Navy's deal with CBSSports expires after 2017. In 2018, their home football games become part of the American Conference inventory.

According to Andy Katz, the ACC is likely to add Wichita St in 2018-19.

The current American TV deal with ESPN expires after the 2019-20 season.

So here's the first question: are the additions of Navy football and Wichita State basketball in 2018 sufficient grounds for the American to renegotiate their TV deal two years early?

Second, if the American is able to get a new contract in place starting in 2018 lasting say 6-7 years, what can the American schools expect to make per year per school?

(03-23-2017 01:04 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Navy's deal with CBSSports expires after 2017. In 2018, their home football games become part of the American Conference inventory.

According to Andy Katz, the ACC is likely to add Wichita St in 2018-19.

The current American TV deal with ESPN expires after the 2019-20 season.

So here's the first question: are the additions of Navy football and Wichita State basketball in 2018 sufficient grounds for the American to renegotiate their TV deal two years early?

Second, if the American is able to get a new contract in place starting in 2018 lasting say 6-7 years, what can the American schools expect to make per year per school?

The answer (as with many things in life) is, "It depends."

For your first question, it is pretty much completely dependent upon the terms of the current contract. There might be a provision about a renegotiation or a pro-rata increase in the event of expansion... or there might not be one. It's a fairly safe bet that the AAC can't just unilaterally terminate the agreement by expanding since history shows that such right isn't even granted to the most powerful conferences like the SEC and Big Ten. Also note that Navy's TV rights starting in 2018 are likely already priced into the current contract since that arrangement was known prior to ESPN and AAC finalizing this deal. Regardless, we have seen even with the P5 conferences that they can't just unilaterally demand an entirely new agreement ASAP. Generally speaking, the settlement is a pro-rata increase for the rest of the then-current agreement. My best guess is that the contract won't move at all since there would be only one year left on the contract if Wichita State joins, anyway.

For your second question, note that ESPN is ALWAYS going to attempt to pay as little as possible. They even attempted to low-ball the Big Ten (much less the AAC) for the new upcoming contract. The difference is that the Big Ten had leverage in the form of Fox willing to pay a massive amount for rights, which meant that ESPN had to effectively match them in order to retain a portion. (Fox is paying slightly more for its Big Ten package than ESPN, but it's reflective of the fact that Fox gets some game picking preferences, e.g. Fox can effectively guarantee that they will ALWAYS get the Ohio State-Michigan game if it wants it.) I see a lot of AAC posters talk about how ESPN should pay them more based on recent TV ratings, but that is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is if Fox, NBC or some other entity is willing to come in and make it into a legitimate competitive bidding situation. That might happen... or it might not happen. My guess is that we won't see this type of bidding war. Lower cable subscriptions haven't impacted the rights for top tier properties that have been signed in the past couple of years even when ESPN and other cable companies have been fully aware of declining revenue (such as the NBA and Big Ten), but the tiers below them are much more at risk. Properties that are seen as driving (or at least retaining) subscriptions like the 4 major pro sports leagues and the P5 conferences will still get paid since sports networks need them for survival, but other properties will get reductions or cut completely. As with many things in society, there's an upper class and a lower class... and the middle class is going away. (As I've pointed out elsewhere, you see this already in the music, movie and TV industries where top brands get outsized revenue at the expense of mid-market brands and my belief is that sports will be no exception.)

One other, possibly minor aspect of it is the so-called "digital rights". It might have even been the AAC's commissioner who coined that term, or the idea of selling rights to stream games over the internet as being separate rights from traditional TV (cable/sat/OTA).

I remember him saying something to the effect of watching games on a pie plate.

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also note that Navy's TV rights starting in 2018 are likely already priced into the current contract since that arrangement was known prior to ESPN and AAC finalizing this deal.
Good point.

My best guess is that the contract won't move at all since there would be only one year left on the contract if Wichita State joins, anyway.
If Wichita State joins in 2018, they would play under the current deal for two years if we can't renegotiate.

What matters is if Fox, NBC or some other entity is willing to come in and make it into a legitimate competitive bidding situation. That might happen... or it might not happen.
Certainly, if ESPN has the right to sign up all our games, and then sell some off to CBSSports, then CBSSports won't bid against ESPN. This is what happened last time. Further, it's highly unlikely we can go to open market in 2018.

Probably the best we can do is renegotiate our Tier 1 rights with ESPN, and then try to sell our Tier 2/3 rights to others.

(03-23-2017 04:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also note that Navy's TV rights starting in 2018 are likely already priced into the current contract since that arrangement was known prior to ESPN and AAC finalizing this deal.
Good point.

My best guess is that the contract won't move at all since there would be only one year left on the contract if Wichita State joins, anyway.
If Wichita State joins in 2018, they would play under the current deal for two years if we can't renegotiate.

What matters is if Fox, NBC or some other entity is willing to come in and make it into a legitimate competitive bidding situation. That might happen... or it might not happen.
Certainly, if ESPN has the right to sign up all our games, and then sell some off to CBSSports, then CBSSports won't bid against ESPN. This is what happened last time. Further, it's highly unlikely we can go to open market in 2018.

Probably the best we can do is renegotiate our Tier 1 rights with ESPN, and then try to sell our Tier 2/3 rights to others.

The problem for the AAC and the rest and probably the reason the networks were so opposed to Big 12 expansion is that they have all the Saturday inventory they need. Games are almost all being televised nationally instead of regionally, so Fox, FS1, ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC have pretty much all they can use. There are no free slots.

So the G5 have to settle for networks other than Fox and ESPN or settle for non-Saturday games and slots on ESPNU and ESPNnews. ESPNU and ESPNnews simply won't get the ratings and generate the value the other networks will.

I for one would not be surprised if AAC negotiated early. Could be a win win for both sides. We get a bit more $$$ early, and ESPN doesn't risk us going to open market.

(03-23-2017 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 04:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also note that Navy's TV rights starting in 2018 are likely already priced into the current contract since that arrangement was known prior to ESPN and AAC finalizing this deal.
Good point.

My best guess is that the contract won't move at all since there would be only one year left on the contract if Wichita State joins, anyway.
If Wichita State joins in 2018, they would play under the current deal for two years if we can't renegotiate.

What matters is if Fox, NBC or some other entity is willing to come in and make it into a legitimate competitive bidding situation. That might happen... or it might not happen.
Certainly, if ESPN has the right to sign up all our games, and then sell some off to CBSSports, then CBSSports won't bid against ESPN. This is what happened last time. Further, it's highly unlikely we can go to open market in 2018.

Probably the best we can do is renegotiate our Tier 1 rights with ESPN, and then try to sell our Tier 2/3 rights to others.

The problem for the AAC and the rest and probably the reason the networks were so opposed to Big 12 expansion is that they have all the Saturday inventory they need. Games are almost all being televised nationally instead of regionally, so Fox, FS1, ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC have pretty much all they can use. There are no free slots.

So the G5 have to settle for networks other than Fox and ESPN or settle for non-Saturday games and slots on ESPNU and ESPNnews. ESPNU and ESPNnews simply won't get the ratings and generate the value the other networks will.

Fox has a solid presence in college football and made a strong move to get rights to the Big East in basketball.

Could Fox make a similar play for the AAC like it did for the Big East to develop a more comprehensive presence in basketball? Then allow the AAC to continue to sublicense to CBS. This could suit the AAC's needs fairly well.

(03-23-2017 06:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 04:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also note that Navy's TV rights starting in 2018 are likely already priced into the current contract since that arrangement was known prior to ESPN and AAC finalizing this deal.
Good point.

My best guess is that the contract won't move at all since there would be only one year left on the contract if Wichita State joins, anyway.
If Wichita State joins in 2018, they would play under the current deal for two years if we can't renegotiate.

What matters is if Fox, NBC or some other entity is willing to come in and make it into a legitimate competitive bidding situation. That might happen... or it might not happen.
Certainly, if ESPN has the right to sign up all our games, and then sell some off to CBSSports, then CBSSports won't bid against ESPN. This is what happened last time. Further, it's highly unlikely we can go to open market in 2018.

Probably the best we can do is renegotiate our Tier 1 rights with ESPN, and then try to sell our Tier 2/3 rights to others.

The problem for the AAC and the rest and probably the reason the networks were so opposed to Big 12 expansion is that they have all the Saturday inventory they need. Games are almost all being televised nationally instead of regionally, so Fox, FS1, ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC have pretty much all they can use. There are no free slots.

So the G5 have to settle for networks other than Fox and ESPN or settle for non-Saturday games and slots on ESPNU and ESPNnews. ESPNU and ESPNnews simply won't get the ratings and generate the value the other networks will.

Fox has a solid presence in college football and made a strong move to get rights to the Big East in basketball.

Could Fox make a similar play for the AAC like it did for the Big East to develop a more comprehensive presence in basketball? Then allow the AAC to continue to sublicense to CBS. This could suit the AAC's needs fairly well.

I don't think FOX has any need for AAC basketball when they have the Big East and other P5 conferences for their basketball presence....in addition to football. It would really be CBS SN, NBC SN or now even BeIN Sports that would have an interest in the AAC.

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For your second question, note that ESPN is ALWAYS going to attempt to pay as little as possible.

Attempts are made in negotiations all the time.

ESPN is in a tricky situation with these negotiations though because - since the war chest of the Big East holdovers has run out - lowballing the conference in the next negotiations will make a lowball deal cost prohibitive for many of the programs. The conference would break apart before selling its assets for pennies on the dollar.

The American is fortunate to have a long-time TV exec running things. Television ratings are far from insignificant in this case. The AAC has some unique brands and properties that have established value. A program like Navy has a long history as an independent and they know their worth. The WWL can't tell the story of NCAA WBB without the UConn Women. Those rights aren't going on the bonfire. It's one of those situations where Aresco's constituents need to be satisfied or ESPN will be left trying to draw with FIU vs UTSA.

Like the poster above said, I suspect there will be a deal struck before the contract runs out.

(03-23-2017 06:50 PM)DocAllentown Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For your second question, note that ESPN is ALWAYS going to attempt to pay as little as possible.

Attempts are made in negotiations all the time.

ESPN is in a tricky situation with these negotiations though because - since the war chest of the Big East holdovers has run out - lowballing the conference in the next negotiations will make a lowball deal cost prohibitive for many of the programs. The conference would break apart before selling its assets for pennies on the dollar.

The American is fortunate to have a long-time TV exec running things. Television ratings are far from insignificant in this case. The AAC has some unique brands and properties that have established value. A program like Navy has a long history as an independent and they know their worth. The WWL can't tell the story of NCAA WBB without the UConn Women. Those rights aren't going on the bonfire. It's one of those situations where Aresco's constituents need to be satisfied or ESPN will be left trying to draw with FIU vs UTSA.

Like the poster above said, I suspect there will be a deal struck before the contract runs out.

That's what I think. The AAC is not the superfluous property it was when ESPN took a low end flyer on the rights package in 2013. Lets looks at the situation---


1) ESPN just lost 50% of their B1G inventory to FOX. That 25+/- empty P5 game slots they have to fill. The AAC top 20 games have done pretty well---so the AAC is not really just junk filler for ESPN now that they have a big hole in their line up to fill. Additionally, and ACC Network begins in a few years---so they could lose a few games there as well.

2) The issue above causes another problem for CBS-Sports Network. Now that ESPN needs 20-25 extra AAC games---is it going to be as easy for CBS-Sports Network to pick up those extra AAC games? If Im CBS-Sports Network, I'd start looking for a replacement or expect to pay more for that inventory. In fact, If Im CBS-Sports Network, Id be looking to just bid on a game package directly from the AAC to insure I have adequate inventory in the coming years.

3) FOX might like a little AAC football. Its been mentioned numerous time that ESPN doesn't want FOX in the east. So far, they have been relatively successful at doing just that. The FOX east coast college football inventory is quite thin. The AAC with Navy---and big city teams like Orlando, Philly, Hartford/New York--has pulled decent ratings and might be a fairly interesting property--especially since 50% of the AAC would cost less than a 2 team Big12 expansion. FOX could more than double their eastern time zone college football inventory at a very reasonable cost.

4) Given their ratings vs their relatively low price, if ESPN lets the AAC go to the open market, its very likely to field several offers. Its very possible ESPN could either lose a significant portion of the current package or have to pay much more---maybe even both. Its almost a certainty that UConn women's basketball would be pulled--and its pretty likely that the AAAC would simply sell a package of games direct to CBS-Sports Network--meaning ESPN would no longer have those games either.

Meanwhile the AAC is cash starved and would like to financially separate itself from the rest of the G5 with nice raise that put it into sort of a middle tier.

Basically, given what Ive said above, I think the most likely outcome for the cash starved AAC and an ESPN that now NEEDS the AAC inventory--is an early extension that gives the AAC a nice raise, but still keeps the package extremely affordable compared to the P5. This extension would need to lock up the AAC rights for ESPN until at least the end of the new 6 year FOX-B1G deal to make sense for ESPN.

I think we are in a narrow 1 year window where it makes sense for both parties to do do an early extension and both would be equally motivated to do so. As the time left on the current AAC gets shorter, the motivation to sign an early deal gets smaller for the AAC as they would tend maximize their next deal by waiting to get to the open market. The closer they get to the open market, the less motivated they are to accept anything that might not represent what they view as their maximum potential payday.

(03-23-2017 07:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 06:50 PM)DocAllentown Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For your second question, note that ESPN is ALWAYS going to attempt to pay as little as possible.

Attempts are made in negotiations all the time.

ESPN is in a tricky situation with these negotiations though because - since the war chest of the Big East holdovers has run out - lowballing the conference in the next negotiations will make a lowball deal cost prohibitive for many of the programs. The conference would break apart before selling its assets for pennies on the dollar.

The American is fortunate to have a long-time TV exec running things. Television ratings are far from insignificant in this case. The AAC has some unique brands and properties that have established value. A program like Navy has a long history as an independent and they know their worth. The WWL can't tell the story of NCAA WBB without the UConn Women. Those rights aren't going on the bonfire. It's one of those situations where Aresco's constituents need to be satisfied or ESPN will be left trying to draw with FIU vs UTSA.

Like the poster above said, I suspect there will be a deal struck before the contract runs out.

That's what I think. The AAC is not the superfluous property it was when ESPN took a low end flyer on the rights package in 2013. Lets looks at the situation---


1) ESPN just lost 50% of their B1G inventory to FOX. That 25+/- empty P5 game slots they have to fill. The AAC top 20 games have done pretty well---so the AAC is not really just junk filler for ESPN now that they have a big hole in their line up to fill. Additionally, and ACC Network begins in a few years---so they could lose a few games there as well.

2) The issue above causes another problem for CBS-Sports Network. Now that ESPN needs 20-25 extra AAC games---is it going to be as easy for CBS-Sports Network to pick up those extra AAC games? If Im CBS-Sports Network, I'd start looking for a replacement or expect to pay more for that inventory. In fact, If Im CBS-Sports Network, Id be looking to just bid on a game package directly from the AAC to insure I have adequate inventory in the coming years.

3) FOX might like a little AAC football. Its been mentioned numerous time that ESPN doesn't want FOX in the east. So far, they have been relatively successful at doing just that. The FOX east coast college football inventory is quite thin. The AAC with Navy---and big city teams like Orlando, Philly, Hartford/New York--has pulled decent ratings and might be a fairly interesting property--especially since 50% of the AAC would cost less than a 2 team Big12 expansion. FOX could more than double their eastern time zone college football inventory at a very reasonable cost.

4) Given their ratings vs their relatively low price, if ESPN lets the AAC go to the open market, its very likely to field several offers. Its very possible ESPN could either lose a significant portion of the current package or have to pay much more---maybe even both. Its almost a certainty that UConn women's basketball would be pulled--and its pretty likely that the AAAC would simply sell a package of games direct to CBS-Sports Network--meaning ESPN would no longer have those games either.

Meanwhile the AAC is cash starved and would like to financially separate itself from the rest of the G5 with nice raise that put it into sort of a middle tier.

Basically, given what Ive said above, I think the most likely outcome for the cash starved AAC and an ESPN that now NEEDS the AAC inventory--is an early extension that gives the AAC a nice raise, but still keeps the package extremely affordable compared to the P5. This extension would need to lock up the AAC rights for ESPN until at least the end of the new 6 year FOX-B1G deal to make sense for ESPN.

I think we are in a narrow 1 year window where it makes sense for both parties to do do an early extension and both would be equally motivated to do so. As the time left on the current AAC gets shorter, the motivation to sign an early deal gets smaller for the AAC as they would tend maximize their next deal by waiting to get to the open market. The closer they get to the open market, the less motivated they are to accept anything that might not represent what they view as their maximum potential payday.

3.-"ESPN doesn't want Fox in the East"--Its going to happen for the first time this year with the Big 10. Fox spent a lot of money to get Big 10 football. Now Fox has Coast to coast coverage with the 14 Big 10 schools, West Virginia, and other Big 12 schools and The PAC 12 schools. The only areas Fox doesn't have is the South, and I guess the Mountain West, but don't know that they are interested in it.

(03-23-2017 06:50 PM)DocAllentown Wrote:  The American is fortunate to have a long-time TV exec running things. Television ratings are far from insignificant in this case. The AAC has some unique brands and properties that have established value.

We were told that when Aresco was hired 5 years ago, and it produced the peanuts and popcorn contract we've had since then.

Nobody at ESPN or anywhere else is going to give the AAC an extra buck just because Aresco used to work for a TV network.

At the very end of the day, there is no way to hand-waive away the concept that your pay is going to depend on your viewership.

You can always try to make the chicken/egg argument that if AAC teams were playing on the main channels in prime slots, they'd get those higher viewership numbers.

But that's not the way it works. You have to prove it first, then you get the goods.

(03-23-2017 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 06:50 PM)DocAllentown Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For your second question, note that ESPN is ALWAYS going to attempt to pay as little as possible.

Attempts are made in negotiations all the time.

ESPN is in a tricky situation with these negotiations though because - since the war chest of the Big East holdovers has run out - lowballing the conference in the next negotiations will make a lowball deal cost prohibitive for many of the programs. The conference would break apart before selling its assets for pennies on the dollar.

The American is fortunate to have a long-time TV exec running things. Television ratings are far from insignificant in this case. The AAC has some unique brands and properties that have established value. A program like Navy has a long history as an independent and they know their worth. The WWL can't tell the story of NCAA WBB without the UConn Women. Those rights aren't going on the bonfire. It's one of those situations where Aresco's constituents need to be satisfied or ESPN will be left trying to draw with FIU vs UTSA.

Like the poster above said, I suspect there will be a deal struck before the contract runs out.

That's what I think. The AAC is not the superfluous property it was when ESPN took a low end flyer on the rights package in 2013. Lets looks at the situation---


1) ESPN just lost 50% of their B1G inventory to FOX. That 25+/- empty P5 game slots they have to fill. The AAC top 20 games have done pretty well---so the AAC is not really just junk filler for ESPN now that they have a big hole in their line up to fill. Additionally, and ACC Network begins in a few years---so they could lose a few games there as well.

2) The issue above causes another problem for CBS-Sports Network. Now that ESPN needs 20-25 extra AAC games---is it going to be as easy for CBS-Sports Network to pick up those extra AAC games? If Im CBS-Sports Network, I'd start looking for a replacement or expect to pay more for that inventory. In fact, If Im CBS-Sports Network, Id be looking to just bid on a game package directly from the AAC to insure I have adequate inventory in the coming years.

3) FOX might like a little AAC football. Its been mentioned numerous time that ESPN doesn't want FOX in the east. So far, they have been relatively successful at doing just that. The FOX east coast college football inventory is quite thin. The AAC with Navy---and big city teams like Orlando, Philly, Hartford/New York--has pulled decent ratings and might be a fairly interesting property--especially since 50% of the AAC would cost less than a 2 team Big12 expansion. FOX could more than double their eastern time zone college football inventory at a very reasonable cost.

4) Given their ratings vs their relatively low price, if ESPN lets the AAC go to the open market, its very likely to field several offers. Its very possible ESPN could either lose a significant portion of the current package or have to pay much more---maybe even both. Its almost a certainty that UConn women's basketball would be pulled--and its pretty likely that the AAAC would simply sell a package of games direct to CBS-Sports Network--meaning ESPN would no longer have those games either.

Meanwhile the AAC is cash starved and would like to financially separate itself from the rest of the G5 with nice raise that put it into sort of a middle tier.

Basically, given what Ive said above, I think the most likely outcome for the cash starved AAC and an ESPN that now NEEDS the AAC inventory--is an early extension that gives the AAC a nice raise, but still keeps the package extremely affordable compared to the P5. This extension would need to lock up the AAC rights for ESPN until at least the end of the new 6 year FOX-B1G deal to make sense for ESPN.

I think we are in a narrow 1 year window where it makes sense for both parties to do do an early extension and both would be equally motivated to do so. As the time left on the current AAC gets shorter, the motivation to sign an early deal gets smaller for the AAC as they would tend maximize their next deal by waiting to get to the open market. The closer they get to the open market, the less motivated they are to accept anything that might not represent what they view as their maximum potential payday.

3.-"ESPN doesn't want Fox in the East"--Its going to happen for the first time this year with the Big 10. Fox spent a lot of money to get Big 10 football. Now Fox has Coast to coast coverage with the 14 Big 10 schools, West Virginia, and other Big 12 schools and The PAC 12 schools. The only areas Fox doesn't have is the South, and I guess the Mountain West, but don't know that they are interested in it.

Correct---but its still fairly limited inventory and there is nothing in the southeast.

(03-24-2017 09:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  At the very end of the day, there is no way to hand-waive away the concept that your pay is going to depend on your viewership.

You can always try to make the chicken/egg argument that if AAC teams were playing on the main channels in prime slots, they'd get those higher viewership numbers.

But that's not the way it works. You have to prove it first, then you get the goods.

Exactly---and those viewership numbers have been pretty darn good. That's why I think the AAC will get a nice raise. Now that everyone has seen what their ratings track record, they are going to be an attractive media property. Understand--nobody is going to give them P5 money---their numbers don't support that. But anything under 10 million a team is probably a viable number. At 4-6 million a team, they are great buy.

ESPN will have roughly 30 games from the Big 10, 30 from the Big 12, 20 from the Pac 12, 40 from the SEC and 50 from the ACC. That is 170. With 14 weeks in the season and 3 games on ESPN, 3 games on ESPN2 and 2 on ABC, that is only 112 time slots. They don't need the G5 to fill those slots. They've got some TH/F agreements and 1 regional game a week to handle the other 60 or so games as well as using ESPN3 for a lot of ACC games and occasionally selling other games, like a 2nd Texas game to the LHN.

For Fox, they will have roughly 80 from the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12, similar to ESPN. They only have 2 games on Fox about half the season along with 3 on FS1. 4.5 X14 is 63. So they have all they need. They have some agreements to show some games on TH/F. The Big 12, and presumably the Big 10 and Pac 12, don't allow their games to be broadcast on FS2 except to deal with game overruns or weather delays. Not enough distribution.

So that leaves ESPNU, ESPNNews and FS2 as the only places they can put any significant amount of G5 games (or T,W,TH,F).

(03-24-2017 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  At the very end of the day, there is no way to hand-waive away the concept that your pay is going to depend on your viewership.

You can always try to make the chicken/egg argument that if AAC teams were playing on the main channels in prime slots, they'd get those higher viewership numbers.

But that's not the way it works. You have to prove it first, then you get the goods.

Exactly---and those viewership numbers have been pretty darn good. That's why I think the AAC will get a nice raise. Now that everyone has seen what their ratings track record, they are going to be an attractive media property. Understand--nobody is going to give them P5 money---their numbers don't support that. But anything under 10 million a team is probably a viable number. At 4-6 million a team, they are great buy.

Amazing how you and I disagree on just about every aspect of the analysis as to how we get there (e.g., I disagree that ESPN is starving for inventory and that the AAC has proven itself to be a valuable property), but we still end up at the same place: I too expect the AAC's new deal to be for about $5m per school, per year.

(03-24-2017 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly---and those viewership numbers have been pretty darn good. That's why I think the AAC will get a nice raise. Now that everyone has seen what their ratings track record, they are going to be an attractive media property. Understand--nobody is going to give them P5 money---their numbers don't support that. But anything under 10 million a team is probably a viable number. At 4-6 million a team, they are great buy.

Devil's advocate:

the AAC ratings are merely a reflection of the slots and opportunities they have been given by ESPN.

In other words, put the MWC and CUSA in those slots instead, and ESPN gets just as good a product to show at those times.

Therefore, if AAC won't accept similar payment to what they have now, then they'll just give that amount to MWC and CUSA.

(03-24-2017 12:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly---and those viewership numbers have been pretty darn good. That's why I think the AAC will get a nice raise. Now that everyone has seen what their ratings track record, they are going to be an attractive media property. Understand--nobody is going to give them P5 money---their numbers don't support that. But anything under 10 million a team is probably a viable number. At 4-6 million a team, they are great buy.

Devil's advocate:

the AAC ratings are merely a reflection of the slots and opportunities they have been given by ESPN.

In other words, put the MWC and CUSA in those slots instead, and ESPN gets just as good a product to show at those times.

Therefore, if AAC won't accept similar payment to what they have now, then they'll just give that amount to MWC and CUSA.

Is the MW going to kick-off games at 9AM? They are already griping about the late 9:30 pm kicks. So, while some of the MW/AAC inventory is no doubt fungible, there are issues there. I think the reality (and common sense) tells us that the AAC represents the lions share of the better G5 inventory (certainly east of the Rockies). Additionally they have proven that they can get the ratings and that they have the flexibility to play where/when ESPN needs them. My guess is ESPN will reward that (just as they did the MAC). Its not a one way street---ESPN also locks up the inventory they need to fill those empty Big10 slots.

(03-24-2017 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  At the very end of the day, there is no way to hand-waive away the concept that your pay is going to depend on your viewership.

You can always try to make the chicken/egg argument that if AAC teams were playing on the main channels in prime slots, they'd get those higher viewership numbers.

But that's not the way it works. You have to prove it first, then you get the goods.

Exactly---and those viewership numbers have been pretty darn good. That's why I think the AAC will get a nice raise. Now that everyone has seen what their ratings track record, they are going to be an attractive media property. Understand--nobody is going to give them P5 money---their numbers don't support that. But anything under 10 million a team is probably a viable number. At 4-6 million a team, they are great buy.

Amazing how you and I disagree on just about every aspect of the analysis as to how we get there (e.g., I disagree that ESPN is starving for inventory and that the AAC has proven itself to be a valuable property), but we still end up at the same place: I too expect the AAC's new deal to be for about $5m per school, per year.

lol.. That is funny. Based on your comments, I really didn't think you were expecting any AAC increase. Good to see that you even believe a raise is coming.