(02-10-2013 10:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 10:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 10:23 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If ESPN doesn't match, then I don't think they retain any rights. So NBC and Aresco could start selling off slices of the package here and there, whatever either doesn't fit on NBC-SN or would be more valuable someplace else.

Which is precisely why if all of this is true, that ESPN would almost gladly accept the lowball offer. They would not only be getting the BE for less than they are paying now, but could then bury the BE on ESPN3 or Tuesday nights for the duration of the deal and ensure that NBC stays out of college football for good. Remember, ESPN doesn't want NBC to have a piece of the pie - or at least a piece worth having.

The thing is- it sounds as if they would have specific things, like # of Saturday games, etc. So couldn't just do like what you're saying.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I don't think anyone is touting specifics in that manner as of yet, or even if the BE contract has such clauses to begin with. Maybe that's NBC's selling point - to have an exclusive Saturday timeslot each week, which is something ESPN certainly can't match.

If the Big East right-of-first-refusal is like the CUSA one, then those specifics would be the exact same ones as in the old Big East-ESPN contract. 17 ESPN/2 football games, etc. ESPN could find a way to match that, but I don't think they will.

(02-10-2013 10:54 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 10:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 10:23 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 03:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If ESPN doesn't match, then I don't think they retain any rights. So NBC and Aresco could start selling off slices of the package here and there, whatever either doesn't fit on NBC-SN or would be more valuable someplace else.

Which is precisely why if all of this is true, that ESPN would almost gladly accept the lowball offer. They would not only be getting the BE for less than they are paying now, but could then bury the BE on ESPN3 or Tuesday nights for the duration of the deal and ensure that NBC stays out of college football for good. Remember, ESPN doesn't want NBC to have a piece of the pie - or at least a piece worth having.

Not really. The whole key to the puzzle is that Aresco had to solicit bids on extended versions of the ESPN-Big East 2006-13 contracts. That means 17 ESPN/2 football games, and 5 ESPN-U football games, 49 ESPN/2 regular season basketball games and 30 ESPN-U basketball games. So if you wanted to bid, you had to commit to 17 Aresco LEague football games on over-the-air or national basic cable, 5 more on a sports-tier channel, 49 games on national basic cable, 30 more on a sports-tier channel, etc.

The flip side of that is that ESPN is bound by that same contract if they match the bid. ESPN would have to show 17 Aresco LEague football games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2, 45 Aresco LEague basketball games on ESPN/2, 30 games on ESPN-U, etc.

ESPN-Big East contract details from http://www.depaulbluedemons.com/genrel/082906aaa.html

But NBCSports Network doesn't have multiple channels to offer that bid (and I really doubt NBC OTA would be involved), so how can that technically be matched?

I'm guessing that NBC-SN would be carrying everything that, in the ESPN deal, would be on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPN-U. They don't have multiple channels, but they also don't have much else to show besides NHL and soccer. They can do comparable syndication and streaming packages.

(NBC does have lots of channels, so it's possible that they could use CNBC like they do at Olympics time. But I don't think they need to.)

Quote:I would imagine that those numbers are more or less what/when the network would end up televising rather than what is mandated in the contract. For example, those numbers indicate that the BE would have 2 Sunday games, but last season the BE only had one Sunday game. Was that a breach of contract? There has been nothing made of that. And those numbers are just for carrying games and have little to do with what day or time they are on. And ESPN has weaseled their way into putting games on ESPN3 and calling it something to the effect of priority or demand or some other **** like that.

I took the numbers from the press release I googled up from 2006. It's possible that ESPN and the Big East agreed to move some things around, trading a Sunday game for more ESPN/2 games or ESPN-U games or something.

Conferences and networks do negotiate over timeslots and guarantees at contract time. I think this also explains why Aresco and Bevilacqua couldn't implement the plan of splitting up the package and selling it piece by piece.

(02-10-2013 09:57 PM)canewton Wrote:  Which idiot from Providence signed this agreement?

No kidding. Who allows the incumbent contractor, to not only have the right of first refusal (while watching the incumbent gut & devalue the conference), but to have a new RFP (& resulting contract), be set up based upon the terms of the incumbent's contract--that gives the incumbent almost every advantage possible. This is absurd....

(02-11-2013 12:44 AM)Pir8Mike Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 09:57 PM)canewton Wrote:  Which idiot from Providence signed this agreement?

No kidding. Who allows the incumbent contractor, to not only have the right of first refusal (while watching the incumbent gut & devalue the conference), but to have a new RFP (& resulting contract), be set up based upon the terms of the incumbent's contract--that gives the incumbent almost every advantage possible. This is absurd....

There has to be an expiration of the preferred negotiating window, otherwise, the agreement can never end.

(02-11-2013 12:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:44 AM)Pir8Mike Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 09:57 PM)canewton Wrote:  Which idiot from Providence signed this agreement?

No kidding. Who allows the incumbent contractor, to not only have the right of first refusal (while watching the incumbent gut & devalue the conference), but to have a new RFP (& resulting contract), be set up based upon the terms of the incumbent's contract--that gives the incumbent almost every advantage possible. This is absurd....

There has to be an expiration of the preferred negotiating window, otherwise, the agreement can never end.

It seems to me a lot like baseball's old reserve clause.

To be honest, 21 games on the ESPN family would be 100X better than the exposure the ex-CUSA teams got with thier CUSA contract. The only CUSA game on a network with the reach of ABC or ESPN was the championship game.

Frank the Tank has posted that McMurphy indicated to him that the the NBC bid is for ALL the nBE rights. I remain skeptical of McMurphys source on that fact--but if true, that is DRAMATICALLY lower than anything I have been led to believe we would eventually end up with.
[/quote]

Just 3 weeks ago, the Tulsa World had an article that include a quote from TU officials that BE sources had given an educated guess that the BE TV contract would be between 3.5/mil. & 4.5/mil. per school. Hard to believe they were that far off.
[/quote]

Hard to believe? Just as a thought experiment - you can ponder this solo...no need to admit in public that you did: go back to before the Pitt/'Cuse shoes dropped and follow the swift (in conference realignment terms) demise of the Big East with particular attention to how random/sputtering/WTF-ish it has seemed more often than not; now do the same thing assuming the hypothetical scenario of two BE conference commissioners - there being two because the first was abruptly and unceremoniously dumped suspiciously near the Cartel began to speak openly of a "Big 5" - promising what they could not deliver over and over and over again. If you assume that, it's easy to see that the schools who would see the writing on the wall first and clearest would be those who had been in the catbird's seat...while the schools most willing to let things slide even as the unfulfilled promises get lower and lower in their expectations are those with little else to lose (in truth, they stand to lose a lot and the consequences of that will play out in the next few years). The only difference right now between Boise/SDSU and, say, Houston/SMU, is that the former pair had a much lower tolerance for bull**** because they had drastically higher requirements for a break-even point.

Is this like prima nocthe? Spelling?

(02-11-2013 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 12:44 AM)Pir8Mike Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 09:57 PM)canewton Wrote:  Which idiot from Providence signed this agreement?

No kidding. Who allows the incumbent contractor, to not only have the right of first refusal (while watching the incumbent gut & devalue the conference), but to have a new RFP (& resulting contract), be set up based upon the terms of the incumbent's contract--that gives the incumbent almost every advantage possible. This is absurd....

There has to be an expiration of the preferred negotiating window, otherwise, the agreement can never end.

It seems to me a lot like baseball's old reserve clause.

Of course we are making the assumption that right of refusal clause is as limiting as CUSA's. It may not be. in fact, it's a little strange that a TV guy like Aresco with a high powered media firm in tow would be continuing to discuss a multiple network deal months into the negotiating process if the nature of the contract makes it impossible. Which leads me to believe its not like CUSA's at all. It's just a simple right of refusal--Beat the competitors offer or don't.