(03-28-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:25 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:31 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  You can negotiate around stability, he didn't (e.g. if X team leaves, the value changes).

The fact remains, he gave away some valuabe UConn assets (women for free?!) to his former industry, no doubt insuring that he had a cushy landing when he parts. How much could it have possibly cost the league to carve out, say Tier 3 men's and women's basketball, a few hundred thousand? And we know that we could have turned those into many millions (the women were getting $1.75m/yr for Tier 3 women's basketball alone before this deal). The guy fleeced our school, completely, to be on NBCSports.

What part of instability don't you understand... Let me put it this way... The networks (NBC, CBS, ESPN/ABC) thought the Big East/AAC was a dead walking conference and didn't see the need to invest in something that wasn't going to be there tomorrow.

Nope. What they saw was a conference that had almost no media value, as that value had almost entirely been stripped away.

Even so, media-genius Aresco managed to sign all of our rights away for $1 million less than the C7 got for their basketball alone.

Yes. AND... I also hear he is behind the missing 777, and responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. it also rained in Houston this week, and we should blame Aresco for that too.

In other words, show me where he declined a bigger offer, or HOW he could have forced anyone to offer more. Otherwise, usual rant and you're just talking to see your mouth move.

If Aresco was helpless to do anything about any of the big issues the conference faced at the time of his hire - AQ status, bowl ties, media deal - than why on earth did we hire him, and for over a million dollars a year?

Earth to Bull: the buck stops with the CEO. He doesn't get to throw up his hands after failure and say "what could I have done"? His job is to get the job done, no excuses. And yet all you offer is excuses.

Holy cow. Look, Quo.. as soon as I saw a positive thread, I knew you were going to be in here, with a good many posts, droning on with the same old negative story. Blaming Aresco for everything under the sun, with the same snarky name calling. (Dispassionate... yeah right.)

You and I have had this exact same discussion multiple times before. I engaged last time, was a few weeks ago, I'm not going to do it again... If you think he's been overpaid, fine. Past that, MUCH of what happened to the AAC was beyond our control. It's been well established, if you want to deny it, fine. You basically admitted it last time, and you can't point out one single solitary thing YOU would have done different. No matter how many times I ask you. You always retreat back to the same basic comments about his salary... it's about the only salient point you make in these threads.

I still say you need to put down the keyboard and get out into the sunshine for awhile. This thread is about all the GOOD things that happened in the AAC this year. Or you go find something in this life that will cheer you up a bit. Nothing personal, but seriously man... it's getting repetitive.

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Aresco is doing fine. I've seen him all over the networks (fox business and cnbc come to mind). You can't ask more out of the guy.

Competitively, on the fields and courts, the AAC is doing fine, albeit the results have been skewed by having Louisville still in the fold. Off the field, Aresco has simply failed to deliver. All the big things - AQ, bowls, media deals - have been abject disasters on his watch.

If you think that he's earning his $1.1 million salary by giving 15 minute interviews with various media outlets, than I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

(03-28-2014 03:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:25 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:31 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  What part of instability don't you understand... Let me put it this way... The networks (NBC, CBS, ESPN/ABC) thought the Big East/AAC was a dead walking conference and didn't see the need to invest in something that wasn't going to be there tomorrow.

Nope. What they saw was a conference that had almost no media value, as that value had almost entirely been stripped away.

Even so, media-genius Aresco managed to sign all of our rights away for $1 million less than the C7 got for their basketball alone.

Yes. AND... I also hear he is behind the missing 777, and responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. it also rained in Houston this week, and we should blame Aresco for that too.

In other words, show me where he declined a bigger offer, or HOW he could have forced anyone to offer more. Otherwise, usual rant and you're just talking to see your mouth move.

If Aresco was helpless to do anything about any of the big issues the conference faced at the time of his hire - AQ status, bowl ties, media deal - than why on earth did we hire him, and for over a million dollars a year?

Earth to Bull: the buck stops with the CEO. He doesn't get to throw up his hands after failure and say "what could I have done"? His job is to get the job done, no excuses. And yet all you offer is excuses.

Holy cow. Look, Quo.. as soon as I saw a positive thread, I knew you were going to be in here, with a good many posts, droning on with the same old negative story. Blaming Aresco for everything under the sun, with the same snarky name calling. (Dispassionate... yeah right.)

Name calling? You mean like saying i "rant" and "talk to see my mouth move"?

I didn't call you any names. I said it seems crazy (via the wing-eagle symbol) to pay a guy top dollar if he's truly helpless.

I don't blame Aresco for everything under the sun, i hold him responsible for the things he was brought in to make good on: Our status in the playoff system, our bowl bids, our media deal. I blame him for the lousy outcomes on those because, well, that's his job.

In contrast, you absolve him, say none of those bad outcomes was his fault, even though those were his job responsibilities. I could say your defense of him is the same tired old rant, and that you need to get a life, but I won't, because I don't engage in name-calling, at least not with a fellow Bull.

(03-28-2014 01:32 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:08 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:41 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  He may know where the "skeletons" are but he doesn't know where the benjamins are. Everyone is touting this TV deal, but remember, the deal he negotiated was for the same crappy money and on NBCSports - ESPN just happened to match it, so let's not imagine this guy is some sort of wizard. In fact, I still haven't seen him do one thing successfully get to get team more money (TV, Bowls, puzzling additions to the leauge, pimping L'Ville for a year on their way out, etc).

Dude, the reason why the AAC got this raw insult of a deal was b/c the networks saw no stability.

You can negotiate around stability, he didn't (e.g. if X team leaves, the value changes).

The fact remains, he gave away some valuabe UConn assets (women for free?!) to his former industry, no doubt insuring that he had a cushy landing when he parts. How much could it have possibly cost the league to carve out, say Tier 3 men's and women's basketball, a few hundred thousand? And we know that we could have turned those into many millions (the women were getting $1.75m/yr for Tier 3 women's basketball alone before this deal). The guy fleeced our school, completely, to be on NBCSports.

He traded it so UConn football would be on national TV every week instead of being buried on ESPN-3 or regional tv. This idea that UConn was "fleeced" is small time thinking. How many times must some of you be told---we traded money for exposure and EVERY president was on board with the idea. We WERE offered more money by ESPN before we ever even spoke to NBC. We turned it down because the exposure was significantly less than what we had this year (the last year of the OLD contract).

For there to be a significant increase in value the conference must be made up of well known, recognizable, names that people are accustomed to watching. The only way to build that kind of name recognition is to be a fixture on TV and to win. All our teams will be on national tv constantly over the next 6 years and a number of teams will enjoy success. Those two factors will slowly increase the value of our schools individually and increase the collective value of the conference.

Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels? Is that how you think you can build UConn? I don't agree with everything Aresco has done, but he got this one right. I'd much rather have the exposure than an extra million or two a school.

Give me the money, UConn would be on national television regardless. What this deal really did is give school's like Houston air-time at the expense of money to schools like UConn/Cinci/UCF which is in turn a negative because everytime I turn on a Houston sporting even nobody is home which harms the reputation of the league. The mistake is that some schools in this league aren't ready to be on TV, and yet we sacrificed money to do it.

Stop making sense. They (the newbies) want to talk exposure, then when they are on tv, their arenas are damned near empty. Yea, they are being exposed alright, but not in a good way.

(03-28-2014 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:25 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nope. What they saw was a conference that had almost no media value, as that value had almost entirely been stripped away.

Even so, media-genius Aresco managed to sign all of our rights away for $1 million less than the C7 got for their basketball alone.

Yes. AND... I also hear he is behind the missing 777, and responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. it also rained in Houston this week, and we should blame Aresco for that too.

In other words, show me where he declined a bigger offer, or HOW he could have forced anyone to offer more. Otherwise, usual rant and you're just talking to see your mouth move.

If Aresco was helpless to do anything about any of the big issues the conference faced at the time of his hire - AQ status, bowl ties, media deal - than why on earth did we hire him, and for over a million dollars a year?

Earth to Bull: the buck stops with the CEO. He doesn't get to throw up his hands after failure and say "what could I have done"? His job is to get the job done, no excuses. And yet all you offer is excuses.

Holy cow. Look, Quo.. as soon as I saw a positive thread, I knew you were going to be in here, with a good many posts, droning on with the same old negative story. Blaming Aresco for everything under the sun, with the same snarky name calling. (Dispassionate... yeah right.)

I hold him responsible for the things he was brought in to make good on: Our status in the playoff system, our bowl bids, our media deal. I blame him for the lousy outcomes on those because, well, that's his job.

In contrast, you absolve him, say none of those bad outcomes was his fault, even though those were his job responsibilities. I could say your defense of him is the same tired old rant.

Quo, tell me of another commissioner who can/could do better than what Mike Aresco has up till now or brave enough in taking a mess of those who left created!?!

(03-28-2014 03:40 PM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:32 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:08 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Dude, the reason why the AAC got this raw insult of a deal was b/c the networks saw no stability.

You can negotiate around stability, he didn't (e.g. if X team leaves, the value changes).

The fact remains, he gave away some valuabe UConn assets (women for free?!) to his former industry, no doubt insuring that he had a cushy landing when he parts. How much could it have possibly cost the league to carve out, say Tier 3 men's and women's basketball, a few hundred thousand? And we know that we could have turned those into many millions (the women were getting $1.75m/yr for Tier 3 women's basketball alone before this deal). The guy fleeced our school, completely, to be on NBCSports.

He traded it so UConn football would be on national TV every week instead of being buried on ESPN-3 or regional tv. This idea that UConn was "fleeced" is small time thinking. How many times must some of you be told---we traded money for exposure and EVERY president was on board with the idea. We WERE offered more money by ESPN before we ever even spoke to NBC. We turned it down because the exposure was significantly less than what we had this year (the last year of the OLD contract).

For there to be a significant increase in value the conference must be made up of well known, recognizable, names that people are accustomed to watching. The only way to build that kind of name recognition is to be a fixture on TV and to win. All our teams will be on national tv constantly over the next 6 years and a number of teams will enjoy success. Those two factors will slowly increase the value of our schools individually and increase the collective value of the conference.

Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels? Is that how you think you can build UConn? I don't agree with everything Aresco has done, but he got this one right. I'd much rather have the exposure than an extra million or two a school.

Give me the money, UConn would be on national television regardless. What this deal really did is give school's like Houston air-time at the expense of money to schools like UConn/Cinci/UCF which is in turn a negative because everytime I turn on a Houston sporting even nobody is home which harms the reputation of the league. The mistake is that some schools in this league aren't ready to be on TV, and yet we sacrificed money to do it.

Stop making sense. They (the newbies) want to talk exposure, then when they are on tv, their arenas are damned near empty. Yea, they are being exposed alright, but not in a good way.

Houston just got rid-of of it's lousy basketball coach... With a proven coach and new basketball facilities in motion, Houston will be back as one of those basketball greats.

The new football stadium has already turn Houston around and is only getting better.

So... F*** OFF troll

I think this is Quo way of getting some luv...Quo got nothin but luv 4 u Bro. Quo for Commish! Maybe he can do better.

(03-28-2014 03:53 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:25 PM)Bull Wrote:  Yes. AND... I also hear he is behind the missing 777, and responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. it also rained in Houston this week, and we should blame Aresco for that too.

In other words, show me where he declined a bigger offer, or HOW he could have forced anyone to offer more. Otherwise, usual rant and you're just talking to see your mouth move.

If Aresco was helpless to do anything about any of the big issues the conference faced at the time of his hire - AQ status, bowl ties, media deal - than why on earth did we hire him, and for over a million dollars a year?

Earth to Bull: the buck stops with the CEO. He doesn't get to throw up his hands after failure and say "what could I have done"? His job is to get the job done, no excuses. And yet all you offer is excuses.

Holy cow. Look, Quo.. as soon as I saw a positive thread, I knew you were going to be in here, with a good many posts, droning on with the same old negative story. Blaming Aresco for everything under the sun, with the same snarky name calling. (Dispassionate... yeah right.)

I hold him responsible for the things he was brought in to make good on: Our status in the playoff system, our bowl bids, our media deal. I blame him for the lousy outcomes on those because, well, that's his job.

In contrast, you absolve him, say none of those bad outcomes was his fault, even though those were his job responsibilities. I could say your defense of him is the same tired old rant.

Quo, tell me of another commissioner who can/could do better than what Mike Aresco has up till now or brave enough in taking a mess of those who left created!?!

Basically the equivalent of asking why a salesmen can't get $70k for a honda civic. Aresco is a home run for the AAC. You don't see other commionsers all over the networks. We finally are getting him something to work with as a league.

(03-28-2014 02:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Meanwhile........ the Big East commish is sitting in rented office space at their attorney's office with 2 other employees with not even a sign on the wall -- seriously.

I'm pretty sure we don't pay rent--we're ballers that way.

(03-28-2014 03:40 PM)redbirdTD Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:32 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:08 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Dude, the reason why the AAC got this raw insult of a deal was b/c the networks saw no stability.

You can negotiate around stability, he didn't (e.g. if X team leaves, the value changes).

The fact remains, he gave away some valuabe UConn assets (women for free?!) to his former industry, no doubt insuring that he had a cushy landing when he parts. How much could it have possibly cost the league to carve out, say Tier 3 men's and women's basketball, a few hundred thousand? And we know that we could have turned those into many millions (the women were getting $1.75m/yr for Tier 3 women's basketball alone before this deal). The guy fleeced our school, completely, to be on NBCSports.

He traded it so UConn football would be on national TV every week instead of being buried on ESPN-3 or regional tv. This idea that UConn was "fleeced" is small time thinking. How many times must some of you be told---we traded money for exposure and EVERY president was on board with the idea. We WERE offered more money by ESPN before we ever even spoke to NBC. We turned it down because the exposure was significantly less than what we had this year (the last year of the OLD contract).

For there to be a significant increase in value the conference must be made up of well known, recognizable, names that people are accustomed to watching. The only way to build that kind of name recognition is to be a fixture on TV and to win. All our teams will be on national tv constantly over the next 6 years and a number of teams will enjoy success. Those two factors will slowly increase the value of our schools individually and increase the collective value of the conference.

Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels? Is that how you think you can build UConn? I don't agree with everything Aresco has done, but he got this one right. I'd much rather have the exposure than an extra million or two a school.

Give me the money, UConn would be on national television regardless. What this deal really did is give school's like Houston air-time at the expense of money to schools like UConn/Cinci/UCF which is in turn a negative because everytime I turn on a Houston sporting even nobody is home which harms the reputation of the league. The mistake is that some schools in this league aren't ready to be on TV, and yet we sacrificed money to do it.

Stop making sense. They (the newbies) want to talk exposure, then when they are on tv, their arenas are damned near empty. Yea, they are being exposed alright, but not in a good way.

Lets see if we are empty on ESPN come the fall

lol... Some people conveniently forget the situation when we HIRED Aresco. Easy to use hindsight to feel like a genius as you comment on the outcome a few years later. Yeah we had some high hopes and big dreams on a variety of fronts. We sure did! Hence the hire and the big $$$. Does not mean God himself could have fought off the ESPN/P5 devouring of the Big East.

Our success this year, and well positioning for the forthcoming ESPN renegotiate, shows Aresco IS doing a good job, making us the biggest cup of lemonade out of that big pile of lemons the P5 threw at us. Not too shabby.

I mean the reality is no one can say he did a good or bad job to be honest. Who's to say someone else wouldn't have only gotten 1.5 million with less exposure. I mean the wheels were falling off as he came on board so I find it hard to believe anyone could have done so much better. I have also seen several articles crediting Aresco for the G5 access spot. That in of itself is HUGE. Without that we are just in the G5 wasteland with bad bowls.

I mean we can all sit here and assume we would have gotten more money and better bowl deals but the reality is none of us are in a position to say he did well or not. The bowl lineup is where the membership uncertainty hurt us the most. With the membership in flux most bowls weren't eager to sign on not knowing in 3 or 4 years if the league would be what they signed up for and they have little recourse at that point. I mean the TV deal can drop if members leave but what is the bowl going to do?? Drop you and get who???

I think Aresco overall is doing a decent job and he is getting our name out there. At the end of the day each institution needs to get there athletics more in line with the P5 and the next deal should be much more lucrative if the membership stays as it is today. This could develop into a very strong league if everyone does their part which in a lot of cases they are. Lots of new facilities are on the rise and I think the league as a whole is on the rise. Certainly a strong overall year. Next year will be the turning point to see where they league falls after Louisville departs. That is a big hole to fill so hopefully some of the other members can rise up in fill the void.

Everyone forgets that we get to renegotiate half way through the contract & if we have success like we are having the $$$ will come.

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

(03-28-2014 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:37 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Aresco is a insider he's considered one of them. When the BE/American hired him, they hit a homerun with this guy ...

Yeah, that's what our competitor conferences said, and the media, and then those same conferences and media proceeded to dump us from big-time status, strip our teams, and saddle us with awful bowl ties and a peanuts TV contract.

All on Aresco's watch.

The damage was done before he got here. You know that.

(03-28-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

The proof is in the results; The AAC is receiving great exposure and getting great viewership. The BE is not.

(03-28-2014 01:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  but....but...but.....

you need someone from providence as commish!!!!!!! no one else can do it as good a providence alum.......they are the only ones with the proper vision to successfully run this conference.

-catholic 7


remember those days uconn fans????

Perhaps you shoud check your facts before cracking the wise. only one was a graduate of PC

(03-28-2014 03:07 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Meanwhile........ the Big East commish is sitting in rented office space at their attorney's office with 2 other employees with not even a sign on the wall -- seriously.

Sounds like very low overhead. Good for them.

Yeah, it screams big time

yes because the year is still 1957 and people need a desk to sit at so they can use their rotary phones to contact people or wait for the postman to come witht he daily mail..

(03-28-2014 07:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

The proof is in the results; The AAC is receiving great exposure and getting great viewership. The BE is not.

You do realize that Aresco signed a contract for the great bulk of our games to be on NBCSN, right?

As for results: The Big East is getting paid a lot more than the AAC. "Exposure"? I guess it's a huge deal that most of our games are on ESPNu and ESPN News?

(03-28-2014 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Take a look at the C7. What do you think is currently happening to their value as they toil away on an unwatched network? Do you want MAC exposure levels?

If Aresco was such a genius about "exposure", why did he sign a contract that not only would have paid us peanuts, but also would have had all our "exposure" on NBCSN, a channel as "hard to find" as FS1?

Because our exposure level on ESPN was about to be severely downgraded. He managed to get all our games on a national network in 81 million homes, plus some games on NBC broadcast network. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than Tuesday and Wed games on ESPN-U with the rest on ESPN-3? Hell yeah!

The reason NBC's bid was so low was that NBC believed there was no way in hell ESPN would come anywhere near matching that exposure level. Why do you think they believed that?

FS1 is in 90 million homes too but everyone around here says the exposure sucks for the Big East because "nobody can find it". But it's as easy to find as NBCSN is. And yet Aresco was willing to put us on that alleged "wasteland" channel AND for peanuts. At least the Big East is getting paid very well to be out there, right? And yet that's the best Aresco could do?

The reason NBCSN was so low was because that's what Aresco was able to convince them we are worth. That's his job at the negotiating table.

You can lambast the NBC-Sports deal, but we were looking at far less exposure than the Big East. We were looking at MAC exposure. So compared to that, every game on a national cable network was a huge step up. Not to mention some games on NBC broadcast---plus a network that would promote us. The money was low because nobody on the open market was bidding. The reality was that NBC bid was upgraded when ESPN made the surprising decision to match. It looks brilliant now, but at the time nobody would have believed the Mouse would put this many AAC basketball and football games on thier networks.