In late October 2012, McMurphy wrote an article that the Big East (we hadn't broken up yet) would net between $60M and $130M a year. He tweeted on the October 31 (the close of the exclusive negotiating window) that "no way" does the Big East get more than $130M, but "we'll see how close they get to it."

At the time, Rutgers and Louisville were part of the mix, as were the Catholic 7 and Boise/SDSU. Tulane, East Carolina & Tulsa were NOT part of the equation yet. Notre Dame had already announced its departure.

So the league looked like this:

All Sports - 10
Louisville
Rutgers
UConn
Cincy
USF
Temple
UCF
Houston
Memphis
SMU

Football Only
Navy
Boise
SDSU

Nonfootball
Georgetown
Villanova
Providence
DePaul
Marquette
St Johns
Seton Hall

While the American Conference ended up with a TV deal worth $23M/year, if you add in what the C7 got ($35M/yr), plus Louisville & Rutgers (estimated $40M/yr combined), plus what Boise and SDSU football only got (estimated $4M/yr combined), then the schools in the Big East on Oct 31, 2012 got:

About $102M/yr

If our upside max was $130M/yr, then maybe there's maybe another $25-30M on the table for us whenever we renegotiate.

Given our TV ratings vs the Big East, American Conference football and basketball at $4-5M a year per school would still seem to be a bargain vs. $5M/yr per school for Big East basketball without football.

Of course, we have to keep up our end of the bargain and deliver nationally relevant product in football and basketball.

I still can't get over the fact that the Big East football schools combined with the C7 were poised to get major money and Pitt and the Catholic schools rejected the large ESPN deal (and then they all jumped ship when the rejection backfired)

An important thing to remember is that any significant increase in money during the "look in" period is going to come with strings attached. For example, let's say that the American delivers great national ratings in football and basketball. ESPN isn't going to just bump up the value of the TV contract without getting some sort of concession in return (e.g. years added on to the contract).

So if you are the American presidents, you have to ask yourselves "is $1, 2, 3, 4, etc million dollars per school per year worth signing a 4,5,6 year extension on the ESPN contract?".

(01-29-2014 05:00 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  An important thing to remember is that any significant increase in money during the "look in" period is going to come with strings attached. For example, let's say that the American delivers great national ratings in football and basketball. ESPN isn't going to just bump up the value of the TV contract without getting some sort of concession in return (e.g. years added on to the contract).

So if you are the American presidents, you have to ask yourselves "is $1, 2, 3, 4, etc million dollars per school per year worth signing a 4,5,6 year extension on the ESPN contract?".

Correct. A "look in" is NOT a unilateral increase in money just because ESPN feels like being nice, warm, and fuzzy. I'm not sure why so many fans think that ESPN, quite possibly the most cutthroat and profitable entity in the entire entertainment industry, would just willingly give more money to people when they don't have to. The AAC could be getting SEC Championship Game ratings every week and ESPN wouldn't add a dime to the *existing* contract. There's always a quid pro quo, which typically comes in the form of a long-term extension.

6M a school for 72M.

Will the possible "look in" reduce the TV coverage?

Our TV deal is fine. We have better coverage then ACC even. Take that and grow the programs in AAC. When it is time for next one, we can position ourselves for a better one

(01-29-2014 05:00 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  An important thing to remember is that any significant increase in money during the "look in" period is going to come with strings attached. For example, let's say that the American delivers great national ratings in football and basketball. ESPN isn't going to just bump up the value of the TV contract without getting some sort of concession in return (e.g. years added on to the contract).

So if you are the American presidents, you have to ask yourselves "is $1, 2, 3, 4, etc million dollars per school per year worth signing a 4,5,6 year extension on the ESPN contract?".

I would say in my opinion, 1 or 2 million would not be worth it. However, most of the schools here are convinced they are not going to be in the AAC long term---so getting a small immediate bump in pay might be more popular than one might think (even though it would be less advantageous over the long term).

If they offered anything over 5-6 million a year with less than a 5 year extension---I cant imagine we would turn it down.

(01-29-2014 04:53 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  I still can't get over the fact that the Big East football schools combined with the C7 were poised to get major money and Pitt and the Catholic schools rejected the large ESPN deal (and then they all jumped ship when the rejection backfired)

There's just no honour among thieves anymore…

+2 mil for 3 more years with same or very close coverage would be a good swap. as would 3 for 5. We need some separation from G4.

If the league makes it in it's present form to that point then I have little doubt it will be a success and deserve to be paid more money. Of course deserving and getting are 2 very different things, and like Frank said ESPN doesn't have to give this league anything if they don't want to. The problem is ESPN already proved last time if you try to leave they will crush you, so they really have the league between a rock and a hard place.

(01-29-2014 04:53 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  I still can't get over the fact that the Big East football schools combined with the C7 were poised to get major money and Pitt and the Catholic schools rejected the large ESPN deal (and then they all jumped ship when the rejection backfired)

Pitt knew they were gone, and the contract would have been voided anyways.

solid thread... lets do it again in 3 days