(05-18-2017 10:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Hmmmm. So....the question is.....special deal? ....or shared revenue? That game was a big part of the reason I was certain we'd see bidding from major networks. So, regardless of the shared revenue answer----this announcement is a little troubling for the main media deal.

I do find it strange, this gets announced after Aresco extension. That was definately a strong game to be included as part of an AAC TV deal. I never would have seen this coming.

(05-18-2017 11:40 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Army-Navy is a non-conference game played at a neutral site. Right now, ESPN only has rights to conference controlled games, or in other words, conference and non-conference home games. It is spelled out very specifically on the AAC website. Hence, unless the game is played at Navy's home, it doesn't appear to fall under the ESPN contract. Now, CBS does have rights in AAC neutral site games. Whether the conference gets some money under that arrangement, who knows?

I don't think that is true. The AAC tv deal is all home games. Navy was still under the cbs deal before so they were never included. I'm assuming the next deal is with Navy minus army/navy game.

(05-18-2017 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:58 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  When Navy joined the American, they did so with all parties agreeing to make their media value whole. Either our contract would cover them, or they could sell the army-navy game. This just means the AAC contract at this point does not equal the estimated $10-million a year value of the Navy portion of the Army-Navy game - which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone as most comments on here hope for $5-8 million in the next contract.

They got 20 million a year for that game? Dang.....

No...those details have not yet been released, and the last contract was MUCH lower than that.

From Forbes (ce. 2012):

Quote:...Expect CBS to pay at least $10 million to keep the Army-Navy classic after 2018.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian...076fd91c07

So the last contract wasn't even at the $10M number for both teams...effectively what this dude is saying is they'll more than double the content cost for something that was the #8 national primetime broadcast for CBS in 16 weeks (6.1M viewers), basically an average game for them by bulk viewership for "prime" slots (5.8M viewers according to SMW). It wasn't even in the Top 20 most watched college football games by live viewers last year.

I'm still just hoping we can get $3M/year/team out of a network...we're NEVER getting above $6M.

(05-18-2017 11:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 11:40 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Army-Navy is a non-conference game played at a neutral site. Right now, ESPN only has rights to conference controlled games, or in other words, conference and non-conference home games. It is spelled out very specifically on the AAC website. Hence, unless the game is played at Navy's home, it doesn't appear to fall under the ESPN contract. Now, CBS does have rights in AAC neutral site games. Whether the conference gets some money under that arrangement, who knows?

I don't think that is true. The AAC tv deal is all home games. Navy was still under the cbs deal before so they were never included. I'm assuming the next deal is with Navy minus army/navy game.

From the AAC website:

"In football, the new contract will provide unprecedented national coverage for the league. In essence, the extensive national television coverage replaces previous syndication and local telecasts. All conference controlled games, which are conference games and non-conference home games, will be televised".

(05-18-2017 10:10 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I thought AAC was getting a piece of the Army/Navy TV pie after current deal?

That was a common incorrect assumption. I thought that Navy was pretty clear that the Army-Navy Game was *always* going to be a completely separate deal for them and that was a contingency on agreeing to enter into the AAC. The separate TV deal for Navy's other home games was a different matter - it was understood that those would be rolled into the overall AAC conference TV package once the current contract expires. The Army-Navy Game, though, was ALWAYS going to be treated differently. (And yes, I always found it hypocritical that Navy's AD loudly complained about Boise State getting a special offer when Navy knew that it was getting its own special offer of keeping all Army-Navy Game revenue.)

(05-18-2017 12:02 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:58 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  When Navy joined the American, they did so with all parties agreeing to make their media value whole. Either our contract would cover them, or they could sell the army-navy game. This just means the AAC contract at this point does not equal the estimated $10-million a year value of the Navy portion of the Army-Navy game - which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone as most comments on here hope for $5-8 million in the next contract.

They got 20 million a year for that game? Dang.....

No...those details have not yet been released, and the last contract was MUCH lower than that.

From Forbes (ce. 2012):

Quote:...Expect CBS to pay at least $10 million to keep the Army-Navy classic after 2018.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian...076fd91c07

So the last contract wasn't even at the $10M number for both teams...effectively what this dude is saying is they'll more than double the content cost for something that was the #8 national primetime broadcast for CBS in 16 weeks (6.1M viewers), basically an average game for them by bulk viewership for "prime" slots (5.8M viewers according to SMW). It wasn't even in the Top 20 most watched college football games by live viewers last year.

I'm still just hoping we can get $3M/year/team out of a network...we're NEVER getting above $6M.

The old contract was 5 million a year--2.5 million a team. That's why I was pretty surprised at the implication someone made that "Navy's share" of the new deal was 10 million a year (no idea what their source was for that).

(05-18-2017 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:10 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I thought AAC was getting a piece of the Army/Navy TV pie after current deal?

That was a common incorrect assumption. I thought that Navy was pretty clear that the Army-Navy Game was *always* going to be a completely separate deal for them and that was a contingency on agreeing to enter into the AAC. The separate TV deal for Navy's other home games was a different matter - it was understood that those would be rolled into the overall AAC conference TV package once the current contract expires. The Army-Navy Game, though, was ALWAYS going to be treated differently. (And yes, I always found it hypocritical that Navy's AD loudly complained about Boise State getting a special offer when Navy knew that it was getting its own special offer of keeping all Army-Navy Game revenue.)

Even if you are right what Bouse wanted was completely different. They weren't asking for one game that they had for years under a separate tv deal. They wanted their entire home games including those in conference to be treated as their own deal
Not even close to what Navy- Army game is

If I read the Forbes article right. Navy gets paid a little more for one TV game than others in the conference get for the entire season? Navy makes ~4.5 Million to the ~2 Million the other 11 for TV money. I am understanding that correctly?

(05-18-2017 12:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If I read the Forbes article right. Navy gets paid a little more for one TV game than others in the conference get for the entire season? Navy makes ~4.5 Million to the ~2 Million the other 11 for TV money. I am understanding that correctly?

That's what I thought. Can no longer find it---but I do remember that Navy was promised the move to the AAC would be "revenue neutral". How that's defined, I don't know. If they were making 4.5 million and our next contract is for 6 million a team----does that mean all revenue is shared because the 6 million exceeds the Navy revenue when they joined? Or--does "revenue neutral" mean that the revenue must equal what Navy could get for its rights at the time the new contract is signed? You see---"Revenue neutral" can be defined in different ways.

(05-18-2017 12:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If I read the Forbes article right. Navy gets paid a little more for one TV game than others in the conference get for the entire season? Navy makes ~4.5 Million to the ~2 Million the other 11 for TV money. I am understanding that correctly?

Ya, it's sort of like one AAC administrative employee making $1.7mm a year, almost as much as each school takes in .

(05-18-2017 12:30 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 12:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If I read the Forbes article right. Navy gets paid a little more for one TV game than others in the conference get for the entire season? Navy makes ~4.5 Million to the ~2 Million the other 11 for TV money. I am understanding that correctly?

Ya, it's sort of like one AAC administrative employee making $1.7mm a year, almost as much as each school takes in .

I'd be perfectly content doubling Aresco's salary, just to piss off the people who harp about how he's done nothing.

Would you rather have the MWC commish? C-USA?

What exactly does this guy have to do to be successful, beyond what he's already done?

Bottom line is that the Army-Navy game, with it's 100+ years of history and HUGE appeal, is one of the PREMIERE events in college sports. Of course neither Army or Navy would 'gift' that to a brand new struggling conference.

Navy, with or without any share of the A-N game, is still one of our most valuable schools.

That said, I do not support 'special' deals, like the kind of nonsense Boise tried... But I think we could all agree that the A-N game is a pretty unique exception to that logic.

(05-18-2017 12:47 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 12:30 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 12:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If I read the Forbes article right. Navy gets paid a little more for one TV game than others in the conference get for the entire season? Navy makes ~4.5 Million to the ~2 Million the other 11 for TV money. I am understanding that correctly?

Ya, it's sort of like one AAC administrative employee making $1.7mm a year, almost as much as each school takes in .

I'd be perfectly content doubling Aresco's salary, just to piss off the people who harp about how he's done nothing.

Would you rather have the MWC commish? C-USA?

What exactly does this guy have to do to be successful, beyond what he's already done?

CUSA and MWC budgets, markets and facilities are a massive step down.

What exactly has he done?

I mean he tries (yayyyy) he is just grossly overpaid. As a comp, should the SEC commish make $20mm a year based on their income.

(05-18-2017 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:10 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I thought AAC was getting a piece of the Army/Navy TV pie after current deal?

That was a common incorrect assumption. I thought that Navy was pretty clear that the Army-Navy Game was *always* going to be a completely separate deal for them and that was a contingency on agreeing to enter into the AAC. The separate TV deal for Navy's other home games was a different matter - it was understood that those would be rolled into the overall AAC conference TV package once the current contract expires. The Army-Navy Game, though, was ALWAYS going to be treated differently. (And yes, I always found it hypocritical that Navy's AD loudly complained about Boise State getting a special offer when Navy knew that it was getting its own special offer of keeping all Army-Navy Game revenue.)

Source? I' don't recall a single article that implied that.

That said, the OP isn't clear that none of the money goes to the AAC. If none of it goes to the AAC contract I'm not shocked at all.

(05-18-2017 10:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Hmmmm. So....the question is.....special deal? ....or shared revenue? That game was a big part of the reason I was certain we'd see bidding from major networks. So, regardless of the shared revenue answer----this announcement is a little troubling for the main media deal.

Very troubling!!!! Aresco????

I found this from the original Navy joining the Big East. You have to think there must have been an extension clause that allowed Navy to keep the game. Only question is it one time only or renewable end of each contract? I find it ironic, Aresco represented CBS at that time.

From the article

"The Army-Navy game remains on that second Saturday in December," he said.

Gladchuk also said that Navy's television deals with CBS and CBS Sports Network had to be accommodated by the Big East.

"Partnership with CBS was one of the reasons this agreement took a little time to finalize," he said.

CBS owns the TV rights to the Army-Navy game and Navy's home games against Notre Dame through 2018. Navy has a separate deal with CBS Sports Network for the TV rights to its other home games that runs through 2017.

"We have a great relationship with the academies, and our deals will be grandfathered for the length of our contracts" said Mike Aresco, executive vice president for programming at CBS Sports.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tball-2015

(05-18-2017 11:24 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:40 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Interesting....maybe they are getting a special deal.

Which is odd--because Gladchuk was the one who seemed most perturbed at the Boise request. Well, the only conclusion we can draw now is that the Army-Navy game will not be part of the AAC negotiations in the upcoming deal. Its premature to assume the Navy portion of the new CBS-deal is not being shared.

It does bring up a question. The Army-Navy game is genrally played at a neutral site. Are neutral site games ever even part of any conference package? For instance, did the "Advocare Kickoff" game in Houston own the rights to the 2016 Houston vs Oklahoma game ---or does the Big12? Or does the AAC? I actually don't know. I assumed the conference of the "home" team owned the rights---but that might not be correct. It might be that the Advocare Kickoff Game owns the rights (just like a bowl game).

This is what I recall. Gladchuk was probably one of the biggest people complaining about a special deal for Boise. Now if they keep all of the money for this game it would seem very odd that he would speak out about Boise. Maybe they will negotiate certain properties separately to maximize value and this will be rolled in. I have no idea of course.

That is in interesting question. I don't know who owns the tv rights to games like that. Seems like a lot more of these are popping up so i can't imagine tv partners saying we are ok losing a home game for Clemson or Bama or whomever so they can have this separate deal.

Gladchuk of Navy was very vocal about the "Boise sweetheart deal". I'll be happy to dig up old threads on this subject. What's our cut of this game? If Navy wants to be independent, they can go back to Indy like Army. Air Force is a part of the MWC and splits revenue with everyone.....I want answers or I want Aresco out.

(05-18-2017 12:47 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 12:30 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 12:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If I read the Forbes article right. Navy gets paid a little more for one TV game than others in the conference get for the entire season? Navy makes ~4.5 Million to the ~2 Million the other 11 for TV money. I am understanding that correctly?

Ya, it's sort of like one AAC administrative employee making $1.7mm a year, almost as much as each school takes in .

I'd be perfectly content doubling Aresco's salary, just to piss off the people who harp about how he's done nothing.

Would you rather have the MWC commish? C-USA?

What exactly does this guy have to do to be successful, beyond what he's already done?

I want Aresco out. No I don't want the CUSA or MWC commish. What does that have to do with anything?? I don't want pizza right now either. ??

(05-18-2017 01:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 11:24 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 10:40 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Interesting....maybe they are getting a special deal.

Which is odd--because Gladchuk was the one who seemed most perturbed at the Boise request. Well, the only conclusion we can draw now is that the Army-Navy game will not be part of the AAC negotiations in the upcoming deal. Its premature to assume the Navy portion of the new CBS-deal is not being shared.

It does bring up a question. The Army-Navy game is genrally played at a neutral site. Are neutral site games ever even part of any conference package? For instance, did the "Advocare Kickoff" game in Houston own the rights to the 2016 Houston vs Oklahoma game ---or does the Big12? Or does the AAC? I actually don't know. I assumed the conference of the "home" team owned the rights---but that might not be correct. It might be that the Advocare Kickoff Game owns the rights (just like a bowl game).

This is what I recall. Gladchuk was probably one of the biggest people complaining about a special deal for Boise. Now if they keep all of the money for this game it would seem very odd that he would speak out about Boise. Maybe they will negotiate certain properties separately to maximize value and this will be rolled in. I have no idea of course.

That is in interesting question. I don't know who owns the tv rights to games like that. Seems like a lot more of these are popping up so i can't imagine tv partners saying we are ok losing a home game for Clemson or Bama or whomever so they can have this separate deal.

Gladchuk of Navy was very vocal about the "Boise sweetheart deal". I'll be happy to dig up old threads on this subject. What's our cut of this game? If Navy wants to be independent, they can go back to Indy like Army. Air Force is a part of the MWC and splits revenue with everyone.....I want answers or I want Aresco out.

I'm not going to go this far since Navy even without the Army/Navy game is very valuable to the league.

Great for Navy, Right?

I think we relook at Boise. I honestly think we give them a sweat heart deal, and get them into AAC. I firmly believe that.

I also firmly believe we give SMU a sweetheart deal as well.

I also firmly believe we give SMU a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give Houston a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give USF a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give TULSA a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give Memphis a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give Wichita a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we do not give Tulane a sweetheart deal.
I also firmly believe we give UCONN a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give ECU a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give UCF a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give Cincy a sweetheart deal as well.
I also firmly believe we give Tempe a proposition to become the Parrots, or give their money to ECU.

Seriously however, We invite Boise.