(05-20-2017 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 05:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 03:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im telling you, Aresco has been saying for years that the Army-Navy game would be part of the new package---and it may be. Just because its been renewed separately doesn't necessarily mean the money isn't going into the shared pot (similar to Boise's ESPN deal). Of course, it also doesn't mean it IS going into the same pot either. Just don't know yet. My inclination is to think it is not being shared---but I base that more on a prior AAC history of negative outcomes when it comes to media more than any real facts.

AC, I agree with you that Aresco has infered that Army/Navy would be part of the TV package.

Please note, I simply was saying you think the contract may have had an extension clause since most do. Not saying there was one but if Aresco is the wheeler and dealer everyone says he is, you have to think when he was at CBS he made it the best possible deal for them. You would also think, since he made the comments in the article, he should know the contract. From the article, it sounded like the Big East/AAC was getting nothing from the existing contract.

You think Aresco would be out in front of this to keep the AAC fans from wondering. I can't think of any Power Conference that would allow a team to play an OOC rival and not have it shared in the confernece. You think Aresco would address it sooner than later.

Let's think about Aresco's modus as commissioner these past 5 years: If anything happens that can possibly, even in the most tenuous way, be touted as some kind of positive for the AAC, he trumpets it to high heaven.

But, if something happens that is negative, he either ignores it until somehow cornered point-blank by an interviewer, or else pooh-poohs it as trivial despite its apparent negative nature. But he doesn't seem to go out of his way to proactively talk about it.

Which makes his silence so far ominous. Sure, as Attackcoog says, maybe Navy is sharing their share of the dough with the rest of us, we just don't know. But IMO, Aresco's silence is ominous.

To be fair, no commissioner talks about he financial details of tv deals. That said, I doubt the money is being shared. I agtee---if this were a positive for future revenue, Aresco would have said so (though he would not have said what the amount is). In a related note I find interesting---I've not heard a peep about the amount CBS is paying. i bet we'd have a number to kick around if McMurphy was still employed.

Really? They might not tell us the fine-grained details, but they do tell us something. E.g. there is usually an announcement such as "the PAC signed a deal with ESPN that will pay the conference $2 B over 10 years, or an average of $20m per school per year". We get that information. And e.g., how do we know how the B1G and SEC and PAC, etc. split their TV and bowl money? Because they've told us. I don't see anything 'proprietary' about whether Navy's share of the Army-Navy contract is being shared by the conference or does it all go to Navy.

Like you, I'd be interested in the $$$ of the new Army/Navy deal as well. Could give us new info about the direction of rights fees generally.

No. I can't remember any such announcement. The number typically leaks out, but it's usually not announced by the conference. Sports articles will certainly give an amount, but I don't remember a conference press release or press conference doing so. They usually speak in vague generalities like "gives us financial security", "best deal in the country", "competitive deal", "similarly positioned", "on a par with" etc.