(03-20-2019 10:36 AM)MU88 Wrote: Looking at the tax records, NCAA units, etc. It looks like the conference will have about $50 million extra to distribute each year from, e.g., 2017. The conference will earn about $60 more in media money as compared to 2017 according to tax records, but lose about $10-11 million this year in revenue from NCAA tourney units as compared to 2017 with the BE credits continuing to drop off. It will drop a bit more next year too, unless a couple teams have nice runs in this year's tourney (the conference earn 18 units in 2013 due to Louisville's title and Marquette's elite 8 appearance). So, each school, on average, will receive an extra $4 million or so per year over their 2017 income. Should help the budgets a bit a some schools. Not sure it is going to make much of a dent in the finances at a place like UConn.
Marquette's run stuck with the Big East schools- as did all the C7 runs that year. Of those 18 units, 7 went to the C7 schools and ND. So 11 is the number the AAC is targeting....
It's not clear to me that Navy is offering any of its home football games in this package. $6.94 assumes that Navy and Wichita combine to take a full share.
According to this article, the AAC gets Navy's games with Notre Dame plus the choice of one Navy home game every year excluding its home games Air Force. Army-Navy also stays with CBS. https://www.capitalgazette.com/g00/sport...story.html
Doesn't that free up a portion of its share of the contract for the other football schools? The ND game is undoubtedly valuable, but it's not worth $14 million.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2019 11:28 AM by orangefan.)
(03-19-2019 11:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Give Aresco credit for getting as good a deal as he could.
To me, the deal validates my view that Aresco is vastly overpaid. He makes $1.8m a year, which is in the "P5 range".
Six years ago, when Aresco signed the peanuts deal, we were told that given the instability of the conference and a lack of a track record, God Himself couldn't have gotten us a better deal. So we would be paying Aresco a P5-level salary for seven years in hopes that in 2020, his TV magic would deliver a big deal, a "P5 range" deal as he said a few months back.
But if the media reports are correct, Aresco has signed a deal that you or I could have negotiated. It's not a P5-range deal. it is a deal that merely meets what our ratings over the past six years would warrant.
And, we had to make concessions on exposure - moving content to ESPN+ - to get it.
And, the $7m a year figure is for 12 long years.
And apparently, there was no "bump" in this deal for the last year of the current contract, which some around here were touting.
My hope at this point is that Aresco will retire, but given how much he makes for how little he achieves, that is unlikely. The only contract Aresco has ever signed that is in the P5 "range and conversation" is his own.
We dont know that. Its worth noting, the number in the Memphis project that was "just a placeholder" turned out to be dead on accurate. I wont be a bit surprised if the 20 million increase in the last season of the current AAC deal the Memphis projection also showed is accurate as well.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2019 11:26 AM by Attackcoog.)
think one point about ESPN+. I'd venture a guess that already close to a majority of the total AAC games were aired on ESPN3. Folks are acting like half the conference games are going to be on ESPN+. Sorry but I do not think so at all.... The total AAC games includes all the dreg OOC games.....
(03-20-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote: Marquette's run stuck with the Big East schools- as did all the C7 runs that year. Of those 18 units, 7 went to the C7 schools and ND. So 11 is the number the AAC is targeting....
Under NCAA rules, unless a conference disbands, the units stayed with the conference, not the schools.
(03-20-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote: Marquette's run stuck with the Big East schools- as did all the C7 runs that year. Of those 18 units, 7 went to the C7 schools and ND. So 11 is the number the AAC is targeting....
Under NCAA rules, unless a conference disbands, the units stayed with the conference, not the schools.
The leagues came up with an agreement where the C7 units stuck with them...... Part of the divorce agreement. Now, the AAC may get paid for them, but the AAC then confers that money to the Big East.
(03-20-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote: Marquette's run stuck with the Big East schools- as did all the C7 runs that year. Of those 18 units, 7 went to the C7 schools and ND. So 11 is the number the AAC is targeting....
Under NCAA rules, unless a conference disbands, the units stayed with the conference, not the schools.
The leagues came up with an agreement where the C7 units stuck with them...... Part of the divorce agreement. Now, the AAC may get paid for them, but the AAC then confers that money to the Big East.
Correct. The NCAA probably does actually send the credit money to the AAC (the successor to the Big East) and then the AAC has to pay them out to the Big East per the agreed upon divorce decree.
(03-20-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote: Marquette's run stuck with the Big East schools- as did all the C7 runs that year. Of those 18 units, 7 went to the C7 schools and ND. So 11 is the number the AAC is targeting....
Under NCAA rules, unless a conference disbands, the units stayed with the conference, not the schools.
The leagues came up with an agreement where the C7 units stuck with them...... Part of the divorce agreement. Now, the AAC may get paid for them, but the AAC then confers that money to the Big East.
Correct. The NCAA probably does actually send the credit money to the AAC (the successor to the Big East) and then the AAC has to pay them out to the Big East per the agreed upon divorce decree.
Memory is unreliable, and was not based on rock-solid sourcing, but I've seen someone argue using tax forms from the conferences or schools that the Big East distributions look like we're not getting the C7 credits (implying that they were part of the price of the Big East name, MSG contract and IP).
I do believe that multiple sources familiar with the pre-nup agreed that the credits were to be the property of the side or faction that earned them. But the issue of the name was not addressed in the pre-nup, and the exit fees and left-behind credits were definitely up in the air.
ESPN+ doesn't have a huge subscriber base right now although it will grow.
Games on ESPN+ are not a bad thing. I'll bet you anything that Power schools will have to move some of their games to the platform soon enough. It's what ESPN will have to do in order to drive up the subs.
But to be honest, how many people watched ESPN3 anyway? I remember numerous people on this board asking what the difference was between ESPN3 and ESPN+. That was true even though most people on this board are going to be dedicated fans. Consider that in light of the average fan? How many of them made ESPN3 a destination?
And I wouldn't worry about losing any games on CBS Sports Network...it's not a go-to especially considering ESPN wasn't going to cross promote for them. How many people tune into that network on a Saturday when the prime games are all on ESPN or FS1 or one of the broadcast networks? Some days, I wonder why CBS even continues the channel.
(03-20-2019 01:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: ESPN+ doesn't have a huge subscriber base right now although it will grow.
Games on ESPN+ are not a bad thing. I'll bet you anything that Power schools will have to move some of their games to the platform soon enough. It's what ESPN will have to do in order to drive up the subs.
But to be honest, how many people watched ESPN3 anyway? I remember numerous people on this board asking what the difference was between ESPN3 and ESPN+. That was true even though most people on this board are going to be dedicated fans. Consider that in light of the average fan? How many of them made ESPN3 a destination?
And I wouldn't worry about losing any games on CBS Sports Network...it's not a go-to especially considering ESPN wasn't going to cross promote for them. How many people tune into that network on a Saturday when the prime games are all on ESPN or FS1 or one of the broadcast networks? Some days, I wonder why CBS even continues the channel.
yeah, especially when they have as their 4th channel TruTV rather than CBSSN for the NCAA tourney. If not then, when?
(03-20-2019 01:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: ESPN+ doesn't have a huge subscriber base right now although it will grow.
Games on ESPN+ are not a bad thing. I'll bet you anything that Power schools will have to move some of their games to the platform soon enough. It's what ESPN will have to do in order to drive up the subs.
But to be honest, how many people watched ESPN3 anyway? I remember numerous people on this board asking what the difference was between ESPN3 and ESPN+. That was true even though most people on this board are going to be dedicated fans. Consider that in light of the average fan? How many of them made ESPN3 a destination?
And I wouldn't worry about losing any games on CBS Sports Network...it's not a go-to especially considering ESPN wasn't going to cross promote for them. How many people tune into that network on a Saturday when the prime games are all on ESPN or FS1 or one of the broadcast networks? Some days, I wonder why CBS even continues the channel.
yeah, especially when they have as their 4th channel TruTV rather than CBSSN for the NCAA tourney. If not then, when?
Finding out that decision was pretty much the moment I realized CBS doesn't give a crap about their sports channel. CBS News (online only) is promoted WAY more than CBSSN. Hell, CBS Sport HQ is promoted more than CBSSN
(03-20-2019 01:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: ESPN+ doesn't have a huge subscriber base right now although it will grow.
Games on ESPN+ are not a bad thing. I'll bet you anything that Power schools will have to move some of their games to the platform soon enough. It's what ESPN will have to do in order to drive up the subs.
But to be honest, how many people watched ESPN3 anyway? I remember numerous people on this board asking what the difference was between ESPN3 and ESPN+. That was true even though most people on this board are going to be dedicated fans. Consider that in light of the average fan? How many of them made ESPN3 a destination?
And I wouldn't worry about losing any games on CBS Sports Network...it's not a go-to especially considering ESPN wasn't going to cross promote for them. How many people tune into that network on a Saturday when the prime games are all on ESPN or FS1 or one of the broadcast networks? Some days, I wonder why CBS even continues the channel.
Kansas already has its' third tier there. Duke had a preseason Canadian tour and a docuseries on ESPN+
(03-19-2019 11:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Pretty harsh. As I said on the AAC board---the devil is in the details. The biggest exposure loss is losing 13 games that were nationally televised on CBS-Sports (with 50-60 million subscribers)
I continue to disagree--that's not much of a loss. The only people watching on CBS-SN were old CUSA fans used to watching games on CBS-SN.
Quote: However, something I also said would matter---which has been ignored by many, was an increase in the number of ABC Saturday games. If the AAC gets that number up to 10-12 ABC games over the season---thats nearly one ABC appearance for every week of the season.
Yeah, I don't see any reason to expect that.
Quote:Thats a very big deal for the AAC and is the kind of exposure reserved for big boy P5 conferences.
Which is why I don't expect that to happen. I'm guessing 6 guaranteed ABC games, not including CCG.
(03-20-2019 12:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:
(03-19-2019 11:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: The biggest exposure loss is losing 13 games that were nationally televised on CBS-Sports (with 50-60 million subscribers) and move them to ESPN+ which has barely 2 million subscribers.
That's either no loss or a microscopically small loss. Forget the subscriber numbers -- almost no one is watching CBSSN. If CBSSN had audiences as large as the smallest Nielsen sports audiences, they would subscribe to Nielsen ratings, but they don't. What are the smallest measured Nielsen audiences for CFB? 300,000 viewers or less, per Sports Media Watch. ESPN+'s subscriber base will grow, your fans will be able to watch every single AAC game if they want to, and those ESPN+ games will get highlights on SportsCenter and cut-ins on ESPN's whiparound channels Goal Line and Buzzer Beater.
I agree with most of this, but I remember seeing sub-100,000 viewer numbers for some ESPNews games.
SportsCenter? Is that you, Captain Marvel?
Here, the sports channels go like this.
35 ESPN
36 ESPN2
37 FS1
38 Fox Sports SW
39 FSN+D
40 SEC Network
41 SEC Network Alt
43 NBCSports
44 Tennis
46 Golf Channel
91 Outdoor Channel
400 NFL Network
401 NFL Network Red
405 was ESPN Classic
406 ESPNews
407 ESPNU
408 ESPNU Alt
410 FS2
412 CBS Sports
413 Cox Sports local
414 Big 10 Network
430 UNIDP soccer
431 GolHD soccer
433 Sportsman Channel
434 TVG
450 NFLRED
451 FTSYH
452 TFNHD pro wrestling and fighting channel
453 MAVTV
455 ESN Eleven Sports Network
456 WFND
457 OUTSD
Free on Demand PAC 12 Network.
450 to 457, you have buy an extra sports package.
PAC 12 Network is free on demand which could be the reason why the PAC 12's tv deal is bad if they are giving access to their sports free. Mostly reruns on what is shown on the regular network.
the thing that is interesting about CBSSN is 6 years ago, when they got the Big East and AAC sublicenses, I really thought that they had a shot to make something there- especially with the A10 there as well.... But things really never got going with them at all for whatever reason....
(03-20-2019 01:58 PM)stever20 Wrote: the thing that is interesting about CBSSN is 6 years ago, when they got the Big East and AAC sublicenses, I really thought that they had a shot to make something there- especially with the A10 there as well.... But things really never got going with them at all for whatever reason....
Because CBSSports used to be College Sports Network. The channel usually showed mostly FCS, D2 and D3 games before CBS bought them out. CBSSports is not on the basic lineup in many areas, and is not in every tv in many areas. You have to buy an extra sports package to get it.
(03-20-2019 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote: Marquette's run stuck with the Big East schools- as did all the C7 runs that year. Of those 18 units, 7 went to the C7 schools and ND. So 11 is the number the AAC is targeting....
Under NCAA rules, unless a conference disbands, the units stayed with the conference, not the schools.
The leagues came up with an agreement where the C7 units stuck with them...... Part of the divorce agreement. Now, the AAC may get paid for them, but the AAC then confers that money to the Big East.
Correct. The NCAA probably does actually send the credit money to the AAC (the successor to the Big East) and then the AAC has to pay them out to the Big East per the agreed upon divorce decree.
Memory is unreliable, and was not based on rock-solid sourcing, but I've seen someone argue using tax forms from the conferences or schools that the Big East distributions look like we're not getting the C7 credits (implying that they were part of the price of the Big East name, MSG contract and IP).
I do believe that multiple sources familiar with the pre-nup agreed that the credits were to be the property of the side or faction that earned them. But the issue of the name was not addressed in the pre-nup, and the exit fees and left-behind credits were definitely up in the air.
Thats fair. There was a price paid for the Big East name. I know the left behind NCAA credits from other members were left to the AAC. The exit fees were as well. I also remember that the total left behind was around 100 million....so its entirely possible that a portion of the future C7 credits were included to reach that 100 million total (lol...frankly, too much math and too many unknowns to be entirely sure).
Seeing all of the people talking about CBSSN and TruTV begs the question - do you guys realize that CBS doesn't own TruTV? It's owned by Turner. Turner has all of the cable broadcasting rights to the NCAA tournament, not CBS. So there wasn't an option to put the tournament on CBSSN.
Feel free to go back to your already predetermined opinions about the AAC. You all realize that people who hold the AAC in low regard were going to have a negative opinion of this deal regardless of what it contained, and those who are AAC fans were likely going to have a high opinion, right? Nobody's mind has been changed. MWC Tex was already going to downplay it as cementing the AAC's midmajor status, Quo was going to point out the Big East's superiority to it and stever20 was going to defend it no matter what was in it. And to Attackcoog's point (that always gets ignored), the real value won't be understood until we see all of the details. What moves to ESPN+ will dictate much about whether this deal is good or bad. Is it just what was previously on ESPN3? Or will it be much more? And none of us on here knows, so all of the teeth gnashing is just people posturing about their own preconceived notions...
