(04-03-2015 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:46 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:45 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Someone please answer me this. Why would ESPN do it? Before we have endless threads about expansion and the million teams that we could add which in someones convoluted mind means well make more money, I ask you this... WHY WOULD ESPN DO IT?

They already own the broadcasting rights to just about every team discussed for expansion. They are getting them for dirt cheap right now. So why would they agree to pay more to move any team into the AAC? It makes no sense? They wont do it because their nice. Those of us in the Big East can affirm that.

It may make all the sense in the world to us in order to make a better AAC but were not the one that pays the bills. So before we make theoretical posts about addition and all of that jazz, I simply want one person to tell me why ESPN would be willing to move teams and pay more for a product they already own?

Actually we do pay the bills, in part. Even if adding Wichita didn't boost the TV deal a single cent (which I seriously doubt) they'd add to the basketball strength, NCAA units, etc. They wouldn't get a full share of the TV anyway.

Right. They would cost each school about 50K. The way I look at is this---would you pay $50K to be in a better basketball league? That's effectively what you would be doing if you add them prior to renegotiation. I have no problem with that because I think 50K for a better basketball league makes sense. Some may not.

I'm pretty sure espn would go along with having more content in the aac and it wouldn't be dilutive to each member. If we have the same group in 2017, we will likely get a big pay jump anyway. We had the worse timing possible for contract negotiations before. Espn had to negatively hit us for their costs if our league imploded.