(05-27-2017 03:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be fair, the issue is far simpler than its being made out. The AAC has delivered strong ratings at an incredibly low price. ESPN is MAKING a crap load of money off that contract. Even at double or triple the price, they still get 75% of the P5 ratings at about 20%-30% of the P5 going rate. Thats NOT the type of deal ESPN is looking to get rid of---thats actually the type of deal ESPN needs MORE of. Thats why, I for one, wont be surprised if ESPN comes knocking on the CUSA door.
Why not? Your giving it to ASN for free. ESPN-3 is pretty good platform and they would actually PAY a few million for the content.

Wouldn't surprise me either... but I believe that on the last round the Conference made a conscious decision to go with an alternate provider (I.e. Not ESPN) in order to keep more of our marquee games on Saturday late afternoon or evenings. Without the bigger $$ in play it simply made more sense to prioritize and value the gate with respect to revenue.

I think CUSA will continue this strategy for at least the near term. That's good news for fans.



I KNOW (per Boren's comments) that the old B12 contract had a clause automatically prorating up TV payments if the B12 expanded by two.
I know that B12 interviewed 11 potential expansion targets.
I believe that the B12 renegotiated their TV contract to a marginally higher value than before (but WITHOUT the automatic pro-rata expansion bump).
From this we can deduce that, most likely, the B12 used this clause as a bargaining chip to get a slightly larger contract (calling this a "payoff" seems a fair characterization).
But I don't think the B12 really wanted to expand last year, payoff or not. Another theory is that they chose not to in order to retain the good favor of their broadcast partners.

Though I'm too lazy to go back for documentation, this was my understanding of the Big12's deal with Espn--the pro-rata clause was bought out in exchange for $10 million. It makes perfect sense--why on earth would ESPN want to shell out another $20 million for Houston when they already get the entire AAC for only a slight bit more? I also agree that the Big12's expansion plans were suspect, at best.

I also agree that assuming ESPN is hurting for money, it wouldn't make any sense for them to lowball the AAC's next contract negotiations. The AAC's average rated games drew 730,000 viewers which is more than the MAC and MWC combined, so imho ESPN is making a good deal of money out of the present deal. If it goes to the open market why would a company "hurting for money" let that account go?

As another poster said, the same can be said of Cusa--with the low dollar amount paid to the Cusa schools the media is making out like a bandit.

My point is that to some extent it can be said that the golden goose for media and sports are the lowly G5's. I suspect that the really thin profit margins are with the exorbitant P5 accounts.

(05-27-2017 06:19 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 03:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be fair, the issue is far simpler than its being made out. The AAC has delivered strong ratings at an incredibly low price. ESPN is MAKING a crap load of money off that contract. Even at double or triple the price, they still get 75% of the P5 ratings at about 20%-30% of the P5 going rate. Thats NOT the type of deal ESPN is looking to get rid of---thats actually the type of deal ESPN needs MORE of. Thats why, I for one, wont be surprised if ESPN comes knocking on the CUSA door.
Why not? Your giving it to ASN for free. ESPN-3 is pretty good platform and they would actually PAY a few million for the content.

Wouldn't surprise me either... but I believe that on the last round the Conference made a conscious decision to go with an alternate provider (I.e. Not ESPN) in order to keep more of our marquee games on Saturday late afternoon or evenings. Without the bigger $$ in play it simply made more sense to prioritize and value the gate with respect to revenue.

I think CUSA will continue this strategy for at least the near term. That's good news for fans.



I KNOW (per Boren's comments) that the old B12 contract had a clause automatically prorating up TV payments if the B12 expanded by two.
I know that B12 interviewed 11 potential expansion targets.
I believe that the B12 renegotiated their TV contract to a marginally higher value than before (but WITHOUT the automatic pro-rata expansion bump).
From this we can deduce that, most likely, the B12 used this clause as a bargaining chip to get a slightly larger contract (calling this a "payoff" seems a fair characterization).
But I don't think the B12 really wanted to expand last year, payoff or not. Another theory is that they chose not to in order to retain the good favor of their broadcast partners.

Though I'm too lazy to go back for documentation, this was my understanding of the Big12's deal with Espn--the pro-rata clause was bought out in exchange for $10 million. It makes perfect sense--why on earth would ESPN want to shell out another $20 million for Houston when they already get the entire AAC for only a slight bit more? I also agree that the Big12's expansion plans were suspect, at best.

I also agree that assuming ESPN is hurting for money, it wouldn't make any sense for them to lowball the AAC's next contract negotiations. The AAC's average rated games drew 730,000 viewers which is more than the MAC and MWC combined, so imho ESPN is making a good deal of money out of the present deal. If it goes to the open market why would a company "hurting for money" let that account go?

As another poster said, the same can be said of Cusa--with the low dollar amount paid to the Cusa schools the media is making out like a bandit.

My point is that to some extent it can be said that the golden goose for media and sports are the lowly G5's. I suspect that the really thin profit margins are with the exorbitant P5 accounts.

Those viewership numbers have more to do with the times slots of games and the network the game is on more than the "draw" of the actual teams playing. ESPN is the "default" go to channel for sports in restaurants, bars, and homes regardless of who is playing. It's hard to get an accurate number on what teams are actually "drawing" based on those viewership numbers.

(05-27-2017 09:48 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 06:19 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 03:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be fair, the issue is far simpler than its being made out. The AAC has delivered strong ratings at an incredibly low price. ESPN is MAKING a crap load of money off that contract. Even at double or triple the price, they still get 75% of the P5 ratings at about 20%-30% of the P5 going rate. Thats NOT the type of deal ESPN is looking to get rid of---thats actually the type of deal ESPN needs MORE of. Thats why, I for one, wont be surprised if ESPN comes knocking on the CUSA door.
Why not? Your giving it to ASN for free. ESPN-3 is pretty good platform and they would actually PAY a few million for the content.

Wouldn't surprise me either... but I believe that on the last round the Conference made a conscious decision to go with an alternate provider (I.e. Not ESPN) in order to keep more of our marquee games on Saturday late afternoon or evenings. Without the bigger $$ in play it simply made more sense to prioritize and value the gate with respect to revenue.

I think CUSA will continue this strategy for at least the near term. That's good news for fans.



I KNOW (per Boren's comments) that the old B12 contract had a clause automatically prorating up TV payments if the B12 expanded by two.
I know that B12 interviewed 11 potential expansion targets.
I believe that the B12 renegotiated their TV contract to a marginally higher value than before (but WITHOUT the automatic pro-rata expansion bump).
From this we can deduce that, most likely, the B12 used this clause as a bargaining chip to get a slightly larger contract (calling this a "payoff" seems a fair characterization).
But I don't think the B12 really wanted to expand last year, payoff or not. Another theory is that they chose not to in order to retain the good favor of their broadcast partners.

Though I'm too lazy to go back for documentation, this was my understanding of the Big12's deal with Espn--the pro-rata clause was bought out in exchange for $10 million. It makes perfect sense--why on earth would ESPN want to shell out another $20 million for Houston when they already get the entire AAC for only a slight bit more? I also agree that the Big12's expansion plans were suspect, at best.

I also agree that assuming ESPN is hurting for money, it wouldn't make any sense for them to lowball the AAC's next contract negotiations. The AAC's average rated games drew 730,000 viewers which is more than the MAC and MWC combined, so imho ESPN is making a good deal of money out of the present deal. If it goes to the open market why would a company "hurting for money" let that account go?

As another poster said, the same can be said of Cusa--with the low dollar amount paid to the Cusa schools the media is making out like a bandit.

My point is that to some extent it can be said that the golden goose for media and sports are the lowly G5's. I suspect that the really thin profit margins are with the exorbitant P5 accounts.

Those viewership numbers have more to do with the times slots of games and the network the game is on more than the "draw" of the actual teams playing. ESPN is the "default" go to channel for sports in restaurants, bars, and homes regardless of who is playing. It's hard to get an accurate number on what teams are actually "drawing" based on those viewership numbers.

Look up sports media watch, and any given Saturday usually at the bottom are AAC teams like ECU, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa with terrible ratings.

Now lump in Navy with the AAC, who has their own TV contract, and their avg jumps up. Yes Navy is a good draw but they currently have a separate contract.

It's not about whether you perceive ESPN as getting a "good deal" with the AAC, it is about ESPN setting the market price as low as possible, that's why they paid the Big 12 not to accept AAC teams. No other network is going to pay more than it has to, that's how negotiations work. AAC has no leverage and ESPN will set the market price as low as possible.

(05-27-2017 11:24 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:48 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 06:19 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 03:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be fair, the issue is far simpler than its being made out. The AAC has delivered strong ratings at an incredibly low price. ESPN is MAKING a crap load of money off that contract. Even at double or triple the price, they still get 75% of the P5 ratings at about 20%-30% of the P5 going rate. Thats NOT the type of deal ESPN is looking to get rid of---thats actually the type of deal ESPN needs MORE of. Thats why, I for one, wont be surprised if ESPN comes knocking on the CUSA door.
Why not? Your giving it to ASN for free. ESPN-3 is pretty good platform and they would actually PAY a few million for the content.

Wouldn't surprise me either... but I believe that on the last round the Conference made a conscious decision to go with an alternate provider (I.e. Not ESPN) in order to keep more of our marquee games on Saturday late afternoon or evenings. Without the bigger $$ in play it simply made more sense to prioritize and value the gate with respect to revenue.

I think CUSA will continue this strategy for at least the near term. That's good news for fans.



I KNOW (per Boren's comments) that the old B12 contract had a clause automatically prorating up TV payments if the B12 expanded by two.
I know that B12 interviewed 11 potential expansion targets.
I believe that the B12 renegotiated their TV contract to a marginally higher value than before (but WITHOUT the automatic pro-rata expansion bump).
From this we can deduce that, most likely, the B12 used this clause as a bargaining chip to get a slightly larger contract (calling this a "payoff" seems a fair characterization).
But I don't think the B12 really wanted to expand last year, payoff or not. Another theory is that they chose not to in order to retain the good favor of their broadcast partners.

Though I'm too lazy to go back for documentation, this was my understanding of the Big12's deal with Espn--the pro-rata clause was bought out in exchange for $10 million. It makes perfect sense--why on earth would ESPN want to shell out another $20 million for Houston when they already get the entire AAC for only a slight bit more? I also agree that the Big12's expansion plans were suspect, at best.

I also agree that assuming ESPN is hurting for money, it wouldn't make any sense for them to lowball the AAC's next contract negotiations. The AAC's average rated games drew 730,000 viewers which is more than the MAC and MWC combined, so imho ESPN is making a good deal of money out of the present deal. If it goes to the open market why would a company "hurting for money" let that account go?

As another poster said, the same can be said of Cusa--with the low dollar amount paid to the Cusa schools the media is making out like a bandit.

My point is that to some extent it can be said that the golden goose for media and sports are the lowly G5's. I suspect that the really thin profit margins are with the exorbitant P5 accounts.

Those viewership numbers have more to do with the times slots of games and the network the game is on more than the "draw" of the actual teams playing. ESPN is the "default" go to channel for sports in restaurants, bars, and homes regardless of who is playing. It's hard to get an accurate number on what teams are actually "drawing" based on those viewership numbers.

Look up sports media watch, and any given Saturday usually at the bottom are AAC teams like ECU, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa with terrible ratings.

Now lump in Navy with the AAC, who has their own TV contract, and their avg jumps up. Yes Navy is a good draw but they currently have a separate contract.

It's not about whether you perceive ESPN as getting a "good deal" with the AAC, it is about ESPN setting the market price as low as possible, that's why they paid the Big 12 not to accept AAC teams. No other network is going to pay more than it has to, that's how negotiations work. AAC has no leverage and ESPN will set the market price as low as possible.

As I said, ESPN is making a crap load of money off the AAC contract. The other networks know this as well. ESPN can set the market low if they like--but it wont work. Think about it---How'd that work for them with the Big10?

Now, granted, we aren't the Big10 (no where close), but we do provide pretty solid ratings for a very economical price.

That wasnt a known fact last time around. Now that it is, a low ball offer is likely to leave ESPN empty handed. NBC still has no FBS content beyond Notre Dame---so it would be pretty easy for NBC to snake ESPN (a little payback). Also---keep in mind that ESPN's "right to match" clause is gone this time around (this is the essentially the NBC contract that ESPN matched)---so that low ball idea is alot more dangerous.

Dont forget buyers like CBS-Sports (who already buys AAC content) and deep pocketed buyers like Amazon (a high performance/relatively low cost conference would be an interesting property for them)are also lurking.

So, frankly, I dont think the low ball strategy will work as well this time around mainly because the AAC now has a track record of posting some pretty good ratings numbers, there are more bidders interested, and there is no "right to match".

My guess is ESPN will avoid the whole bidding issue. I think they will offer an early extension thats not spectacular---but is high enough that the AAC presidents will have some real concerns that they may not be able to match that in the open market. Im thinking it will take 5-6 million a team to get the presidents to pass on going to the open market. If Im right, we will probably know within the next 12 months or so....interesting times.

(05-27-2017 11:24 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:48 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 06:19 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 03:12 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be fair, the issue is far simpler than its being made out. The AAC has delivered strong ratings at an incredibly low price. ESPN is MAKING a crap load of money off that contract. Even at double or triple the price, they still get 75% of the P5 ratings at about 20%-30% of the P5 going rate. Thats NOT the type of deal ESPN is looking to get rid of---thats actually the type of deal ESPN needs MORE of. Thats why, I for one, wont be surprised if ESPN comes knocking on the CUSA door.
Why not? Your giving it to ASN for free. ESPN-3 is pretty good platform and they would actually PAY a few million for the content.

Wouldn't surprise me either... but I believe that on the last round the Conference made a conscious decision to go with an alternate provider (I.e. Not ESPN) in order to keep more of our marquee games on Saturday late afternoon or evenings. Without the bigger $$ in play it simply made more sense to prioritize and value the gate with respect to revenue.

I think CUSA will continue this strategy for at least the near term. That's good news for fans.



I KNOW (per Boren's comments) that the old B12 contract had a clause automatically prorating up TV payments if the B12 expanded by two.
I know that B12 interviewed 11 potential expansion targets.
I believe that the B12 renegotiated their TV contract to a marginally higher value than before (but WITHOUT the automatic pro-rata expansion bump).
From this we can deduce that, most likely, the B12 used this clause as a bargaining chip to get a slightly larger contract (calling this a "payoff" seems a fair characterization).
But I don't think the B12 really wanted to expand last year, payoff or not. Another theory is that they chose not to in order to retain the good favor of their broadcast partners.

Though I'm too lazy to go back for documentation, this was my understanding of the Big12's deal with Espn--the pro-rata clause was bought out in exchange for $10 million. It makes perfect sense--why on earth would ESPN want to shell out another $20 million for Houston when they already get the entire AAC for only a slight bit more? I also agree that the Big12's expansion plans were suspect, at best.

I also agree that assuming ESPN is hurting for money, it wouldn't make any sense for them to lowball the AAC's next contract negotiations. The AAC's average rated games drew 730,000 viewers which is more than the MAC and MWC combined, so imho ESPN is making a good deal of money out of the present deal. If it goes to the open market why would a company "hurting for money" let that account go?

As another poster said, the same can be said of Cusa--with the low dollar amount paid to the Cusa schools the media is making out like a bandit.

My point is that to some extent it can be said that the golden goose for media and sports are the lowly G5's. I suspect that the really thin profit margins are with the exorbitant P5 accounts.

Those viewership numbers have more to do with the times slots of games and the network the game is on more than the "draw" of the actual teams playing. ESPN is the "default" go to channel for sports in restaurants, bars, and homes regardless of who is playing. It's hard to get an accurate number on what teams are actually "drawing" based on those viewership numbers.

Look up sports media watch, and any given Saturday usually at the bottom are AAC teams like ECU, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa with terrible ratings.

Now lump in Navy with the AAC, who has their own TV contract, and their avg jumps up. Yes Navy is a good draw but they currently have a separate contract.

It's not about whether you perceive ESPN as getting a "good deal" with the AAC, it is about ESPN setting the market price as low as possible, that's why they paid the Big 12 not to accept AAC teams. No other network is going to pay more than it has to, that's how negotiations work. AAC has no leverage and ESPN will set the market price as low as possible.

Agree on time and network and why it is so important to be in those slots. Another is number of games shown. It is telling that ABC/ESPN opt to air more AAC games than they are obligated to on higher channels than required while choosing to only meet min. scheduling requirements of the other conferences. From a business perspective, this speaks volumes to me. Now, whether or not that results in more $ down the road remains to be seen, but as they are not a charity it's clear they value AAC content (in the context of available G5 content as a whole).

Tulsa and SMU ave. viewership numbers would only be lower half in one conference (MWC) and top of the bottom at that. At 364,750 and 334,667 ave. respectively, they would either be near tops or top half in the other conferences. ECU didn't make it to ESPNU so didn't have any conference games on rated channels. Which speaks to the point of if you don't perform, you don't get selected.

Navy controlled games are not included in AAC ave. numbers. The only games in those numbers are Navy conference away games which will always be a part of the AAC package (and yes they do draw well). The next contract looks to include all Navy games outside the Army game.

2016 conference viewership numbers can be found here: http://csnbbs.com/thread-817438.html