well we know that's what happeened publicly. We don't know that's it's what happened behind closed doors to the presidents. They may have known the trhuth, but put out a public face of future riches to bluff someone into making a higher bid. If he lied to the Presidents, I'd agree. But I don't know that to be the case.

(02-13-2013 12:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  The people I've spoken to seem pretty satisfied/mildly happy with whatever is on the table for this deal. Don't have any details yet.... still fishing.

It can't possibly be with the financial aspects of it.

(02-13-2013 12:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  well we know that's what happeened publicly. We don't know that's it's what happened behind closed doors to the presidents. They may have known the trhuth, but put out a public face of future riches to bluff someone into making a higher bid. If he lied to the Presidents, I'd agree. But I don't know that to be the case.

If reports out of SDSU and Boise are to be believed their presidents had no idea what the Big East was really worth and Aresco gave them no estimates.

(02-13-2013 12:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  The people I've spoken to seem pretty satisfied/mildly happy with whatever is on the table for this deal. Don't have any details yet.... still fishing.

It can't possibly be with the financial aspects of it.

Might be the hangover sunshine of knowing we wont be in a league with the San Antonio Roadrunners and the fighting whatevers of FIU

(02-13-2013 12:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:37 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Perhaps... but we keep hearing that this is a deal aimed toward a long-term vision as a GROUP. Early ESPN has been mentioned, with their history with the Big East.

That was spin by jerseyguy. That idea did not come from NBC, or any other articles on the offer.

(02-13-2013 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its just a crap contract on an underfunded network that has never recieved any significant support from the parent company. .

This isn't really true. Did you know that NBC outbid everyone else for the original Thursday Night NFL package? They also were goign to bid nearly $1 billion for the other half of the Thrusday package that recently was created, which is twice as much per game as ESPN pays for Monday Night football, only with a much worse slate of games. They also had th ehighest bid for the ACC (EPSN matched) and had the single highest bid for the PAC 12 (ESPN and Fox combined to outbid them). So it's unfair to say that it does not receive support.

But they failed to bid enough to win any of the pacakges you described. The only bid they won was an 83 million dollar bid for soccer, which the other channels use as filler. The bottom line is there is no significant support from the parent network. New networks lose money in thier infancy to build veiwership. Its called investment. NBC is not willing to do that and that is the reason NBC-Sports is now on its third brand name and second relaunch.

They had the highest bid for both NFL packages. They actually overpaid in their bid. And they had the highest bid for the PAC 12 and the ACC. The bid high enough to win. As we see, no matter how high NBC bids, ESPN got to match it. They did, and the ACC accepted it. with Fox and ESPN, they literally had to team together to get the funding to outbid NBC. Again they bid the most. But Fox again had the right to match the highest bid (With ESPN), they did, and the PAC 12 choose to stay. In both cases, NBC did not have an option to increase their offer, as we know now, due to how the contracts must be presented.

I am just saying, them being cheap should not be equated with them lacking funding. Two different things.Now they were outbid othertimes (MLB, NASCAR), but they have the money if it's something they want.

(02-13-2013 12:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Unless NBC/Comcast was paying big bucks, I have no idea why anyone would sign with them. This is a huge mistake.

In a more ideal world, let's say the BE as we knew it coming into this year had stayed in tact. Lousiville, Rutgers, ND, the C7, Boise, and SD St are all in the n.BE. Even then, and even if NBC was paying an average of $12 million a year to "all-sport members" as some had suggested, NBC alone STILL would have been a bad idea. NBC in conjuction with someone else, maybe. But the problem with NBCis the BE football brand simply is not, nor was ever, strong enough to "carry" a network alone. And as good as the basketball is, with little promotion, it would still be hard for non-BE fans to find, especially football. Not the way they currently operate anyway (if they reopened NBA OTA to full fledged weekend sports like they used to be, it might be a different animal). That was my feeling 8-9 months ago.

My preference was always a package with Turner, who does more to promote their shows than anyone. If you watch any show on Thrusday on TNT or TBS, you will see an add, a decal, or a superimposed image on the screen for NBA on TNT. During the summer, the same thing happens on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday for Sunday baseball on TBS. That's how you promote something.

I dont know about Turner, but I agree with your main point. We need additional drivers to pick up new fans from the pool of casual viewers. Being on a network with virtually no viewership is not the way to do that. Even Big-12 games garner extremely low rating when on obscure regional channels. NBC-Sports will be no different.

(02-13-2013 12:47 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  The people I've spoken to seem pretty satisfied/mildly happy with whatever is on the table for this deal. Don't have any details yet.... still fishing.

It can't possibly be with the financial aspects of it.

Might be the hangover sunshine of knowing we wont be in a league with the San Antonio Roadrunners and the fighting whatevers of FIU

Doesn't really matter though if the payout is nearly the same as if we were with them.

(02-13-2013 12:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They had the highest bid for both NFL packages. They actually overpaid in their bid. And they had the highest bid for the PAC 12 and the ACC. The bid high enough to win. As we see, no matter how high NBC bids, ESPN got to match it. They did, and the ACC accepted it. with Fox and ESPN, they literally had to team together to get the funding to outbid NBC. Again they bid the most. But Fox again had the right to match the highest bid (With ESPN), they did, and the PAC 12 choose to stay. In both cases, NBC did not have an option to increase their offer, as we know now, due to how the contracts must be presented.

I am just saying, them being cheap should not be equated with them lacking funding. Two different things.Now they were outbid othertimes (MLB, NASCAR), but they have the money if it's something they want.

lol...I didnt say NBC lacked money. I said the network is underfunded and is not properly supported by the parent company. The fact is as a fledgling network they will have to over pay for a property. Fox was willing to that when it orignally obtained the NFL. Thats the difference between Fox and NBC.

(02-13-2013 12:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:47 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  The people I've spoken to seem pretty satisfied/mildly happy with whatever is on the table for this deal. Don't have any details yet.... still fishing.

It can't possibly be with the financial aspects of it.

Might be the hangover sunshine of knowing we wont be in a league with the San Antonio Roadrunners and the fighting whatevers of FIU

Doesn't really matter though if the payout is nearly the same as if we were with them.

Oh it definitely matters... perception is everything.

(02-13-2013 01:01 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:47 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  The people I've spoken to seem pretty satisfied/mildly happy with whatever is on the table for this deal. Don't have any details yet.... still fishing.

It can't possibly be with the financial aspects of it.

Might be the hangover sunshine of knowing we wont be in a league with the San Antonio Roadrunners and the fighting whatevers of FIU

Doesn't really matter though if the payout is nearly the same as if we were with them.

Oh it definitely matters... perception is everything.

And the perception is the Big East is a dying league. Not sure how that perception really helps.

(02-13-2013 01:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 01:01 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:47 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It can't possibly be with the financial aspects of it.

Might be the hangover sunshine of knowing we wont be in a league with the San Antonio Roadrunners and the fighting whatevers of FIU

Doesn't really matter though if the payout is nearly the same as if we were with them.

Oh it definitely matters... perception is everything.

And the perception is the Big East is a dying league. Not sure how that perception really helps.

We dont have a lot to work with man. Its the lesser of two awful outcomes. We all want a huge tv deal and great league partners. Gotta work the hand we're dealt. What do you want us to do?

(02-13-2013 01:07 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 01:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 01:01 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:47 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Might be the hangover sunshine of knowing we wont be in a league with the San Antonio Roadrunners and the fighting whatevers of FIU

Doesn't really matter though if the payout is nearly the same as if we were with them.

Oh it definitely matters... perception is everything.

And the perception is the Big East is a dying league. Not sure how that perception really helps.

We dont have a lot to work with man. Its the lesser of two awful outcomes. We all want a huge tv deal and great league partners. Gotta work the hand we're dealt. What do you want us to do?

I'd start by firing Aresco, hiring someone new, and signing no long term TV deal right now. Sign whatever you have to for the basketball side in 2013 and then hope that maybe next year under new leadership you can do better. It's not like realistically the value could get much worse.

(02-13-2013 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...I didnt say NBC lacked money. I said the network is underfunded and is not properly supported by the parent company. The fact is as a fledgling network they will have to over pay for a property. Fox was willing to that when it orignally obtained the NFL. Thats the difference between Fox and NBC.

But that is not fair to say, when NBC essentially offered to pay double per game what ESPN paid for MNF, even knowing it was on a less viewed night (for NFL) and would be C/D games as opposed to what ESPN paid. They had by far the best bid. The NFL just decided (and probably rightfully so) to use the Thursday night games to build the NFL network as a long term investment. But NBC did not lose to anyone. It also probably has something to do with why ESPN opened extension talks with the NFL for Monday Night football several years before it expired, and essentially offered to start paying them double now, well before they had to. They did not want to let it get anywhere near expiration, and let Fox or NBC convince the NFL to hodl out for an all out bidding war.

If ESPN loses MNF, all of their subscriber fee contracts go up in smoke.

(02-13-2013 12:34 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I have no idea why anyone (even the biggest Big East optimist) believes a single position coming out of Aresco's office at this point - EVERY single one has been wrong in the past 5 months (if not worse than what was expected). Why is the latest spin from the conference office going to suddenly be correct? How can anyone be anything less than 100% skeptical of anything that comes out of Providence with this horrific track record? It boggles my mind.

So plain and simple do you believe Aresco should be fired?

I know you weren't asking me, but the only thing worse than the spin put out, would have been the truth. So can you blame him?

No the truth would have been better, because Aresco allowed people to continue thinking a good TV deal was still achievable. He continued to oversell and if this is truly the value he should have long ago started trying to reign people in and brace people.

I think that there's a balance. Aresco obviously has to put on a strong face publicly to some extent - he's not going to say "Our league blows" and then try to ask ESPN or NBC to pay them a gazillion dollars. On the other hand, I do believe that being able to set expectations correctly (both internally and externally) is an important part of the job. Aresco seems to be someone that's always in sales mode (which isn't inherently a bad thing), but you can get egg on your face very easily if the puffery doesn't pan out.

For instance, I don't necessarily think Craig Thompson is on the level of Jim Delany or Mike Slive in terms of commissioner skills, but look at how he handled the Boise State situation. He didn't ever overpromise in making it sound like it was foregone conclusion that Boise and SDSU were coming back and hasn't been trying to pump up the value of the new Boise TV package with a lot of bluster. SDSU, in particular, hasn't even been assured that they'd make any more TV money in the MWC than they would have had in the Big East (unlike what the Big East projected to the C-USA schools). Sure, every single school in the MWC would bolt for the Pac-12 or Big 12 in a heartbeat, but they are all generally realistic in their financial expectations. If that Boise deal comes in with a nice number, then people will be happy. If that Boise deal doesn't net as much as they had hoped for, then they'll largely chalk it up to being a Gang of 5 issue. (I know that there are plenty of people on MWC boards that complain about their commissioner, but you'll honestly find that everywhere simply because that's always the main target for any league issues. There are Big Ten fans that call for Jim Delany's head even though, by any objective business measure, he's the most successful conference commissioner in college sports history.)

The point is that the MWC schools weren't pumped up to a level where a large portion of fans believed that they were worth a lot more on the marketplace than they were in reality. Aresco didn't do that at all. If anything, he inflated the expectations of Big East fans by talking about multiple multimedia partners and getting very large contract numbers. So, when you end up with a contract with only one partner for a small amount, it looks a LOT worse. There are basically two groups of Big East fans right now: (1) those that are somehow still in denial that the contract could possibly be this awful since they bought into Aresco's sales job and they'll believe it until the bitter end and (2) those that are PISSED beyond all recognition. Eventually, Group #1 is going to end up with Group #2 when this new contract is officially signed.

Considering that Aresco was hired almost solely on the basis of guiding the Big East through the TV contract negotiation process, yes, he should be fired. I don't blame him for the Big East losing Louisville and Rutgers or even the Catholic 7. However, the failure to build out a western division to retain Boise State (which would have definitely had a material impact on the TV contract value) and general inflated view of what the remnants of the Big East were worth on the marketplace can be placed on him.

Wasn't this so called great tv deal expectation largely pumped up by nBE fans on messageboards? I don't think I recall Aresco publicly floating any numbers we should expect.

Folks need to remember that the 68 mil in exit fees will sort of help us get through the first 6 years also. Around an extra mil a year, so you're looking at close to 3.... still not great, but it is what it is. If Aresco can package some other tiers/games and sell them off to ESPN or others, itll be ok

(02-13-2013 01:27 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Wasn't this so called great tv deal expectation largely pumped up by nBE fans on messageboards? I don't think I recall Aresco publicly floating any numbers we should expect.

He never publicly floated a number, but he also never dared hint that it would be something close to what C-USA made. He consistently said it would be a number people would be happy with and a number that would allow the Big East to be competitive with the other 5 conferences, not a number that would allow it to be competitive with the other gang of 5 conferences.

(02-13-2013 01:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Folks need to remember that the 68 mil in exit fees will sort of help us get through the first 6 years also. Around an extra mil a year, so you're looking at close to 3.... still not great, but it is what it is. If Aresco can package some other tiers/games and sell them off to ESPN or others, itll be ok

BAM!

(02-13-2013 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  This isn't really true. Did you know that NBC outbid everyone else for the original Thursday Night NFL package? They also were goign to bid nearly $1 billion for the other half of the Thrusday package that recently was created, which is twice as much per game as ESPN pays for Monday Night football, only with a much worse slate of games. They also had th ehighest bid for the ACC (EPSN matched) and had the single highest bid for the PAC 12 (ESPN and Fox combined to outbid them). So it's unfair to say that it does not receive support.

But they failed to bid enough to win any of the pacakges you described. The only bid they won was an 83 million dollar bid for soccer, which the other channels use as filler. The bottom line is there is no significant support from the parent network. New networks lose money in thier infancy to build veiwership. Its called investment. NBC is not willing to do that and that is the reason NBC-Sports is now on its third brand name and second relaunch.

You are incorrect with this statement "NBC is not willing to do that and that is the reason NBC-Sports is now on its third brand name and second relaunch."
Versus was originally part of Comcast and when Comcast bought NBC from GE they rebranded it as the NBC-SC. NBC had nothing to do with the outdoor network and Versus.
NBC is not the problem, Comcast is the problem.