(01-29-2014 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  If you were in the old Big East, the current TV contract is horrible. In hind sight, the Big East should have taken ESPN's first offer, but the BB schools got greedy and we all know what happened.

For what it's worth, the initial push against the ESPN offer was from Georgetown, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia and Notre Dame. (http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5119) Four of those five voted "No" initially, with the other schools voting to continue negotiations. Then the PAC-12 deal came out, and the vote to trash the ESPN deal was unanimous.

And "we all know what happened." Of the 16 schools who voted on the ESPN deal, 13 of them are making more in TV money than they would have under the ESPN proposal.

Let's not rewrite history to say that the basketball schools caused the league to reject a good offer. The offer was below what the schools were and are worth, and three of the four or five presidents who led the charge against the deal were from Big East Football schools.

Correct and Pitt led the way. Cincy, USF, and UCONN ended up losing the most, none of which was their own doing.

(01-29-2014 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  If you were in the old Big East, the current TV contract is horrible. In hind sight, the Big East should have taken ESPN's first offer, but the BB schools got greedy and we all know what happened.

For what it's worth, the initial push against the ESPN offer was from Georgetown, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia and Notre Dame. (http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5119) Four of those five voted "No" initially, with the other schools voting to continue negotiations. Then the PAC-12 deal came out, and the vote to trash the ESPN deal was unanimous.

And "we all know what happened." Of the 16 schools who voted on the ESPN deal, 13 of them are making more in TV money than they would have under the ESPN proposal.

Let's not rewrite history to say that the basketball schools caused the league to reject a good offer. The offer was below what the schools were and are worth, and three of the four or five presidents who led the charge against the deal were from Big East Football schools.

I stand corrected; however, greed played a big part in trashing the deal. And of the 13 schools making more money than under the ESPN deal, you must be referring to everyone who left the old Big East/American - not UC, UConn, USF, Rutgers or UofL.

(01-29-2014 01:38 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  If you were in the old Big East, the current TV contract is horrible. In hind sight, the Big East should have taken ESPN's first offer, but the BB schools got greedy and we all know what happened.

For what it's worth, the initial push against the ESPN offer was from Georgetown, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia and Notre Dame. (http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5119) Four of those five voted "No" initially, with the other schools voting to continue negotiations. Then the PAC-12 deal came out, and the vote to trash the ESPN deal was unanimous.

And "we all know what happened." Of the 16 schools who voted on the ESPN deal, 13 of them are making more in TV money than they would have under the ESPN proposal.

Let's not rewrite history to say that the basketball schools caused the league to reject a good offer. The offer was below what the schools were and are worth, and three of the four or five presidents who led the charge against the deal were from Big East Football schools.

I stand corrected; however, greed played a big part in trashing the deal. And of the 13 schools making more money than under the ESPN deal, you must be referring to everyone who left the old Big East/American - not UC, UConn, USF, Rutgers or UofL.

Right. Not UC, not UConn, and not USF--those are the 3/16 who are making less than the Spring 2011 proposed ESPN deal. I was counting Rutgers and Louisville as already gone.

(01-29-2014 01:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  If you were in the old Big East, the current TV contract is horrible. In hind sight, the Big East should have taken ESPN's first offer, but the BB schools got greedy and we all know what happened.

For what it's worth, the initial push against the ESPN offer was from Georgetown, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia and Notre Dame. (http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5119) Four of those five voted "No" initially, with the other schools voting to continue negotiations. Then the PAC-12 deal came out, and the vote to trash the ESPN deal was unanimous.

And "we all know what happened." Of the 16 schools who voted on the ESPN deal, 13 of them are making more in TV money than they would have under the ESPN proposal.

Let's not rewrite history to say that the basketball schools caused the league to reject a good offer. The offer was below what the schools were and are worth, and three of the four or five presidents who led the charge against the deal were from Big East Football schools.

I just always blame Syracuse. Even if it isn't true. You can't go wrong.

How did this turn from Wichita State to UConn?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-29-2014 02:22 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  How did this turn from Wichita State to UConn?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Some people think the AAC received a good TV deal/upgrade, others don't.

(01-28-2014 07:56 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  My main reason for extreme skepticism about the exposure aspects of the deal originally were that I had a real fear that a lot of the "televised" games were actually going to be ESPN3 games. It appears that fear was unfounded, so for me as more and more time passes the TV deal appears better and better. When compared to the other G5 deals it's not even in the same conversation.

This is quite a change of heart for you.

(01-29-2014 02:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 01:06 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The reality is, thanks to the clause in the old deal, ESPN only had to match NBC to win, NBC didn't get to counter, which could have driven the money up...

To be clear, NBC could have counter offered (in which case, ESPN would again have the opportunity to match). NBC simply chose not counter offer.

Ice, what you said it not accurate. The right to match actually improved the contract. ESPN and NBC did both present offers to the AAC. After rounds of negotiations each presented their best offer. It was not a case of ESPN not being involved and no back and forth. ESPN offered about double the money NBC did. NBC offered more guaranteed timeslots. The AAC signed with NBC. ESPN, as with their right to match option, reviewed the terms and decided to match it. The AAC then reviewed both options, and decided to take the ESPN offer, that they perceived to be better than the NBC offer. NBC could not then "counter-offer" after that, because the AAC had signed a binding offer with ESPN.

The contract was "improved" because the matching terms ESPN provided was deemed better to AAC leadership than the NBC offer, since they chose to accept it, or the original ESPN offer (since initially chose NBC instead). Thus the right to match was only a positive in the process.

(01-29-2014 08:59 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Also no Tier 3 contracts for the Women's team who was making close to $2m a year in Tier 3 rights alone form its deal with SNY. Essentially - ESPN now gets that money directly from SNY, instead of UConn receiving the millions, for leasing property ESPN now owns to SNY.


To say this deal is anything but complete and utter garbage from a Uconn perspective is incomprehensible.

One thing you should realize is that ESPN always owned those rights. In the past the ESPN deal with the Big East gave them the rights to ALL sports, football, basketball, women's basketball, etc. ESPN had no use for most of the other sports, and returned them to the teams' to sell themselves, with them occasionally choosing to show a few on TV. UConn found a market for their women's basketball and made some money off them. ESPN had already given them the rights back, so could not do anything for the time being. But they always had that option. Now with the new contract, with UConn showing ESPN where they could monetize them, they then chose to sell them themselves and keep the money. That would have happened no matter which conference UConn was in on any new contract.

Yes you lose out on the extra revenue, but that was going to happen no matter what, no matter the conference, no matter the contract. If they went to the ACC, ESPn would do the same. If they went to the Big Ten, the games would be on the Big Ten Network. If they went to the Big 12, see the ACC. And, for example, if one of the newer southern teams shows they can make money reselling baseball to a local cable company, in the next contract, ESPN will make that sale directly themselves

(01-29-2014 09:42 AM)pesik Wrote:  some of you clearly dont realize our new deal doesnt kick in till the summer..
and the expsoure is going to be ridiculously better.

Contract has already kicked in. Football contract kicks in next year. This year is the first year of the basketball and Olympic sports portion of the contract.

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  If you were in the old Big East, the current TV contract is horrible. In hind sight, the Big East should have taken ESPN's first offer, but the BB schools got greedy and we all know what happened.

Pittsburgh lead that charge. So....

Monetarily the new TV deal is lower. However, the value of the teams are lower* so there is little to complain about there, other than complaining to the teams who left for leaving. Exposure wise, the new contract is better than what we had from a national perspective, but probably not a local perspective. In the old Big East, we had games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU. The same with the new contract. The difference is how the games not selected for those channels are handled. With the old contract, the games not on those channels were syndicated broadly (BE BOW) and just locally, or shown exclusively ESPN3. Syndicated games were also shown on ESPN3 out of market. The Syndicated games were available to more people in local areas as they were mostly shown on over the air TV or RSN's that were on basic cable in their areas. Under the new contract those games are shown on ESPN News or resold, mostly to CBS Sports Network. Thus under the new contract, the games are available to more people nationwide, though may be less available locally as those channels, specifically CBS Sports Network, may not be as available as the old Big East games were on syndication. So there is some give and take. However I will point out, that based on the league's new makeup, I do not think the syndication network would have been as strong now as it was before had the TV contract remained the same, as Georgetown and Villanova were responsible for 2 of the 3 most available syndication outlets. This year, even SNY chose not to show any AAC games outside of UConn, despite having the rights to show any AAC game they wanted (football).


*This is not meant as a shot at anyone, but common sense says that if the newer teams were as valuable or more than the older teams, they would have either already been in, or would have been picked for the Big 12/ACC/Big Ten ahead of the former BE teams that ultimately were selected.

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 07:56 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  My main reason for extreme skepticism about the exposure aspects of the deal originally were that I had a real fear that a lot of the "televised" games were actually going to be ESPN3 games. It appears that fear was unfounded, so for me as more and more time passes the TV deal appears better and better. When compared to the other G5 deals it's not even in the same conversation.

This is quite a change of heart for you.

(01-29-2014 02:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 01:06 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The reality is, thanks to the clause in the old deal, ESPN only had to match NBC to win, NBC didn't get to counter, which could have driven the money up...

To be clear, NBC could have counter offered (in which case, ESPN would again have the opportunity to match). NBC simply chose not counter offer.

Ice, what you said it not accurate. The right to match actually improved the contract. ESPN and NBC did both present offers to the AAC. After rounds of negotiations each presented their best offer. It was not a case of ESPN not being involved and no back and forth. ESPN offered about double the money NBC did. NBC offered more guaranteed timeslots. The AAC signed with NBC. ESPN, as with their right to match option, reviewed the terms and decided to match it. The AAC then reviewed both options, and decided to take the ESPN offer, that they perceived to be better than the NBC offer. NBC could not then "counter-offer" after that, because the AAC had signed a binding offer with ESPN.

The contract was "improved" because the matching terms ESPN provided was deemed better to AAC leadership than the NBC offer, since they chose to accept it, or the original ESPN offer (since initially chose NBC instead). Thus the right to match was only a positive in the process.

(01-29-2014 08:59 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Also no Tier 3 contracts for the Women's team who was making close to $2m a year in Tier 3 rights alone form its deal with SNY. Essentially - ESPN now gets that money directly from SNY, instead of UConn receiving the millions, for leasing property ESPN now owns to SNY.


To say this deal is anything but complete and utter garbage from a Uconn perspective is incomprehensible.

One thing you should realize is that ESPN always owned those rights. In the past the ESPN deal with the Big East gave them the rights to ALL sports, football, basketball, women's basketball, etc. ESPN had no use for most of the other sports, and returned them to the teams' to sell themselves, with them occasionally choosing to show a few on TV. UConn found a market for their women's basketball and made some money off them. ESPN had already given them the rights back, so could not do anything for the time being. But they always had that option. Now with the new contract, with UConn showing ESPN where they could monetize them, they then chose to sell them themselves and keep the money. That would have happened no matter which conference UConn was in on any new contract.

Yes you lose out on the extra revenue, but that was going to happen no matter what, no matter the conference, no matter the contract. If they went to the ACC, ESPn would do the same. If they went to the Big Ten, the games would be on the Big Ten Network. If they went to the Big 12, see the ACC. And, for example, if one of the newer southern teams shows they can make money reselling baseball to a local cable company, in the next contract, ESPN will make that sale directly themselves

(01-29-2014 09:42 AM)pesik Wrote:  some of you clearly dont realize our new deal doesnt kick in till the summer..
and the expsoure is going to be ridiculously better.

Contract has already kicked in. Football contract kicks in next year. This year is the first year of the basketball and Olympic sports portion of the contract.

I don’t know if what you are saying is accurate or not but I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the old BE contract did sell 3rd tier rights to ESPN but ESPN gave them back to the schools for nothing for them to try to monetize. Sure doesn’t sound like the ESPN I know. They have plenty of 3rd tier content that they do nothing with from other conferences, I’ve never heard of them giving back those rights to individual schools for free so that the schools can try to monetize them.

If ESPN was going to keep the rights, they have to do something with them. I.e produce the, make them available, etc. They cannot just sit on them and do nothing. So if they are not going to use them, they give them back to the conference who gives them back to the schools. If ESPN doesn't think they have a market for them, they don't want the expense of producing and market the product, for what in many instances results in chump change at best. That is why when the SEC (and later the ACC) are trying to buy rights back for their network, they only have to buy back football and men's basketball. The schools already own the rest.

(01-28-2014 07:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Would it be better with an extra $15-18M or so? Absolutely, but fans and recruits don't give a damn about that.

I can see both points.

Fans and recruits like TV exposure. Being able to see your favorite team on a TV channel that most people have is great from a fan's perspective. It is also a boon to recruiting because you can tell a kid that he will have a lot of visibility if he plays for your program. Plus, fans and recruits don't share in the profits so it makes sense why they'd value exposure more.

On the flip side though, coaches and administrators absolutely do care about profits and revenues. For athletic departments, having more money to work with means they have the resources to not only hire but also (potentially) retain a good coaching staff. Furthermore, it also gives them the resources needed to poach someone else's coach when it comes time to replace their own or to fill a vacancy. For coaches, a wealthy athletic department means the not only have a better source of income for themselves and their staffs, but also that they have the funds available for recruiting.

Money certainly doesn't guarantee that a program will be a consistent winner. Lack of money also doesn't mean a program can't still have great years. However, a program that has less financial resources available to it also faces the problem of potentially having a lot of coaching turnover.

(01-29-2014 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Put it this way: Do you seriously think ANY recruit will ever choose to go to ECU over UNC because of the exposure our TV contract will provide compared to the exposure the ACC TV contract will provide?

Seriously?

They might. What a recruit would not do is choose ECU over UNC because the ECU makes more money on their contract (hypothetical). Recruits don't care about money because they don't get any of it.

(1) What recruit could possibly look at the AAC vs ACC exposure on TV and conclude that the AAC's exposure is as good?

(2) That media money enables the P5 schools to buy lots of stuff - like better coaches and facilities - that recruits do care about.

This notion that our TV contract "exposure" is going to be a big deal to recruits just beggars belief. Yes, our exposure is much better than C-USA or Sun Belt, but if AAC schools really need a media deal difference to beat those schools out for recruits we are in trouble anyway.

Everyone else that we would care to compete with has far better exposure than we do.

(01-29-2014 01:06 PM)UConnFB Wrote:  The AAC has the stigma working against it and more. We're not going to get the best timeslots, we'll be playing on odd weeknights.

The AAC needs to get 2-3 teams consistently in the Top 25 to ensure that we'll get a few conference Top 25 match ups.

That's another good point: "Exposure" is misused around here, because it treats all ESPN channels the same and is conflated with actual viewers.

E.g., if a basketball recruit is considering ECU or Wake Forest, what is more likely to appeal to him, an ESPN News ECU game at 5:00 PM versus UCF or a 9 PM Wake game on ESPN versus Syracuse?

To many around here, those are "equal exposure" games because they are both on an ESPN national channel. But the latter is far more likely to gain viewers.

(01-28-2014 07:09 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  our tv deal is amazing. $$$ isn't that great as we'd like but the exposure is tremendous.

Your team has been EXPOSED alright, and not in a good way. LOL! ACC!

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Contract has already kicked in. Football contract kicks in next year. This year is the first year of the basketball and Olympic sports portion of the contract.

Just looking ahead from February 1st onward, I count the following televised games:

CBS: .......................... 3 games
ESPN or ESPN2: ........... 8 games
ESPN2: ....................... 2
ESPNU: .......................10 games
CBSSN: .......................12 games
ESPN News: ................ 15 games

That's a lot of games on CBSSN, the U and the News, about 75%. And of the 3 CBS games all involve Louisville, and of the "ESPN or ESPN2" games, none will necessarily be on ESPN, and 3 involve either Rutgers or Louisville, teams that won't be with us next year. So 6 of the 13 big-time national games involve leaving teams.

Looks like we are basically the CBSSN, U and News conference.

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  If you were in the old Big East, the current TV contract is horrible. In hind sight, the Big East should have taken ESPN's first offer, but the BB schools got greedy and we all know what happened.

The only way to get a future TV contract with better payouts is for each team to win, especially their OOC and Bowl games, and to raise the level of quality so we're relevent nationally. And not just in football, but basketball and all olympic sports.

UCF football did a great job this year and UC, Memphis, UConn and UofL are getting national recognition on the court along with the UConn women's BB team.

Losing Rutgers next year will have no impact on the conference and losing UofL may negatively impact UofL more than the American as they go from conference favorite to who knows where in the ACC.

After this inagural season, I see the American firmly wedged between the P5 and G4 conferences. We just need to keep moving closer to the P5 and good things will follow.

Don't worry yourself about UofL, as we have shown our ability in whatever conference we are in. Enjoy your new league. ACC!

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  After this inagural season, I see the American firmly wedged between the P5 and G4 conferences. We just need to keep moving closer to the P5 and good things will follow.

You seem to be unaware of some recent history, so let me help: Between 2005 - 2011, the Big East was, on the football field and basketball court, not just "close" to the other Power conferences, we were better than some of them, and formally, we were in fact part of the "ruling cartel".

For all the good it did us. Good things did not happen, the conference was dismembered, our media deals and bowl ties plummeted (and we lagged way behind the other power conferences to begin with) and we are now the relegated, demoted AAC.

(01-29-2014 12:40 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  losing UofL may negatively impact UofL more than the American as they go from conference favorite to who knows where in the ACC.

Astute analysis. I'd forgotten how Louisville basketball has struggled in every conference they've ever been a member of.

(01-30-2014 09:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just looking ahead from February 1st onward, I count the following televised games:

CBS: .......................... 3 games
ESPN or ESPN2: ........... 8 games
ESPN2: ....................... 2
ESPNU: .......................10 games
CBSSN: .......................12 games
ESPN News: ................ 15 games

That's a lot of games on CBSSN, the U and the News, about 75%. And of the 3 CBS games all involve Louisville, and of the "ESPN or ESPN2" games, none will necessarily be on ESPN, and 3 involve either Rutgers or Louisville, teams that won't be with us next year. So 6 of the 13 big-time national games involve leaving teams.

Looks like we are basically the CBSSN, U and News conference.

This is a non-factor in both bball and fball. The contract calls for so many ABC/CBS games regardless of who is in conference (unless more defections result in a null and void). All this means is that someone besides UL/RU will get that exposure. That's a GOOD thing. It's like Field of Dreams "Build it, and they will come." The commish has set the stage (national TV platform), and it's up to the teams to make the ratings happen.

(01-30-2014 02:05 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 09:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Just looking ahead from February 1st onward, I count the following televised games:

CBS: .......................... 3 games
ESPN or ESPN2: ........... 8 games
ESPN2: ....................... 2
ESPNU: .......................10 games
CBSSN: .......................12 games
ESPN News: ................ 15 games

That's a lot of games on CBSSN, the U and the News, about 75%. And of the 3 CBS games all involve Louisville, and of the "ESPN or ESPN2" games, none will necessarily be on ESPN, and 3 involve either Rutgers or Louisville, teams that won't be with us next year. So 6 of the 13 big-time national games involve leaving teams.

Looks like we are basically the CBSSN, U and News conference.

This is a non-factor in both bball and fball. The contract calls for so many ABC/CBS games regardless of who is in conference (unless more defections result in a null and void). All this means is that someone besides UL/RU will get that exposure. That's a GOOD thing. It's like Field of Dreams "Build it, and they will come." The commish has set the stage (national TV platform), and it's up to the teams to make the ratings happen.

This year, our contract had zero games guaranteed on ESPN and three on CBS. That seems to indicate the networks have LOTS of flexibility in terms of whether we play on CBS or CBSSN, or ESPN or ESPN News.