being said, the language used to describe the bonus structure leads me to believe that it includes NBC Sports and CBS Sports games... as those are both national networks, same as ESPN. If that's true, then we'll be getting $900k-1.5M in bonus money at minimum next year (Rutgers, Boise, Nevada). There's a decent chance that some of our other games may get picked up by ESPN as well, at least given our history with the network and how they've showed lots of our games in the past.

winthewac wrote: no, no, no, no.................

First off,  ONLY Boise's HOME games are protected...... you better believe CBS is going to go after Boise road games....... and I think CBS only gets like 5 or 6 games

The Boise @ Fresno game next year, for sure is CBS ..... but other than that..... Dogs should be getting a nice bonus check with a few of the other games..... as a package will be put together that has the Boise home games PLUS other attractive games that CBS did not protect, and this will be sold to ESPN (or the highest bidder)

Fresno St should be in great shape here...... All the more reason why to add San Diego St to the mix.....

Based on what I have read you couldn't be more wrong.  Boise doesn't retain rights to their home games.  They are part of the MWC TV deal with no advantages over any other MWC team.  If their game is sold to another network the dollars are split between all conference members, just as if a Fresno State game is sold to another network.  That is the beauty of the renegotiated contract,  CBS contract amount plus additional money on sold games split between all MWC members. Now am I privy to all the contractual details, obviously not, but this is the way I interpret it based on the information out there.

http://espn.go.com/college-spo...-conference-all

winthewac wrote: no, no, no, no.................

First off,  ONLY Boise's HOME games are protected...... you better believe CBS is going to go after Boise road games....... and I think CBS only gets like 5 or 6 games

The Boise @ Fresno game next year, for sure is CBS ..... but other than that..... Dogs should be getting a nice bonus check with a few of the other games..... as a package will be put together that has the Boise home games PLUS other attractive games that CBS did not protect, and this will be sold to ESPN (or the highest bidder)

Fresno St should be in great shape here...... All the more reason why to add San Diego St to the mix.....

sactowndog wrote: With Boise's deal their home games are not part of the CBS package.

Games televised by national networks will earn a bonus and all the Boise games will be eligible to be picked up by the networks.

Someone will have to be in the CBS games which don't count towards the national bonus and don't get to have third tier rights. With the team we will have next year who do you think CBS is going to chose since they can't chose Boise?

We have the chance to get really screwed in this deal! We might be better off joining SDSU in the Big East.

godogsgo wrote: Boise cost the conference $5 million because of their ego. 

sactowndog wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- anointed1sux wrote:

Based on what I have read you couldn't be more wrong.  Boise doesn't retain rights to their home games.  They are part of the MWC TV deal with no advantages over any other MWC team.  If their game is sold to another network the dollars are split between all conference members, just as if a Fresno State game is sold to another network.  That is the beauty of the renegotiated contract,  CBS contract amount plus additional money on sold games split between all MWC members. Now am I privy to all the contractual details, obviously not, but this is the way I interpret it based on the information out there.

espn.go.com/college-spo...-conference-all



---------------------------------------------

Yes the league keeps the money but the home team qualifies for a bonus for any games on a national network. Games on CBSSports and NBCSports don't qualify as national networks. Just ESPN, ESPN2, and the regular networks.

Our best home games will be available for CBSSports to claim and thus we can't earn the bonus. Do any of you really believe the donks would ever negotiate a deal that isn't significantly in their favor?

sactowndog wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- anointed1sux wrote:

Based on what I have read you couldn't be more wrong.  Boise doesn't retain rights to their home games.  They are part of the MWC TV deal with no advantages over any other MWC team.  If their game is sold to another network the dollars are split between all conference members, just as if a Fresno State game is sold to another network.  That is the beauty of the renegotiated contract,  CBS contract amount plus additional money on sold games split between all MWC members. Now am I privy to all the contractual details, obviously not, but this is the way I interpret it based on the information out there.

espn.go.com/college-spo...-conference-all



---------------------------------------------

Yes the league keeps the money but the home team qualifies for a bonus for any games on a national network. Games on CBSSports and NBCSports don't qualify as national networks. Just ESPN, ESPN2, and the regular networks.

Our best home games will be available for CBSSports to claim and thus we can't earn the bonus. Do any of you really believe the donks would ever negotiate a deal that isn't significantly in their favor?

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

How does this take money from Fresno when it is money Fresno would had never had? What keeps a program such as Ludog pointed out in a previous post, just doing nothing but leech off the winners? How is that fair or even makes commonsense for you? Rewarding achievers is what now makes the MWC attractive for other programs to do something about themselves.

---------------------------------------------
Assuming Boise and Fresno stay competitive and are fighting for a conference championship....

Boise will pocket a 500k bonus from league because the game will be on ESPN every time Fresno visits Boise.

Because the Boise Fresno game at Fresno is not protected and no bonus is paid for games claimed by CBSSports, Fresno will be paid no bonus when Boise comes to Fresno.

Boise is basically stealing money from your pocket and none of you get it.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

How does this take money from Fresno when it is money Fresno would had never had? What keeps a program such as Ludog pointed out in a previous post, just doing nothing but leech off the winners? How is that fair or even makes commonsense for you? Rewarding achievers is what now makes the MWC attractive for other programs to do something about themselves.

---------------------------------------------
Assuming Boise and Fresno stay competitive and are fighting for a conference championship....

Boise will pocket a 500k bonus from league because the game will be on ESPN every time Fresno visits Boise.

Because the Boise Fresno game at Fresno is not protected and no bonus is paid for games claimed by CBSSports, Fresno will be paid no bonus when Boise comes to Fresno.

Boise is basically stealing money from your pocket and none of you get it.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

How does this take money from Fresno when it is money Fresno would had never had? What keeps a program such as Ludog pointed out in a previous post, just doing nothing but leech off the winners? How is that fair or even makes commonsense for you? Rewarding achievers is what now makes the MWC attractive for other programs to do something about themselves.

---------------------------------------------
Assuming Boise and Fresno stay competitive and are fighting for a conference championship....

Boise will pocket a 500k bonus from league because the game will be on ESPN every time Fresno visits Boise.

Because the Boise Fresno game at Fresno is not protected and no bonus is paid for games claimed by CBSSports, Fresno will be paid no bonus when Boise comes to Fresno.

Boise is basically stealing money from your pocket and none of you get it.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

How does this take money from Fresno when it is money Fresno would had never had? What keeps a program such as Ludog pointed out in a previous post, just doing nothing but leech off the winners? How is that fair or even makes commonsense for you? Rewarding achievers is what now makes the MWC attractive for other programs to do something about themselves.

---------------------------------------------
Assuming Boise and Fresno stay competitive and are fighting for a conference championship....

Boise will pocket a 500k bonus from league because the game will be on ESPN every time Fresno visits Boise.

Because the Boise Fresno game at Fresno is not protected and no bonus is paid for games claimed by CBSSports, Fresno will be paid no bonus when Boise comes to Fresno.

Boise is basically stealing money from your pocket and none of you get it.

sactowndog wrote:

You failed to address the point of bonus money combined with Boise being able to exclude all their home games from the CBSSports agreement which doesn't pay Bonus money. 

If your going to weigh in at least address the point which in my opinion is significant. I don't care about the exit fee as much as a contract structure that can be extended to 2020.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Fangdog wrote:

Yoda wrote: First off, San Diego State will end up paying most of Boise's exit fee. They don't have an exit fee so I'm thinking they pay at least half -- although the conference may be allowed to pay it over time or something.

Second, while BSU has the right to negotiate their own television deal, the money is paid to the conference and spread around evenly.

Third, the big advantage of the revised contract with CBS is that it isolated that contract games and lets us market all but those games elsewhere. That means that we get full value for the BSU games -- not the old CBS value. It also means that we get full value, I think, for SDSU -- if they come back. And most importantly, it allows us full value for any schools that we may add through expansion. So if we go after (say) SMU & Houston, the amount of television revenue that is earned from the MWC's contract should be roughly the same as would be earned by the nBE's contract.

What the MWC is doing is basically moving more towards a pay for performance system and moving away from a pay for membership system -- so you'll see higher payouts for a BCS bowl, higher payouts to teams that are on television, etc. The folks who get screwed by this are the leeches who are unable or unwilling to invest in their programs sufficiently that they generate income for the conference.

I love this change. If the WAC 16 had had this system, it would be down to 12 schools and still in existence.

Yoda out...


.

This is the real gem of the MWC right now and it is commonsense innovative. It should make the MWC attractive for achievers and less so for the leeches.

---------------------------------------------

This would be true if Boise did not exclude all their home games from the CBSSports deals that do not pay a bonus. Or if the deal excluded the bonus for conference games.

The combination of the two takes money from Fresno's pocket.

How does this take money from Fresno when it is money Fresno would had never had? What keeps a program such as Ludog pointed out in a previous post, just doing nothing but leech off the winners? How is that fair or even makes commonsense for you? Rewarding achievers is what now makes the MWC attractive for other programs to do something about themselves.

---------------------------------------------
Assuming Boise and Fresno stay competitive and are fighting for a conference championship....

Boise will pocket a 500k bonus from league because the game will be on ESPN every time Fresno visits Boise.

Because the Boise Fresno game at Fresno is not protected and no bonus is paid for games claimed by CBSSports, Fresno will be paid no bonus when Boise comes to Fresno.

Boise is basically stealing money from your pocket and none of you get it.

Hmmmm, maybe for some who understand business, understand differences in value.

---------------------------------------------

I understand plenty about business which is why I get paid a six figure salary to do strategy for a Fortune 500 firm. You head is so far up Boise's butt you can't see when they are screwing you.

sactowndog wrote:

You failed to address the point of bonus money combined with Boise being able to exclude all their home games from the CBSSports agreement which doesn't pay Bonus money. 

If your going to weigh in at least address the point which in my opinion is significant. I don't care about the exit fee as much as a contract structure that can be extended to 2020.

sactowndog wrote:
---------------------------------------------

Yoda first thank you for commenting on the merits of my argument.

Based on the numbers of games CBS showed of Nevada last year I think your assumption of 2 games going to CBS and us having four is way underestimating how it will play out. Last year Boise had 5 games that were sent to CBS. I suspect the games we can keep will not be of interest to any national entity.

I agree if we add more teams like Houston or SMU it will mitigate the negative affects of the deal. I have consistently made this case. However, we shall see if they come. If you believe the latest statements they are not coming. The merits of the current deal with the existing conference configuration is very negative.

The agreement was negotiated by the league not by Fresno. If Fresno doesn't like the terms under which the league will disburse revenue we are free to change direction if we have options which I believe we do. Fresno morally would be fully within our rights which I agree matters.

Lastly your right if SMU, Houston and Tulsa aren't coming, I believe it would be in Fresno's interest to explore ideally with UNLV and San Jose moving to the Big East for football and putting all sports in the Big West. I say this not because dislike Boise but because from what I have seen of the deal and what I have seen of how CBS chooses teams it would significantly in our financial interest. To stay in a 12 team Mountain West with the current deal would be highly negative.

I'm done with this discussion. While I care about Fresno it is not my school. I hope whatever Fresno chooses the path which is most advantages for them.

Angularvelocity wrote: It's already been stated that Boise States return to the MWC (under their new TV contract) will boost the rest of the conference members from about $800,000 a year to about 1.1 to 1.3 million each (depending if they play the Broncos at home or on the road and during the week or on a Saturday).  But it is also being reported that the new TV deal will net the Broncos anywhere from 2.5 to 4 million a year.  Nobody saved the MWC but... Boise State.  And it's very possible that the Broncos just changed the face of college football with their new deal of....teams being compensated based on their worth to the conference, not based on association with the conference.  It's not to late for the Dogs to grab the BE TV money...they can take BSU's place or stay and take the deal that the Bronco's pulled off by leveraging their worth to the conference (with was basically all the leverage).  I for one am glad they are back, and SDSU can't get back fast enough to make the the whole swing complete.  If the
Aztecs return that will be it for expansion in the MWC..enough teams (12) to qualify for a conference championship game.... and their is no need to delute the TV money by adding any more hands to the pot.