(05-07-2017 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  A couple of caveats. Its still entirely possible that the AAC and the Big East are actually very similar in "value"---the real difference being that the AAC took less money to be on a premium platform while the Big East took a monetary premium to be on an inferior platform. Its also worth noting that the game isn't over yet. The Big East deal is 12 years where as the AAC deal is only about half as long. The AAC could very well still exceed the Big East earnings while staying on a premium platform---we will have to wait and see how the second half of the comparison develops.

We know the bolded isn't true, because the AAC "took" the same money it is being paid by ESPN from NBCSN.

Not true at all. Aresco has said many times they signed the NBC offer because it featured such great exposure.

But ... NBCSN *wasn't* such great exposure, at least as it is being discussed here. It wasn't ESPN, hence was what many around here call a backwoods underexposed network.

Aresco signed for both peanuts money and peanuts exposure. Aresco face-saving spinning aside, that's what actually did happen.

Having all your games on a national platform with 82 million subscribers with select games in NBC-Broadcast would be pretty good compared to most of your games on ESPN-3 with a smattering on ESPN-U. The current deal is even better than the exposure the last Media deal provided the old Big East (which was a BCS conference).

That sounds like moving the goalposts. The premise here was that outlets like FS1 and NBCSN are by their nature low-exposure outlets. So getting tons of games on them doesn't mean much in terms of exposure - at least that's what nBE fans are always told, you're not on ESPN then you're in some kind of wasteland of no exposure.