Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

The MAC foots production costs too and they only make around 800K a team. So when you're making 7M a year, it's really not much at all. The AAC got a great deal and anyone predicting their demise was completely off. I wouldn't try and spin being wrong into yet another negative for their league.

The interesting thing in all this is that these are just reports and sources. The devil is in the details, which have not been released. There hasn't even been a presser by the AAC or ESPN.

(03-19-2019 06:18 PM)odu09 Wrote:  Reading their boards, seems like the only happy ones are ECU fans? Everyone else is pretty disappointed. I'll admit I didn't read much, but $7M in 2032 is not great. I think their more realistic fans realize how far away they are still from P5. They separated themselves from us though, mission accomplished.

My favorite is their complaint about having to "pony up" for ESPN+. They have no clue of the struggle lol.

Also there's a thread for them to fire their commissioner. Maybe they can hire Judy. Throw in a toy Hummer and it's a done deal.

I believe most were expecting double digit millions (15-20M min.); they're now locked in for a VERY long time with this contract. So I think a few are going to be thinking "We're not getting what we're worth", while the realists will say, at least we're getting more that just a measly million per school (now 8 or 9 years down the road, they might be going "we deserve more...")

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

This would be an amazingly awesome deal for CUSA because we literally have no exposure or money right now. That said it's only a little over 50% awesome for the AAC. You basically gave away TV exposure for steady cash. ESPN is literally paying you guys to not put your content on their nationwide broadcasts. $7M is a lot better than $2M a year, but now your exposure has been cut down to a 3rd of what it had been. New fans and new recruits don't go to ESPN+ to decide who to support or where to attend/play.

(03-20-2019 08:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

This would be an amazingly awesome deal for CUSA because we literally have no exposure or money right now. That said it's only a little over 50% awesome for the AAC. You basically gave away TV exposure for steady cash. ESPN is literally paying you guys to not put your content on their nationwide broadcasts. $7M is a lot better than $2M a year, but now your exposure has been cut down to a 3rd of what it had been. New fans and new recruits don't go to ESPN+ to decide who to support or where to attend/play.

As of today I would agree with this. But, no one has any idea what the ESPN landscape will look like in 3, 5, or 10 years. I have to believe that they have a plan for ESPN+ and will eventually make it another staple of their networks.

When they launched ESPN2 people viewed it a lot like people view ESPN+.

Not to mention the integration of streaming as a "standard" form of receiving content will only exponentially grow from here. When Netflix launched their streaming service to compliment their main DVD delivery service, I don't think anyone envisioned that years later they would be beating networks like HBO and CBS/ABC for eyeballs and original content.

(03-20-2019 06:17 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:23 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Terrible deal for AAC schools. 12 years is incredibly long and a huge win for ESPN. Exclusive rights which means way more ESPN+ productions costs (not like CUSA which has Stadium, CBS, BEIN).

Their fans will be paying for the contract through ESPN+ subscriptions, plus the schools will foot all the production costs over 13 years with the rise inflation, ESPN is laughing all the way to the bank

I don't believe anyone pays for the production costs on Espn + on any of their programming. Maybe you can check with your Espn insiders to clarify.

As far as paying subscriber fees, fans of all schools already pay for their contracts with cable subscriptions and conference networks. The providers then take their cut plus ad revenue and then passes the contracted amount on to the schools. Surely you were aware of this. You might as well say that ticket sales at games aren't real athletic dept revenue because fans pay for it.

Yes, schools do pick up production costs for ESPN+. The reason why a few may try to make a big deal is that it was a talking point for CUSA officials as a way to differentiate from the SBC deal worth similar dollars. Not long after, CUSA ended up signing a deal with ESPN+ anyway...go figure (no cost negatives were mentioned). Anyway, production costs prolly do eat up a significant portion of revenue when it is in the thousands. However, it doesn’t have the same same effect on multi million dollar contracts. As an FYI, all conferences self produce for conference networks (P5). The biggest costs are upfront, but I would guess that most in the AAC already have that capability as much of ESPN3 is self produced.

(03-20-2019 08:21 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

This would be an amazingly awesome deal for CUSA because we literally have no exposure or money right now. That said it's only a little over 50% awesome for the AAC. You basically gave away TV exposure for steady cash. ESPN is literally paying you guys to not put your content on their nationwide broadcasts. $7M is a lot better than $2M a year, but now your exposure has been cut down to a 3rd of what it had been. New fans and new recruits don't go to ESPN+ to decide who to support or where to attend/play.

As of today I would agree with this. But, no one has any idea what the ESPN landscape will look like in 3, 5, or 10 years. I have to believe that they have a plan for ESPN+ and will eventually make it another staple of their networks.

When they launched ESPN2 people viewed it a lot like people view ESPN+.

Not to mention the integration of streaming as a "standard" form of receiving content will only exponentially grow from here. When Netflix launched their streaming service to compliment their main DVD delivery service, I don't think anyone envisioned that years later they would be beating networks like HBO and CBS/ABC for eyeballs and original content.

That may indeed happen, but it is still a huge gamble to rely so heavily on streaming right now. I have zero interest in paying for a streaming service JUST to watch a few 49ers away games and I think I'm pretty typical of most fans these days. Getting that to change is what makes streaming sports different than broadcast sports. I don't see what ESPN2 costs me monthly on my cable bill but I know exactly what my Netflix Streaming bill is. If its 2 football or 4 basketball games a month I'm paying for then I'll skip it and get a pirated feed or text updates from the school's Twitter account. A streaming platform better offer a ton more interesting content than that to get me to pay for it.

I think more than likely the Big 12 dies and there will be no additions. Why would you add more teams and split the money? The AAC needs to hold fast and have a chance to pick up a few of the leftover Big 12 teams.. If cusa had done that when the big east went down and not had teams leave it could've added some quality teams. ESPN and the media want to hand out less money as a whole so why would they continue to pay out big money to big 12 leftovers when they could give them a "demotion" and pay less. The American could become a decent mega conference and probably pull in a little more cash. IN the end the cash cow will shrink not expand. That's just good business sense. So all of the UCFs and others need to cool their jets and make our league stronger.

(03-20-2019 08:34 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:21 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

This would be an amazingly awesome deal for CUSA because we literally have no exposure or money right now. That said it's only a little over 50% awesome for the AAC. You basically gave away TV exposure for steady cash. ESPN is literally paying you guys to not put your content on their nationwide broadcasts. $7M is a lot better than $2M a year, but now your exposure has been cut down to a 3rd of what it had been. New fans and new recruits don't go to ESPN+ to decide who to support or where to attend/play.

As of today I would agree with this. But, no one has any idea what the ESPN landscape will look like in 3, 5, or 10 years. I have to believe that they have a plan for ESPN+ and will eventually make it another staple of their networks.

When they launched ESPN2 people viewed it a lot like people view ESPN+.

Not to mention the integration of streaming as a "standard" form of receiving content will only exponentially grow from here. When Netflix launched their streaming service to compliment their main DVD delivery service, I don't think anyone envisioned that years later they would be beating networks like HBO and CBS/ABC for eyeballs and original content.

That may indeed happen, but it is still a huge gamble to rely so heavily on streaming right now. I have zero interest in paying for a streaming service JUST to watch a few 49ers away games and I think I'm pretty typical of most fans these days. Getting that to change is what makes streaming sports different than broadcast sports. I don't see what ESPN2 costs me monthly on my cable bill but I know exactly what my Netflix Streaming bill is. If its 2 football or 4 basketball games a month I'm paying for then I'll skip it and get a pirated feed or text updates from the school's Twitter account. A streaming platform better offer a ton more interesting content than that to get me to pay for it.

Actually this is the same argument I use to justify ESPN+. I know how much it costs and how much I'm using it.

Not only did I get to watch the App basketball games, but i'm getting MLS and Serie A, as well as random Championship and FA cup games.

Then I only pay for Youtube TV on months when i know i'm going to watch those channels (App national broadcast games, CFP, ETC, major soccer tournaments)

My only problem is I live in an established neighborhood that has TWC backbone, and AT&T either won't lay extra fiber, or won't use TWC backbone to offer competing products, so i'm stuck on internet service.

5G, please hurry.

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

I, too had to come over here to check the reactions out.

I agree with many of these posters about the length of the deal, in that it's too long but I am sure that there is a reason for that. It could be that we were able to get more money with a longer deal or it could be something else. I'm sure that in time we will find out.

The money is fantastic. I thought that we would get between $8M to $12M per all-sports member and when all is said and done we will. Plus, we will get the NCAA credits, CFP money and such. If our previous deal is any indication, we can expect $2.5M - $3M on top of our media deal throughout 2031.

That's not P5 money but it's certainly P6 money, in that it clearly separates the AAC as a tweener conference.

I do not think that the B12 is going to expand but if they do, I could see them raiding the PAC12 and not vice-versa; Arizona and Arizona State would be good targets for them if I were to guess, possibly even Utah and BYU.

I don't think that Texas or Oklahoma will be leaving the B12. Because of that, the B12 is not likely to disband.

The AAC may expand in the future. I don't know with whom but markets and audiences definitely would play a part.

I wish all of those in the Belt and in CUSA well; however, I wonder what both conferences will look like in the years to come. I can see a scenario where both conferences become more regional in their structure with an exchange of teams occurring.

(03-20-2019 08:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

This would be an amazingly awesome deal for CUSA because we literally have no exposure or money right now. That said it's only a little over 50% awesome for the AAC. You basically gave away TV exposure for steady cash. ESPN is literally paying you guys to not put your content on their nationwide broadcasts. $7M is a lot better than $2M a year, but now your exposure has been cut down to a 3rd of what it had been. New fans and new recruits don't go to ESPN+ to decide who to support or where to attend/play.

Do we really know those details to be commenting on exact exposure, whether more or less? We have no official press release yet. Just rumors of bits and pieces. It very well could also mean that the espn3 games and cbs sports games go to espn + and all the others go to espn, espn 2 and a minimum 15 games to ABC. The thing is, we simply do not know yet.

I definitely view the Sun Belt's 8 year contract with ESPN+ as a positive. This year almost every single basketball game was on a unified platform. Next year will include Baseball as well. App got three conference football games on linear TV ESPN channels, with the conference championship was on ESPN. The money isn't fantastic (not been officially released but I think the word is it's $500k-$600k per team) but the deal means that the Sun Belt sports (not just Football) get coverage.

(03-20-2019 08:24 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:17 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:23 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Terrible deal for AAC schools. 12 years is incredibly long and a huge win for ESPN. Exclusive rights which means way more ESPN+ productions costs (not like CUSA which has Stadium, CBS, BEIN).

Their fans will be paying for the contract through ESPN+ subscriptions, plus the schools will foot all the production costs over 13 years with the rise inflation, ESPN is laughing all the way to the bank

I don't believe anyone pays for the production costs on Espn + on any of their programming. Maybe you can check with your Espn insiders to clarify.

As far as paying subscriber fees, fans of all schools already pay for their contracts with cable subscriptions and conference networks. The providers then take their cut plus ad revenue and then passes the contracted amount on to the schools. Surely you were aware of this. You might as well say that ticket sales at games aren't real athletic dept revenue because fans pay for it.

Yes, schools do pick up production costs for ESPN+. The reason why a few may try to make a big deal is that it was a talking point for CUSA officials as a way to differentiate from the SBC deal worth similar dollars. Not long after, CUSA ended up signing a deal with ESPN+ anyway...go figure (no cost negatives were mentioned). Anyway, production costs prolly do eat up a significant portion of revenue when it is in the thousands. However, it doesn’t have the same same effect on multi million dollar contracts. As an FYI, all conferences self produce for conference networks (P5). The biggest costs are upfront, but I would guess that most in the AAC already have that capability as much of ESPN3 is self produced.

The costs for CUSA for producing content on ESPN+ are substantially less than the other Group of Five conferences because Stadium covers 100% of their production costs. In practice, this means CUSA schools only have to cover the costs of expendable material for ESPN+ broadcasts.

(03-20-2019 08:56 AM)otown Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:12 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:09 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Yes, the AAC schools will foot the production costs of ESPN+. All those games over 12 year span. 6+ million is a terrible deal for a exclusive 12 year contract.

Before opening this thread I took a prediction as to which posters would try to instantly crap on this deal and man, I nailed it almost exactly.

This would be an amazingly awesome deal for CUSA because we literally have no exposure or money right now. That said it's only a little over 50% awesome for the AAC. You basically gave away TV exposure for steady cash. ESPN is literally paying you guys to not put your content on their nationwide broadcasts. $7M is a lot better than $2M a year, but now your exposure has been cut down to a 3rd of what it had been. New fans and new recruits don't go to ESPN+ to decide who to support or where to attend/play.

Do we really know those details to be commenting on exact exposure, whether more or less? We have no official press release yet. Just rumors of bits and pieces. It very well could also mean that the espn3 games and cbs sports games go to espn + and all the others go to espn, espn 2 and a minimum 15 games to ABC. The thing is, we simply do not know yet.

^ True, all that’s been leaked at this time is that there are games on ABC,
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPN+ and the $ number given matches the placeholder number listed in the Memphis budget presentation which didn’t include the separate CBS basketball deal which looks to be extended (tourney and a couple of marquee OTA games).

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

(03-20-2019 08:24 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 06:17 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:23 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Terrible deal for AAC schools. 12 years is incredibly long and a huge win for ESPN. Exclusive rights which means way more ESPN+ productions costs (not like CUSA which has Stadium, CBS, BEIN).

Their fans will be paying for the contract through ESPN+ subscriptions, plus the schools will foot all the production costs over 13 years with the rise inflation, ESPN is laughing all the way to the bank

I don't believe anyone pays for the production costs on Espn + on any of their programming. Maybe you can check with your Espn insiders to clarify.

As far as paying subscriber fees, fans of all schools already pay for their contracts with cable subscriptions and conference networks. The providers then take their cut plus ad revenue and then passes the contracted amount on to the schools. Surely you were aware of this. You might as well say that ticket sales at games aren't real athletic dept revenue because fans pay for it.

Yes, schools do pick up production costs for ESPN+. The reason why a few may try to make a big deal is that it was a talking point for CUSA officials as a way to differentiate from the SBC deal worth similar dollars. Not long after, CUSA ended up signing a deal with ESPN+ anyway...go figure (no cost negatives were mentioned). Anyway, production costs prolly do eat up a significant portion of revenue when it is in the thousands. However, it doesn’t have the same same effect on multi million dollar contracts. As an FYI, all conferences self produce for conference networks (P5). The biggest costs are upfront, but I would guess that most in the AAC already have that capability as much of ESPN3 is self produced.

The costs for CUSA for producing content on ESPN+ are substantially less than the other Group of Five conferences because Stadium covers 100% of their production costs. In practice, this means CUSA schools only have to cover the costs of expendable material for ESPN+ broadcasts.

True, I was more commenting on how much of a talking point it was at the time then suddenly wasn’t when the ESPN+ deal was announced even though those games/matches/events are self produced. Point being it’s more than doable for most D1 schools nowadays.

What channels does CUSA play on? How much do they make per year? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Also, UH will hardly be shown on ESPN+.

(03-20-2019 01:23 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 01:17 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  $7 million per school is a good deal except for UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida.

The only downside I see is the length of the deal. 12 years is an eternity in television, heck, even 6 years is a long time. Technology in 2032 will be vastly different than today. Just think 12 years ago the iPhone was launched, Netflix was a mail order DVD rental, MySpace ruled social media, Facebook was mostly used by college students, Twitter didn’t exist and YouTube was in its infancy and the longest video was 10 minutes. Also, $7 million in 12 years will be peanuts compared to what the P5 leagues will make then but it’ll be above what C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt make. The MWC will definitely get a raise.

Terrible deal for AAC schools. 12 years is incredibly long and a huge win for ESPN. Exclusive rights which means way more ESPN+ productions costs (not like CUSA which has Stadium, CBS, BEIN).

Their fans will be paying for the contract through ESPN+ subscriptions, plus the schools will foot all the production costs over 13 years with the rise inflation, ESPN is laughing all the way to the bank

The key is AAC teams will get paid $7m (without factoring in the CBS hoops deal, MBB credits, etc) per school whether fans sign up for ESPN+ or not.

You guys are obviously lost. Here's the board you should be posting on. Go ahead, make a thread about your TV deal.

https://csnbbs.com/forum-997.html