John Gilbert on Pirate Radio

Scheduling talk starts at 15:50. Says that you're giving away too much when you schedule teams for 2 away and 1 at home with no money to either team. Said he'd rather do 1-1s, then do buy-games with the bigger teams on a very selective basis, keeping in mind that doing too many of those can have a negative impact.

Said he's looking for a money game in 2023. Said he went to Auburn and Alabama when he was at Southern Miss, and got just under $2m each.

Not necessarily saying I agree with it. I feel like it really limits your ability to get the better teams to your house, because our 1-1s would likely be a lot of G4s and lowest hanging fruit of the P5.

Also talked about the ESPN deal a little bit. Said that each team is guaranteed 2 linear basketball games, selective after that. Said that the league office will cover production costs of football games not picked up by linear networks, but we're on our own for the others. Each school is required to produce a minimum of 30 streamed contests (non-football). Expenses will be lower for teams are picked up by linear networks in sports like basketball.

Who is doing 2 for 1s for no money? Also, it appears as if buy game dollars are plateauing/tapering off. The Ark. St. AD has been one of the best in getting high dollar games and has said in multiple interviews that those are getting harder and harder to secure. Schools being more open to 2 for 1s probably doesn’t help in that regard.

(08-06-2019 08:59 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Who is doing 2 for 1s for no money? Also, it appears as if buy game dollars are plateauing/tapering off. The Ark. St. AD has been one of the best in getting high dollar games and has said in multiple interviews that those are getting harder and harder to secure. Schools being more open to 2 for 1s probably doesn’t help in that regard.

Yeah I didn't really get that. Most of the contracts I've seen have money exchanged on both sides, and one school will net more.

Yeah I personally don't have a problem with 2 for 1's. I think the key is structuring it so every year one of those games is a home game while one is on the road. Obviously the risk is the other team buying out that home game but that is a risk for 1 and 1's as well. I think several teams in our conference have done a good job getting some solid 2 for 1's.

It depends on who the 2-1 is with. For truly elite programs sure I'd be fine with a 2-1. I'm not fine with how we've allowed ourselves to get dicked around by mediocre ass South Carolina, and wouldn't want to set a precedent that we'd accept 2-1's with programs on the level of UNC or NC State.

(08-06-2019 09:24 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It depends on who the 2-1 is with. For truly elite programs sure I'd be fine with a 2-1. I'm not fine with how we've allowed ourselves to get dicked around by mediocre ass South Carolina, and wouldn't want to set a precedent that we'd accept 2-1's with programs on the level of UNC or NC State.

I think the reality is as ECU fans we've been really spoiled in the past with getting great 1-1's with teams like WVU and Va Tech. Now with more area teams in D1 like ODU, App State and Charlotte it's going to make getting those deals that much harder.

I do agree with you on teams like UNC and State, those are state schools that quite frankly our General Assembly should be requiring these games to happen on a regular basis as it's good for the state.

I fear that if we stick to the 1-1 deal we are going to see a lot of these deals be for non "P5 teams" like GA State, Marshall, etc.

as an eaxmple Tulane has a 2 for 1 with Oklahoma where Tulane is paid 1-2 mil for one game up there. The first was at OU in 17. OU will play @ Tulane is 2021 and Tulane will play the final game at OU in 2024.


Tulane a a 2 for 1s with money with:
K-State
Ole Miss

Tulane has future 1 for 1s with:
Iowa State
Miss State
Northwestern
Duke
Southern Miss
North Texas
Lousisana

Tulane 1 for 2s with:
South Alabama

(08-06-2019 09:39 AM)Poseidon Wrote:  as an eaxmple Tulane has a 2 for 1 with Oklahoma where Tulane is paid 1-2 mil for one game up there. The first was at OU in 17. OU will play @ Tulane is 2021 and Tulane will play the final game at OU in 2024.


Tulane a a 2 for 1s with money with:
K-State
Ole Miss

Tulane has future 1 for 1s with:
Iowa State
Miss State
Northwestern
Duke
Southern Miss
North Texas
Lousisana

Tulane 1 for 2s with:
South Alabama

Oklahoma is playing at Tulane as a showcase to area recruits. ECU may be in the vicinity of decent recruits from time to time but it certainly isn't somewhere a team like OU is going to travel just to fill out their schedule.

(08-06-2019 09:39 AM)Poseidon Wrote:  as an eaxmple Tulane has a 2 for 1 with Oklahoma where Tulane is paid 1-2 mil for one game up there. The first was at OU in 17. OU will play @ Tulane is 2021 and Tulane will play the final game at OU in 2024.


Tulane a a 2 for 1s with money with:
K-State
Ole Miss

Tulane has future 1 for 1s with:
Iowa State
Miss State
Northwestern
Duke
Southern Miss
North Texas
Lousisana

Tulane 1 for 2s with:
South Alabama

That's a nice balance. I would like to have something similar with ECU where we might get a couple of 2-1's with teams like Miami, Pitt, or Cuse who we have history of playing in the past.

(08-06-2019 09:24 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It depends on who the 2-1 is with. For truly elite programs sure I'd be fine with a 2-1. I'm not fine with how we've allowed ourselves to get dicked around by mediocre ass South Carolina, and wouldn't want to set a precedent that we'd accept 2-1's with programs on the level of UNC or NC State.

I really go back and forth on this. Depending on what mood I'm in that day, I'm ok with a 2:1 with Alabama or Ohio State or similar programs. For UCF in particular, I don't support a 2:1 with UF or FSU. We're part of the same system, and they can play us on equal terms. I'm never ok with a 2:1 with **** like Miami, Louisville, and whatever other garbage we've seen recently.

I think UCF's problem in filling our schedule right now is less the 1:1 requirement and more that the ACC teams that we usually schedule 1:1 don't want to play a tough OOC game against us. Danny should have filled up the schedule for 10 years when we were 0-12.

(08-06-2019 09:55 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 09:24 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It depends on who the 2-1 is with. For truly elite programs sure I'd be fine with a 2-1. I'm not fine with how we've allowed ourselves to get dicked around by mediocre ass South Carolina, and wouldn't want to set a precedent that we'd accept 2-1's with programs on the level of UNC or NC State.

I really go back and forth on this. Depending on what mood I'm in that day, I'm ok with a 2:1 with Alabama or Ohio State or similar programs. For UCF in particular, I don't support a 2:1 with UF or FSU. We're part of the same system, and they can play us on equal terms. I'm never ok with a 2:1 with **** like Miami, Louisville, and whatever other garbage we've seen recently.

I think UCF's problem in filling our schedule right now is less the 1:1 requirement and more that the ACC teams that we usually schedule 1:1 don't want to play a tough OOC game against us. Danny should have filled up the schedule for 10 years when we were 0-12.

I get the sentiment with UF and FSU, but they are national programs with multiple national championships. It would be similar if I said in hoops I would not accept a 2-1 with UNC, Duke, or NC State. It feels good to say but it's not reasonable. UF and FSU are in the probably 10-15 school list that I think is elite enough to make a 2-1 acceptable. The ECU fan below mentioning a 2-1 with Pitt or Cuse is exactly wrong that's not the type of program I'd ever accept one with. If as ECU you accept one with them UNC and NC State are going to rightfully say they are equal if not greater in stature than those 2 so why should we agree to equal terms.

(08-06-2019 10:20 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 09:55 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 09:24 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It depends on who the 2-1 is with. For truly elite programs sure I'd be fine with a 2-1. I'm not fine with how we've allowed ourselves to get dicked around by mediocre ass South Carolina, and wouldn't want to set a precedent that we'd accept 2-1's with programs on the level of UNC or NC State.

I really go back and forth on this. Depending on what mood I'm in that day, I'm ok with a 2:1 with Alabama or Ohio State or similar programs. For UCF in particular, I don't support a 2:1 with UF or FSU. We're part of the same system, and they can play us on equal terms. I'm never ok with a 2:1 with **** like Miami, Louisville, and whatever other garbage we've seen recently.

I think UCF's problem in filling our schedule right now is less the 1:1 requirement and more that the ACC teams that we usually schedule 1:1 don't want to play a tough OOC game against us. Danny should have filled up the schedule for 10 years when we were 0-12.

I get the sentiment with UF and FSU, but they are national programs with multiple national championships. It would be similar if I said in hoops I would not accept a 2-1 with UNC, Duke, or NC State. It feels good to say but it's not reasonable. UF and FSU are in the probably 10-15 school list that I think is elite enough to make a 2-1 acceptable. The ECU fan below mentioning a 2-1 with Pitt or Cuse is exactly wrong that's not the type of program I'd ever accept one with. If as ECU you accept one with them UNC and NC State are going to rightfully say they are equal if not greater in stature than those 2 so why should we agree to equal terms.

It's not a matter of what I want or what you perceive as fair, it's what you can get. I may be wrong (and would be glad if I was) but I can never see a Clemson, FSU or UF agreeing to even a 2 for 1 with ECU. Why would they? What benefit do they get. That's how you have to look at it. Then you look at your schedule so you are left with a couple of options. Either schedule a bunch of buy games and play these teams on the road and then schedule a lot of 1 and 1's with Marshalls, ODU, App St and Charlotte or you work some 2 for 1's in and tier your schedule so you get some teams like Miami, Cuse etc. on the schedule. I do think we can get some power 5 1 and 1's (I personally think we need to look at Big 10 teams) but it's becoming more and more difficult to expect everyone to sign a 1 and 1 with you.

(08-06-2019 09:03 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 08:59 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Who is doing 2 for 1s for no money? Also, it appears as if buy game dollars are plateauing/tapering off. The Ark. St. AD has been one of the best in getting high dollar games and has said in multiple interviews that those are getting harder and harder to secure. Schools being more open to 2 for 1s probably doesn’t help in that regard.

Yeah I didn't really get that. Most of the contracts I've seen have money exchanged on both sides, and one school will net more.

Right, so it sounds like the East Carolina AD is ready to take traditional two for ones. He just said it in a convoluted way.

With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

(08-06-2019 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

I don't know if it makes sense to use the amounts the SEC Network was paying Tennessee for a game to determine how much it costs to produce one.

(08-06-2019 12:11 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

I don't know if it makes sense to use the amounts the SEC Network was paying Tennessee for a game to determine how much it costs to produce one.

Well, he says that the "big difference" between the SEC and our deal and he says "every game is a line item expense" for our deal. Those statements would tend to imply every game wasnt a cost in the SEC (as the $3500 basically covered the cost--or darn close). Frankly, the $200-400K range is where I think these annual production costs are going to land. It think that primarily because so many FCS and D2 schools with tiny budgets have had this type of ESPN3/ESPN+ deal for years. The entire athletic budget for these schools is between 5-10 million. I absolutely guarantee you they are not spending between 20-40% of their entire athletic budget producing ESPN+ streams that probably only attract a few hundred viewers or less. No way in hell thats the case. My sense from my research is that these digital production costs actually run significantly less than comparable production costs for a linear network (like the SEC or ACC Networks).

(08-06-2019 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:11 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

I don't know if it makes sense to use the amounts the SEC Network was paying Tennessee for a game to determine how much it costs to produce one.

Well, he says that the "big difference" between the SEC and our deal and he says it "every game is a line item expense" for our deal. That would tend to imply it wasnt a cost in the SEC as the $3500 covered the cost (or darn close). Frankly, the $200-400K range is where I think these production costs are going to land. It think that primarily becasue so many FCS and D2 schools with tiny budgets have had this type of ESPN3/ESPN+ deal for years. The entire athletic budget for these schools is between 5-10 million. I absolutely guarantee you they are not spending 20-40% of their entire athletic budget producing ESPN+ streams that probably only attract a few hundred viewers. No way in hell thats the case.

Well the other thing I got out of his comments is that the better teams will be rewarded. The teams that play well and appear on the linear networks don't have to incur the cost of streaming as many of their games.

(08-06-2019 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:11 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

I don't know if it makes sense to use the amounts the SEC Network was paying Tennessee for a game to determine how much it costs to produce one.

Well, he says that the "big difference" between the SEC and our deal and he says "every game is a line item expense" for our deal. Those statements would tend to imply every game wasnt a cost in the SEC (as the $3500 basically covered the cost--or darn close). Frankly, the $200-400K range is where I think these annual production costs are going to land. It think that primarily because so many FCS and D2 schools with tiny budgets have had this type of ESPN3/ESPN+ deal for years. The entire athletic budget for these schools is between 5-10 million. I absolutely guarantee you they are not spending between 20-40% of their entire athletic budget producing ESPN+ streams that probably only attract a few hundred viewers or less. No way in hell thats the case. My sense from my research is that these digital production costs actually run significantly less than comparable production costs for a linear network (like the SEC or ACC Networks).

I think he just meant that we receive a flat payout rather than a per game amount. SEC teams got a number plus an amount per game produced. We just get a number, so anything over the minimum is an expense unless we can sell audio advertising or whatever (i.e. "We're now entering the Still Life Bar seventh inning stretch!").

(08-06-2019 01:59 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:11 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

I don't know if it makes sense to use the amounts the SEC Network was paying Tennessee for a game to determine how much it costs to produce one.

Well, he says that the "big difference" between the SEC and our deal and he says "every game is a line item expense" for our deal. Those statements would tend to imply every game wasnt a cost in the SEC (as the $3500 basically covered the cost--or darn close). Frankly, the $200-400K range is where I think these annual production costs are going to land. It think that primarily because so many FCS and D2 schools with tiny budgets have had this type of ESPN3/ESPN+ deal for years. The entire athletic budget for these schools is between 5-10 million. I absolutely guarantee you they are not spending between 20-40% of their entire athletic budget producing ESPN+ streams that probably only attract a few hundred viewers or less. No way in hell thats the case. My sense from my research is that these digital production costs actually run significantly less than comparable production costs for a linear network (like the SEC or ACC Networks).

I think he just meant that we receive a flat payout rather than a per game amount. SEC teams got a number plus an amount per game produced. We just get a number, so anything over the minimum is an expense unless we can sell audio advertising or whatever (i.e. "We're now entering the Still Life Bar seventh inning stretch!").

Shrug. Your free to believe small FCS schools are spending 20-40% of their total athletic budgets on producing ESPN3/+ streams that only a few hundred people at most will ever see. Those schools are stretching every dime they have. They simply aren’t spending 2 million a year on ESPN+ production costs. I’ve already found at least one article that pegs the cost in that 300K-ish range.

(08-06-2019 05:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:59 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:11 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  With regards to cost---he indicates that at Tennessee, the SEC gave the schools a payment for each event that covered the cost of the production. That payment was $3,500 per event.

It seems to me, we can use that Tennessee cost estimate to extrapolate a our own per school costs for ESPN+. John Gilbert says we will be responsible for 30 events per school in year one---so based on that Tennessee allowance, a reasonable estimate would be $105,000 (3500 x 30). As the contract ramps up, the league will be responsible for producing 1100 events per year. So, thats about 92 events per team. That would equate to $322K per year in production costs (3,500 x 92). I would also add that producing strreaming events is typically less costly than producing linear TV events like the SEC Network is doing. Thus, its fairly likely the AAC cost per event will be lower than the $3,500 per event SEC average. Either way---its not "2 miliion a year" as some would have us believe.

I don't know if it makes sense to use the amounts the SEC Network was paying Tennessee for a game to determine how much it costs to produce one.

Well, he says that the "big difference" between the SEC and our deal and he says "every game is a line item expense" for our deal. Those statements would tend to imply every game wasnt a cost in the SEC (as the $3500 basically covered the cost--or darn close). Frankly, the $200-400K range is where I think these annual production costs are going to land. It think that primarily because so many FCS and D2 schools with tiny budgets have had this type of ESPN3/ESPN+ deal for years. The entire athletic budget for these schools is between 5-10 million. I absolutely guarantee you they are not spending between 20-40% of their entire athletic budget producing ESPN+ streams that probably only attract a few hundred viewers or less. No way in hell thats the case. My sense from my research is that these digital production costs actually run significantly less than comparable production costs for a linear network (like the SEC or ACC Networks).

I think he just meant that we receive a flat payout rather than a per game amount. SEC teams got a number plus an amount per game produced. We just get a number, so anything over the minimum is an expense unless we can sell audio advertising or whatever (i.e. "We're now entering the Still Life Bar seventh inning stretch!").

Shrug. Your free to believe small FCS schools are spending 20-40% of their total athletic budgets on producing ESPN3/+ streams that only a few hundred people at most will ever see. Those schools are stretching every dime they have. They simply aren’t spending 2 million a year on ESPN+ production costs. I’ve already found at least one article that pegs the cost in that 300K-ish range.

I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying that Tennessee's revenue per stream number may or may not be a good indication of their cost to stream, and further how much it would cost one of our teams to produce a baseball game. Could be half that, could be double. Was only saying that it's not really a production cost baseline.