(06-20-2016 08:25 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  So how much money will each Big 10 school be making per year in TV revenue. Anyone figured that out yet.

I think I read somewhere that between Fox, ESPN, CBS and their 3rd tier rights (B10 Network), it will end up right at $40M per team.

Not sure how any team in that conference is worth that, but that's not my area of expertise...

I'm not even so sure that Ohio St or any B1G school is worth 20x in TV revenue than most, if not all, AAC teams.

(06-20-2016 05:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 02:33 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 02:22 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I hate to be the debbie downer...but I don't think this has any bearing on our Media Deal. The Big Ten is a completely different animal that completely owns nearly all of the Midwest market (which includes 6 of the Top 25 largest cities in America and three of the Top 8 most populated states) and has an established TV Network as well as National Championship competitors in multiple sports every year.

no one ever said we wanted to get a big 10 type deal

i think you are reading into it "they got this deal , we should get similar deal'

we are talking bigger picture, everyone has been saying that the tv rights bubble has burst and use c-usa as an example

espn paid 100mil a year last year for the majority of big 10 games, and are going to pay 190mil for half of that next year

that espn will still pay top dollar for content it wants

we arent comparing our value to their value but them getting what they are worth is a good indication we will get closer to what we are worth

I understand what you're saying. Im simply saying that they have gotten an increase because they are a prime product. There is a minimal supply of prime products, which means people will be more likely to pay more money to not lose them. We are not a prime product, so why would anyone pay a premium for us. I'll be happy with maintaining our value.

A couple of quick points regard to ESPN paying for our content--

1) this big 10 contract represents a loss of 50% percent of ESPN's Big Ten inventory. There are no other P5 conferences available for almost a decade. Who's going to fill those 25 or so old Big Ten broadcast slots beginning in 2017?

2). I counted 16 AAC games with more than one million viewers that were part of the AAC football rights package in 2015. Half of those were AAC home games against P5 schools and half were AAC conference games (AAC vs AAC). You know how many games CUSA had with over a million viewers? NONE. Not a single one. Hell, CUSA struggle to get half that many viewers for any game. CUSA only had one game that even attracted 500K viewers (OOC---and even then it was only slightly over 500K). They had a CCG at 488K and another game go over 300K. The vast majority of the games were well below 100-200K.

So you see, all G5's are not alike. If you are ESPN, do you want to plug those empty Big10 slots with cheap CUSA content or more popular AAC content? Since ESPN only purchased 5 CUSA games a year when they had the chance, I'm thinking they have made that decision.

If that AAC has another solid season, my guess is ESPN will approach us about extending our contract through the 2022. That way ESPN can lock up AAC content through the end of the new Big10 contract cycle. Like the MAC, who also proved they had value for ESPN by filling Tues/Wed slots, I'm sure the extension will come with a nice raise.

(06-21-2016 09:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 05:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 02:33 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 02:22 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I hate to be the debbie downer...but I don't think this has any bearing on our Media Deal. The Big Ten is a completely different animal that completely owns nearly all of the Midwest market (which includes 6 of the Top 25 largest cities in America and three of the Top 8 most populated states) and has an established TV Network as well as National Championship competitors in multiple sports every year.

no one ever said we wanted to get a big 10 type deal

i think you are reading into it "they got this deal , we should get similar deal'

we are talking bigger picture, everyone has been saying that the tv rights bubble has burst and use c-usa as an example

espn paid 100mil a year last year for the majority of big 10 games, and are going to pay 190mil for half of that next year

that espn will still pay top dollar for content it wants

we arent comparing our value to their value but them getting what they are worth is a good indication we will get closer to what we are worth

I understand what you're saying. Im simply saying that they have gotten an increase because they are a prime product. There is a minimal supply of prime products, which means people will be more likely to pay more money to not lose them. We are not a prime product, so why would anyone pay a premium for us. I'll be happy with maintaining our value.

A couple of quick points regard to ESPN paying for our content--

1) this big 10 contract represents a loss of 50% percent of ESPN's Big Ten inventory. There are no other P5 conferences available for almost a decade. Who's going to fill those 25 or so old Big Ten broadcast slots beginning in 2017?

2). I counted 16 AAC games with more than one million viewers that were part of the AAC football rights package in 2015. Half of those were AAC home games against P5 schools and half were AAC conference games (AAC vs AAC). You know how many games CUSA had with over a million viewers? NONE. Not a single one. Hell, CUSA struggle to get half that many viewers for any game. CUSA only had one game that even attracted 500K viewers (OOC---and even then it was only slightly over 500K). They had a CCG at 488K and another game go over 300K. The vast majority of the games were well below 100-200K.

So you see, all G5's are not alike. If you are ESPN, do you want to plug those empty Big10 slots with cheap CUSA content or more popular AAC content? Since ESPN only purchased 5 CUSA games a year when they had the chance, I'm thinking they have made that decision.

If that AAC has another solid season, my guess is ESPN will approach us about extending our contract through the 2022. That way ESPN can lock up AAC content through the end of the new Big10 contract cycle. Like the MAC, who also proved they had value for ESPN by filling Tues/Wed slots, I'm sure the extension will come with a nice raise.

I like your line of thinking.

.

(06-21-2016 12:07 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(06-21-2016 09:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 05:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 02:33 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 02:22 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I hate to be the debbie downer...but I don't think this has any bearing on our Media Deal. The Big Ten is a completely different animal that completely owns nearly all of the Midwest market (which includes 6 of the Top 25 largest cities in America and three of the Top 8 most populated states) and has an established TV Network as well as National Championship competitors in multiple sports every year.

no one ever said we wanted to get a big 10 type deal

i think you are reading into it "they got this deal , we should get similar deal'

we are talking bigger picture, everyone has been saying that the tv rights bubble has burst and use c-usa as an example

espn paid 100mil a year last year for the majority of big 10 games, and are going to pay 190mil for half of that next year

that espn will still pay top dollar for content it wants

we arent comparing our value to their value but them getting what they are worth is a good indication we will get closer to what we are worth

I understand what you're saying. Im simply saying that they have gotten an increase because they are a prime product. There is a minimal supply of prime products, which means people will be more likely to pay more money to not lose them. We are not a prime product, so why would anyone pay a premium for us. I'll be happy with maintaining our value.

A couple of quick points regard to ESPN paying for our content--

1) this big 10 contract represents a loss of 50% percent of ESPN's Big Ten inventory. There are no other P5 conferences available for almost a decade. Who's going to fill those 25 or so old Big Ten broadcast slots beginning in 2017?

2). I counted 16 AAC games with more than one million viewers that were part of the AAC football rights package in 2015. Half of those were AAC home games against P5 schools and half were AAC conference games (AAC vs AAC). You know how many games CUSA had with over a million viewers? NONE. Not a single one. Hell, CUSA struggle to get half that many viewers for any game. CUSA only had one game that even attracted 500K viewers (OOC---and even then it was only slightly over 500K). They had a CCG at 488K and another game go over 300K. The vast majority of the games were well below 100-200K.

So you see, all G5's are not alike. If you are ESPN, do you want to plug those empty Big10 slots with cheap CUSA content or more popular AAC content? Since ESPN only purchased 5 CUSA games a year when they had the chance, I'm thinking they have made that decision.

If that AAC has another solid season, my guess is ESPN will approach us about extending our contract through the 2022. That way ESPN can lock up AAC content through the end of the new Big10 contract cycle. Like the MAC, who also proved they had value for ESPN by filling Tues/Wed slots, I'm sure the extension will come with a nice raise.

I like your line of thinking.

.

I mean assuming the league stays together as is their will be actual metrics around viewership that will drive what the league gets. I honestly am optimistic that the league will get a hefty raise but honestly have no idea what that amount will be. I think at a minimum they will be in the 5 million range but it could certainly be higher. The reality is CUSA doesn't have the viewership or brands that reside in the American. I am not trying to slight the league I just think it is a work in progress at the moment. The American is a work in progress to some degree as well but I think most teams within the American are much more established and recognized. I guess we shall see but I agree with attackcoog that if this season builds off of the last two that the league will only be improving its position and I could see ESPN wanting to lock them up for a fair deal for both parties involved.