ESPN's availability trumps (pun intended) every competitor. I travel a ton and every hotel room has ESPN and ESPN 2, fewer have NBCSN, none have CBSSN, and very few have FS1.

If you want to disappear from the national landscape, go with another provider.

(03-13-2017 09:01 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  How many ways can one say "ESPN hates UCONN and is the only reason why we aren't a perennial top 10 football and basketball program...those ESPN bastards are evil!" with a straight face.

While they haven't gone out of their way to help, ESPN actively working to denigrate our standing reduces eyes and viewers for them. That's contrary to they business model. They are having problems in this area and wouldn't exacerbate it this was.

Seriously, this isn't an election for 9th grade student council.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF are you talking about? Who, besides you, has brought up UCONN even once?

(03-14-2017 09:09 AM)Clarence Iba Wrote:  ESPN's availability trumps (pun intended) every competitor. I travel a ton and every hotel room has ESPN and ESPN 2, fewer have NBCSN, none have CBSSN, and very few have FS1.

If you want to disappear from the national landscape, go with another provider.

I basically agree with this... The visibility of being on ESPN networks cannot (for now) be underestimated. And recruits LOVE visibility. They want to be on TV, where their families, friends, hometown can watch. We took lower $$ to get higher visibility, and it was a brilliant move.

ESPN may dis us fairly often, as they promote the P5... but that's not going away anytime soon, no matter what network we're on. At least with ESPN we will really put distance between us an the G4.

(03-13-2017 05:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  What would the reaction be if the AAC announced a new deal for $5 million per year per school - 6 football games on NBC Saturday and 50 football games on NBCSports? 12 basketball games on NBC Saturday and 100 basketball games on NBCSports?

Considering that 4 years ago, Aresco signed a deal with NBCSports for $1 million per school per year, with basically nothing guaranteed on Big NBC, I'd say that was a pretty excellent deal.

Which would you consider more important? The money or the 6 games on Big NBC?

What if the money was the same as now, but there were 6 games on Big NBC (and then a bunch on NBCSports) with no ESPN?

OR, what if there were no guaranteed Big NBC games (with no ESPN), but the money was 5+million per school?

I am not in the camp that optimistically thinks that over the past 4 years, we've shown big-time TV value, such that we can expect our TV money to go up dramatically (say at least $5m per school/year) in our next contract. Nevertheless, I do expect our $$$ to go up at least somewhat, and our current money is dreadful, so if the money stays the same, I would be very disappointed in that contract even if it meant lots more games on Big NBC or any other OTA network.

As to your "OR", I do value money more, so yes, while I'd prefer $5m with some games on Big NBC, I'd think $5m with all games on NBCSN and the like would be a significant improvement over what we have now with ESPN. I'd applaud Aresco for that.

In short, i think ESPN "exposure" is overrated, it's $$$ that counts. As long as the games are being broadcast on some widely-available channel - including NBCSN, FS1, CBSSN - give me the money.

(03-14-2017 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am not in the camp that optimistically thinks that over the past 4 years, we've shown big-time TV value, such that we can expect our TV money to go up dramatically (say at least $5m per school/year) in our next contract. Nevertheless, I do expect our $$$ to go up at least somewhat, and our current money is dreadful, so if the money stays the same, I would be very disappointed in that contract even if it meant lots more games on Big NBC or any other OTA network.

As to your "OR", I do value money more, so yes, while I'd prefer $5m with some games on Big NBC, I'd think $5m with all games on NBCSN and the like would be a significant improvement over what we have now with ESPN. I'd applaud Aresco for that.

In short, i think ESPN "exposure" is overrated, it's $$$ that counts. As long as the games are being broadcast on some widely-available channel - including NBCSN, FS1, CBSSN - give me the money.

I think I am leaning this way as well. ESPN is using the AAC just to fill up programming for their 42 channels. With their money issues I don't see the AAC getting much, if any, more money.

If another network can provide a significantly better deal then it might be time to go for it.

(03-14-2017 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 04:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  What would the reaction be if the AAC announced a new deal for $5 million per year per school - 6 football games on NBC Saturday and 50 football games on NBCSports? 12 basketball games on NBC Saturday and 100 basketball games on NBCSports?

Considering that 4 years ago, Aresco signed a deal with NBCSports for $1 million per school per year, with basically nothing guaranteed on Big NBC, I'd say that was a pretty excellent deal.

Which would you consider more important? The money or the 6 games on Big NBC?

What if the money was the same as now, but there were 6 games on Big NBC (and then a bunch on NBCSports) with no ESPN?

OR, what if there were no guaranteed Big NBC games (with no ESPN), but the money was 5+million per school?

I am not in the camp that optimistically thinks that over the past 4 years, we've shown big-time TV value, such that we can expect our TV money to go up dramatically (say at least $5m per school/year) in our next contract. Nevertheless, I do expect our $$$ to go up at least somewhat, and our current money is dreadful, so if the money stays the same, I would be very disappointed in that contract even if it meant lots more games on Big NBC or any other OTA network.

As to your "OR", I do value money more, so yes, while I'd prefer $5m with some games on Big NBC, I'd think $5m with all games on NBCSN and the like would be a significant improvement over what we have now with ESPN. I'd applaud Aresco for that.

In short, i think ESPN "exposure" is overrated, it's $$$ that counts. As long as the games are being broadcast on some widely-available channel - including NBCSN, FS1, CBSSN - give me the money.

Exposure is only good when your school gets the P5 callup. Case in point, Louisville. How many articles did I have to read about Louisville and their "bold" decision to take any and all chances to play on a weeknight because of exposure? and how that "bold" decision is the main reason they're in the ACC? Too many to count.

(03-14-2017 09:09 AM)Clarence Iba Wrote:  ESPN's availability trumps (pun intended) every competitor. I travel a ton and every hotel room has ESPN and ESPN 2, fewer have NBCSN, none have CBSSN, and very few have FS1.

If you want to disappear from the national landscape, go with another provider.

Like Villanova and the Big East? More money is the most valuable part of any leagues contract. Exposure is just the TV partner blowing smoke up your rear end.

Trolling quality has really fallen off here.

I may have to MAACSNBBSGA

(03-14-2017 04:31 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:09 AM)Clarence Iba Wrote:  ESPN's availability trumps (pun intended) every competitor. I travel a ton and every hotel room has ESPN and ESPN 2, fewer have NBCSN, none have CBSSN, and very few have FS1.

If you want to disappear from the national landscape, go with another provider.

Like Villanova and the Big East? More money is the most valuable part of any leagues contract. Exposure is just the TV partner blowing smoke up your rear end.

+3

TRUTH!!

I think we may actually get less money this next round. ESPN looks to be in trouble. They aren't going to offer us more money, sorry to say. I bet the next time contracts come up with the P5 they get a lot less also. I think the landscape is shifting and the old model is on the way out.

(03-14-2017 08:15 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think we may actually get less money this next round. ESPN looks to be in trouble. They aren't going to offer us more money, sorry to say. I bet the next time contracts come up with the P5 they get a lot less also. I think the landscape is shifting and the old model is on the way out.

I have been hearing rumors of this as well. I have also heard that espn is covering up just how bad they are really hemorrhaging.

(03-14-2017 08:15 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think we may actually get less money this next round. ESPN looks to be in trouble. They aren't going to offer us more money, sorry to say. I bet the next time contracts come up with the P5 they get a lot less also. I think the landscape is shifting and the old model is on the way out.

Espn to me seems safe. They are getting included in almost every streaming service. I'd be more worried if I was the other outlets.