(03-20-2019 08:39 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  ESPN doesn't run anything. Nor would going with Fox or NBC hurt us. CBS runs college sports owning by far the two most valuable properties in SEC football and NCAA basketball. Fox has massive influence and three of the five P5 are on them.

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

(03-20-2019 09:03 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:39 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  ESPN doesn't run anything. Nor would going with Fox or NBC hurt us. CBS runs college sports owning by far the two most valuable properties in SEC football and NCAA basketball. Fox has massive influence and three of the five P5 are on them.

Over the past two years CBS has easily won the ratings war on college football.

They have a month of promotion including non-stop Thursday and Friday games for March Madness.

Notre Dame and NBC place two or three games in the ratings top 10 for football.

Fox literally owns 2/3rds of the P6 according to CBS.

ESPN is the old heavyweight champ well past his prime with a haymaker they throw out there and hopes it lands (cfp has falling ratings).

(03-20-2019 08:39 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:54 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:03 AM)Tigergary Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 12:25 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  This topic is hilarious. I swear most of those complaining have never probably had to sell assets to institutions and have them evaluated on open market. In this type of business you are worth what others say you are worth. Aresco was given the deal ESPN wanted to give him. There is no such thing as demanding from business what buisness will not give you.

For those of you complaining tell us what you would have done differently than Aresco did.

Negotiate using the open market. You want your product to be exposed. Not paid off to go away. ESPN is saying we will give you this amount, restrict your exposure over a 12 year contract knowing the landscape will be entirely different halfway through that contract. They are trying to suffocate half of the conference while keeping the upper half slightly viable until circumstances change where the top few will be indoctrinated into new expansions.

So if Fox paid more you would go with them? Why? No way we can go with anyone else other than ESPN. ESPN still punishing CUsa for going with Fox a decade ago. ESPN is the king of sports Especially for a league like ours.

I still have not seen a viable counter business plan in this thread.

ESPN doesn't run anything. Nor would going with Fox or NBC hurt us. CBS runs college sports owning by far the two most valuable properties in SEC football and NCAA basketball. Fox has massive influence and three of the five P5 are on them.

Again this may be the best deal but even so, the math does not work to pay the man 25% of what a program gets.

We are not the Sec or a P5 program . Cusa tried Fox a decade ago saying no to ESPN for more money from Fox. ESPN has never forgiven fhe conference and look what has happend to CUsa. We absolutely need ESPN as Fox snd CBs do not move the needle of influence or viewership.

(03-20-2019 09:24 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:39 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:54 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:03 AM)Tigergary Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 12:25 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  This topic is hilarious. I swear most of those complaining have never probably had to sell assets to institutions and have them evaluated on open market. In this type of business you are worth what others say you are worth. Aresco was given the deal ESPN wanted to give him. There is no such thing as demanding from business what buisness will not give you.

For those of you complaining tell us what you would have done differently than Aresco did.

Negotiate using the open market. You want your product to be exposed. Not paid off to go away. ESPN is saying we will give you this amount, restrict your exposure over a 12 year contract knowing the landscape will be entirely different halfway through that contract. They are trying to suffocate half of the conference while keeping the upper half slightly viable until circumstances change where the top few will be indoctrinated into new expansions.

So if Fox paid more you would go with them? Why? No way we can go with anyone else other than ESPN. ESPN still punishing CUsa for going with Fox a decade ago. ESPN is the king of sports Especially for a league like ours.

I still have not seen a viable counter business plan in this thread.

ESPN doesn't run anything. Nor would going with Fox or NBC hurt us. CBS runs college sports owning by far the two most valuable properties in SEC football and NCAA basketball. Fox has massive influence and three of the five P5 are on them.

Again this may be the best deal but even so, the math does not work to pay the man 25% of what a program gets.

We are not the Sec or a P5 program . Cusa tried Fox a decade ago saying no to ESPN for more money from Fox. ESPN has never forgiven fhe conference and look what has happend to CUsa. We absolutely need ESPN as Fox snd CBs do not move the needle of influence or viewership.

Hey how many of those CUSA teams are current CUSA teams?

They weren't punished lol, almost none of those schools were part of that deal with fox.



Also go and actually look at ratings before running your mouth. Fox isn't very far off from ESPN and CBS blows it out of the water, especially with March Madness.

(03-20-2019 09:43 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:24 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:39 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:54 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:03 AM)Tigergary Wrote:  Negotiate using the open market. You want your product to be exposed. Not paid off to go away. ESPN is saying we will give you this amount, restrict your exposure over a 12 year contract knowing the landscape will be entirely different halfway through that contract. They are trying to suffocate half of the conference while keeping the upper half slightly viable until circumstances change where the top few will be indoctrinated into new expansions.

So if Fox paid more you would go with them? Why? No way we can go with anyone else other than ESPN. ESPN still punishing CUsa for going with Fox a decade ago. ESPN is the king of sports Especially for a league like ours.

I still have not seen a viable counter business plan in this thread.

ESPN doesn't run anything. Nor would going with Fox or NBC hurt us. CBS runs college sports owning by far the two most valuable properties in SEC football and NCAA basketball. Fox has massive influence and three of the five P5 are on them.

Again this may be the best deal but even so, the math does not work to pay the man 25% of what a program gets.

We are not the Sec or a P5 program . Cusa tried Fox a decade ago saying no to ESPN for more money from Fox. ESPN has never forgiven fhe conference and look what has happend to CUsa. We absolutely need ESPN as Fox snd CBs do not move the needle of influence or viewership.

Hey how many of those CUSA teams are current CUSA teams?

They weren't punished lol, almost none of those schools were part of that deal with fox.



Also go and actually look at ratings before running your mouth. Fox isn't very far off from ESPN and CBS blows it out of the water, especially with March Madness.

Dear Internet tough guy,

Here are some stats.for you:

networks is below, but to answer the question in the headline since the last time I posted in December, in the January estimates ESPN was in 2.707 million more homes than FS1 and in the February estimates ESPN is in 2.925 million more homes than FS1. But while Fox Sports 1 shed another 328,000 households from January to February (compared to ESPN’s 110,000 household loss) Fox Sports 2 picked up nearly 4 million households in February.

ESPN has two million more households than Fox. Pretty clear ESPN is the way to go for maximum exposure.

(03-19-2019 07:17 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  fire him, he's a clown

This.

(03-20-2019 08:39 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:54 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:03 AM)Tigergary Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 12:25 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  This topic is hilarious. I swear most of those complaining have never probably had to sell assets to institutions and have them evaluated on open market. In this type of business you are worth what others say you are worth. Aresco was given the deal ESPN wanted to give him. There is no such thing as demanding from business what buisness will not give you.

For those of you complaining tell us what you would have done differently than Aresco did.

Negotiate using the open market. You want your product to be exposed. Not paid off to go away. ESPN is saying we will give you this amount, restrict your exposure over a 12 year contract knowing the landscape will be entirely different halfway through that contract. They are trying to suffocate half of the conference while keeping the upper half slightly viable until circumstances change where the top few will be indoctrinated into new expansions.

So if Fox paid more you would go with them? Why? No way we can go with anyone else other than ESPN. ESPN still punishing CUsa for going with Fox a decade ago. ESPN is the king of sports Especially for a league like ours.

I still have not seen a viable counter business plan in this thread.

ESPN doesn't run anything. Nor would going with Fox or NBC hurt us. CBS runs college sports owning by far the two most valuable properties in SEC football and NCAA basketball. Fox has massive influence and three of the five P5 are on them.

Again this may be the best deal but even so, the math does not work to pay the man 25% of what a program gets.

Will ESPN change the narrative of the AAC? More college gameday, graphics, lead stories?

A 400 % increase in revenue is a great business deal.

No.

(03-20-2019 09:04 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

Bought and sold 7. Currently in number 8. All 7 at profit and all what the market could bear.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-19-2019 11:44 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The deal problem is its length. Just think about all that has changed in the last six.

Aresco isn't taking a pay cut and he isn't worth 1.6, although I recall reading 1.8 some where when comparing him with the P5 commishes. I defer to slh though because his numbers always come with a source.

The issue isn't could anyone have got this deal. The issue is we don't need to pay someone 1.6 million to get this deal. His primary reason for being hired was to negotiate the media deals. He was paid based on his ability to produce there. He wasn't worth it. The market value as shorthanded by this message board was roughly this. It will certainly be much more than seven or eight million in twelve years which also carries us through two bowl cycles.

Obviously there has to be details to accurately judge, but unless he is taking like a 40% pay cut there is no reason to keep him around. He did not deliver at what his pay rate demands. So even if this was the best deal it makes no sense to retain a commish who is getting a 1/4 of a schools pay out in two years and nearly a schools pay out over the next two years.

I will wait till all final numbers are in before passing final judgement. Initially my reaction to this deal was negative considering Aresco's promoted skills and our actual proven ratings. At the end of the day I feel we'll be on the same page completely.

(03-20-2019 09:04 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

Problem with this comparison. We don't know what the AAC went in for an asking price. If the first offer is at or above your asking price, then yes you accept it.

If y'all are looking for a new conference commissioner we have one you will all just love:



She even can arrange her own transportation!

(03-20-2019 10:29 AM)MrCincy Wrote:  A 400 % increase in revenue is a great business deal.

Not when you were so dramatically underpaid. I will say this, 7-8 million is probably close to the value of the AAC TODAY, but when the P5's start renewing in 4-5 years, this deal is not going to be good, and when we are stuck with this amount for 12 freaking years, those singing Aresco's praises and this deals positives will be singing a different tune.

I am not saying we deserved P5 money. We don't have the numbers to prove it, but if we were going to stick almost exclusively with ESPN, I would have expected at least an escalator be added so we would be making $10-12 million by 2030-2032. We did not get that so I am ready for new leadership.

(03-20-2019 09:04 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

Don't want to get into a whole thing, because no one here really knows, but I seriously doubt that Aresco and everyone else involved were completely oblivious to the level of interest of other networks. They couldn't have any "official talks", but come on.

The first tv deal was a disaster. This is probably where we should have been at for the first. Now we are still underpaid, but not as drastically.

(03-20-2019 04:50 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:04 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

Don't want to get into a whole thing, because no one here really knows, but I seriously doubt that Aresco and everyone else involved were completely oblivious to the level of interest of other networks. They couldn't have any "official talks", but come on.

I don't see how anybody who has followed this over the years can think that. Well documented discussions with Amazon re: digital rights and CBS re: Navy come to mind, not to mention paid consultant presentations. I mean if that were truly the case, then they all should be fired.

(03-20-2019 10:51 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:04 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

Problem with this comparison. We don't know what the AAC went in for an asking price. If the first offer is at or above your asking price, then yes you accept it.

Not to mention---this differs significantly from selling a house in that we stated quite clearly coming into negotiations we WANTED to sell to a given buyer (ESPN). It may be a case where we had a fair price in mind and ESPN paid that price.

That said, this deal reminds me much more of the original Big East/ESPN deal we had in 2013. It had a lot more regional/ESPN3 action in it for football than the current deal. The new schools never played under that deal for basketball as the AAC deal began for basketball in that first 2013-2014 AAC season.

(03-20-2019 04:57 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 04:50 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:04 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 09:01 AM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  It just very simple. The value of the contract is what the market says it is. It's like selling a house. Not matter what you think it's worth, the value is what the market pays. Without a commitment with a GOR, the market play is $7m, maybe $8m with a new CBS buy for some BB.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

So you just take the first bid?

Have you ever sold a house?

Don't want to get into a whole thing, because no one here really knows, but I seriously doubt that Aresco and everyone else involved were completely oblivious to the level of interest of other networks. They couldn't have any "official talks", but come on.

I don't see how anybody who has followed this over the years can think that. Well documented discussions with Amazon re: digital rights and CBS re: Navy come to mind, not to mention paid consultant presentations. I mean if that were truly the case, then they all should be fired.

Right. A pretty believable scenario around the Navy rights discussions:

Aresco: "Hey, ESPN, I have these Navy games for 2018 and 2019 seasons. If you are interested in them, maybe we could work on an increase now along with an extension?"

ESPN: "We like what we are paying you now. When our exclusive negotiation comes up, we will talk then, but we will want LONG term if you can't get a GOR. Navy games have to be on Saturday? You know we value your teams on Thursday / Friday nights, right? Slate of 8-10 Thursday Friday games alone are worth about $20M. Notre Dame is the only Navy game we would REALLY be interested in...Those every other year games are probably worth about $5million of a total $83million per year deal, IF they were included. Maybe they get one good game a year, but the rest are going to ESPN+"

Aresco: "Okay. Good info."

Aresco: "Hey, Chet. REALLY gotta get those ND games for the main rights package. But ESPN isn't biting at your 2018-19 games. Sure you couldn't do some Thursday nights?"

Gladchuk: "Deal is a deal on the Saturdays, Mike. DC-Annapolis traffic, NIMBY neighbors, Midshipmens out on a weeknight misbehaving... Gotta be Saturdays. You know, CBSSN loves us...and we're trying to get our non-AAC sports on with them..."

Aresco: "We'll squeeze some juice from CBSSN for Navy games that don't interest ESPN. ND in the main package will make everyone better..."

Gladchuk: "OK, let's do this CBSSN thing."

CBSSN: "You know we value the Navy games. Not as much as we would value a full second tier of 6 Thursday night games and some Saturday noon windows in addition to the Navy 3:30, and 8 more evening games over a season. That sort of thing would be worth $x to us, but the Navy games in and of themselves...we're not just going to bridge the difference with your main contract - 10 years of Navy home games for $y."

Aresco and Gladchuk: "That's fine. You know ND is separate - either ala carte or part of the main package."

CBSSN: "Big brother CBS might want that, but not enough to get into a bidding war with ESPN for first tier. He's good with SEC."