A better apples to apples comparison is to simply use the games televised on a single network, such as ESPN (not ESPN News) and divide the total viewership for all games by the number of games and use that average for all teams. An even better number would be if you could only take the conference games, as certain OOC opponents could skew the numbers one way or the other.

(05-02-2014 02:22 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:13 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:02 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  We have been on an obscure channel for the past year........ so these mean nothing

That's not the only large error in the assumption

He's also assuming that Memphis football and basketball get rating that are the same, or "but they are probably not very far off." I can't even comment on how that assumption.

That wasn't the assumption...you read it wrong. The assumption was the value of AAC basketball is not very far off from the value of ACC basketball, relative to the TV deals in whole.

Reading it again after seeing your comment; I see that was what you meant. It was a difficult comparison to put in writing and I understand your difficulty and my confusion.

I'm sure Memphis' TV ratings for basketball are stellar and bring a lot of value to the TV deal. I'm just unable to spend hours doing the same analysis on basketball because there are so many more games. Someone could though, the data's available.

(05-02-2014 02:35 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 12:39 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  The Navy average is off since the Army-Navy game pulls in over 6 million viewers. I'm not sure how the TV deal works with Navy, but it's clear Navy is a great TV asset for the conference.

CBS owns the TV rights to the Army-Navy game and Navy's home games through 2017. It also owns the TV rights to the Navy-Notre Dame through 2018. Navy's deals with CBS were grandfathered in or the length of the contract according to Aresco when he was executive vice president for programming at CBS Sports (Link)

Now what happens to the rights after 2017/2018, I don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say that the American will gain the TV rights for all of Navy's home games but that Navy will keep the rights to the Army-Navy game. Again, that is just my guess on what will happen.

(05-02-2014 12:39 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  We could calulcate pretty accurately what a fair TV deal would be. But that would take hours upon hours. As a guess, the AAC should be getting around $3.5 million to $4 million/year per member.

Market economics is not based on what is fair and not fair. You are allowed to take your product to the market place and charge whatever you can convince the market to pay for you. The American chose to sign with ESPN for the amount of money that it did because that offer was the best one that it could get. The American might think it deserves more than what it is getting, but unless it can convince the marketplace, otherwise, it is getting the best deal it could get.

first the navy things,they already talked about, the AAC will get rights to those games (if its a home game for them), navy commish already said so, that the only reason we dont have it now is because it would be too much of hassle and too expensive to cancel current contracts. but i have a feeling those will be sold separately from the rest of the league (vs air force, army and ND)

and i disagree with your second statement, i wouldnt say it was the best we could get but aresco valued certain things more than others at this time. ESPN matched it within a day, to believe aresco couldnt match that deal monetary wise or do better else were is to be ignorant of the situation. aresco choose to pursue exposure over money. espn reporters were reporting the estimated value they believe would be 3-4 mil a team espn could have easily done that but then would have did us like they mac and aired less than 30% of our games maybe 3 or 4 espn a year. at this time i agree with aresco having 80% of our games televised is way more valuable than 1 or 2 mil a year, for branding and growth.

(05-02-2014 02:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:02 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  We have been on an obscure channel for the past year........ so these mean nothing

That's not the only large error in the assumption

He's also assuming that Memphis football and basketball get rating that are the same, or "but they are probably not very far off." I can't even comment on how that assumption.

Yep, look who's #3 in America...

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ule-heats/

Just as a side note, those rankings are for TV markets, not teams within said markets. For example, Louisville is the highest-rated metered market for ESPN game telecasts, but that doesn't really tell you how well UofL does in terms of ratings. All it tells you is that on average, a lot of people in Louisville watch ESPN's broadcasts of college basketball .

(05-02-2014 02:54 PM)pesik Wrote:  first the navy things,they already talked about, the AAC will get rights to those games (if its a home game for them),

Looks like you are correct. After a bit of digging, I found this article:

Rights to Navy’s home football games will become available in 2017 while rights to Navy’s home games with Notre Dame along with the Army-Navy game go up for bid in 2018. Gladchuk said Aresco will likely renegotiate the league’s deal with ESPN to reflect the addition of Navy home games along with those against Notre Dame and Army.

(05-02-2014 02:54 PM)pesik Wrote:  and i disagree with your second statement, i wouldnt say it was the best we could get but aresco valued certain things more than others at this time.

What is best depends on your definition, no? I'm sure Aresco could have landed more money if maxing out the financial side of the contract was the sole objective. However, it is likely that he wasn't going to get the same exposure if he did.

So I think it is fine to say he landed the best contract he could get for the conference. He was either going to get more money/less exposure or more exposure/less money but not both.

(05-02-2014 02:54 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:02 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  We have been on an obscure channel for the past year........ so these mean nothing

That's not the only large error in the assumption

He's also assuming that Memphis football and basketball get rating that are the same, or "but they are probably not very far off." I can't even comment on how that assumption.

Yep, look who's #3 in America...

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ule-heats/

Just as a side note, those rankings are for TV markets, not teams within said markets. For example, Louisville is the highest-rated metered market for ESPN game telecasts, but that doesn't really tell you how well UofL does in terms of ratings. All it tells you is that on average, a lot of people in Louisville watch ESPN's broadcasts of college basketball .

Correct. But in the Memphis market, it's practically all Memphis basketball. There is no competition.

(05-02-2014 02:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  A better apples to apples comparison is to simply use the games televised on a single network, such as ESPN (not ESPN News) and divide the total viewership for all games by the number of games and use that average for all teams. An even better number would be if you could only take the conference games, as certain OOC opponents could skew the numbers one way or the other.

That wouldn't be bad, but the purpose of this analysis wasn't who could and would get the most views if all things were equal, it's who is bringing the most viewership to AAC controlled games contributing to the TV deal. Of course it's not entirely fair because Houston might be put on ESPNews a bunch of times while Cincinnati gets put on ESPN2.

OOC skews the numbers, but again, we are just trying to see who gets the most viewership at AAC controlled games since that viewership is what helps in TV negotiations. I think UConn deserves some props for getting Michigan to play at their place. Likewise for Temple getting Notre Dame at the Linc in 2015.

(05-02-2014 02:35 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 12:39 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  The Navy average is off since the Army-Navy game pulls in over 6 million viewers. I'm not sure how the TV deal works with Navy, but it's clear Navy is a great TV asset for the conference.

CBS owns the TV rights to the Army-Navy game and Navy's home games through 2017. It also owns the TV rights to the Navy-Notre Dame through 2018. Navy's deals with CBS were grandfathered in or the length of the contract according to Aresco when he was executive vice president for programming at CBS Sports (Link)

Now what happens to the rights after 2017/2018, I don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say that the American will gain the TV rights for all of Navy's home games but that Navy will keep the rights to the Army-Navy game. Again, that is just my guess on what will happen.

(05-02-2014 12:39 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  When you compare the viewership and look at how much ACC is getting paid, the AAC should be getting $4.5 million/year per member for its TV deal assuming the basketball values are the same.

It isn't as simple as saying "We have 1/4 of their viewership so we should be paid at least 1/4 of what they are paid". For starters, such an analysis doesn't take into consideration that competition for rights might change across different ratings levels. For example, a conference with high viewership might attract significantly more competition than a conference with a lower level of TV ratings. More competition for rights means more bidding which means higher TV revenue. Lots of competition could inflate revenues at the high end of the ratings scales and lack of competition could devalue it at the low end (i.e. you might end up with a more exponential curve instead of a linear curve).

When you compare the viewership and look at how much ACC is getting paid, the AAC should be getting $4.5 million/year per member for its TV deal assuming the basketball values are the same. We know that is not the case, but they are probably not very far off. If someone felt like comparing the viewership of the AAC basketball games vs those of the ACC, we could calulcate pretty accurately what a fair TV deal would be. But that would take hours upon hours. As a guess, the AAC should be getting around $3.5 million to $4 million/year per member.

Also, you have to remember that the whole purpose behind rating is to generate ad revenue. As one might expect, programs with higher ratings on average tend to produce higher ad revenues. However, we can't automatically assume that ratings and revenues are linearly related. Program A might have double the ratings of program B, but those higher ratings might end up pulling in 3-4 times as much ad revenue. So in reality, is Program A only twice as valuable as Program B (only based on ratings) or is it actually 3-4 times more valuable (based on the revenues it is able to generate)?

(05-02-2014 12:39 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  We could calulcate pretty accurately what a fair TV deal would be. But that would take hours upon hours. As a guess, the AAC should be getting around $3.5 million to $4 million/year per member.

Market economics is not based on what is fair and not fair. You are allowed to take your product to the market place and charge whatever you can convince the market to pay for you. The American chose to sign with ESPN for the amount of money that it did because that offer was the best one that it could get. The American might think it deserves more than what it is getting, but unless it can convince the marketplace, otherwise, it is getting the best deal it could get.

I agree with a few of your points but disagree with your statement about competition adding to the price. Competition would increase the price as long as it was still a good deal for the cable companies. ESPN and NBC Sports could justify dishing out more cash for the AAC rights since they were in fact worth more (views = ad revenue) than what we are getting right now, unless the ACC rights are overpriced which I really doubt. Both companies did not dish out more cash, but they could have. These ratings only confirm NBC should've competed with ESPN a little more. They would have still made a nice profit and gotten a good deal. It's not surprising that these cable companies occasionally lose out (see FS1) when their decisions are based on biases and repuations and not data. Are the millions NBC could've made from bidding a little higher for the AAC rights a big deal to them? No, it's change. But the reality is it was bad business on their part, even if it's pennies compared to what they make in entirety.

(05-02-2014 03:16 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  ESPN and NBC Sports could justify dishing out more cash for the AAC rights since they were in fact worth more (views = ad revenue) than what we are getting right now, unless the ACC rights are overpriced which I really doubt. Both companies did not dish out more cash, but they could have. These ratings only confirm NBC should've competed with ESPN a little more. They would have still made a nice profit and gotten a good deal.

You are making two big assumptions.

#1. I don't think we can automatically assume that NBC actually wanted to compete for the American's media rights. Rather, I think that it is more likely that NBC assumed ESPN wouldn't want to match/counter their offer. That would have allowed them to pick up some sports programming on the cheap without having to compete for it. The fact that NBC bowed out as soon as ESPN matched their offers tells me NBC wasn't all that serious about competing for the rights in the first place.

#2. Some of those ratings are based on ESPN broadcasts. As the Big East has shown, good ratings on ESPN may or may not translate over to generating good ratings on a different network. So it really isn't valid to say that NBC should have bid more based on ratings data from ESPN broadcasts. After all, NBC might have paid more but ended up in FS1's position.

(05-02-2014 03:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:54 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:02 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  We have been on an obscure channel for the past year........ so these mean nothing

That's not the only large error in the assumption

He's also assuming that Memphis football and basketball get rating that are the same, or "but they are probably not very far off." I can't even comment on how that assumption.

Yep, look who's #3 in America...

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ule-heats/

Just as a side note, those rankings are for TV markets, not teams within said markets. For example, Louisville is the highest-rated metered market for ESPN game telecasts, but that doesn't really tell you how well UofL does in terms of ratings. All it tells you is that on average, a lot of people in Louisville watch ESPN's broadcasts of college basketball .

Correct. But in the Memphis market, it's practically all Memphis basketball. There is no competition.

Exactly.

We don't have half of our population watching UK :) ................just mostly good natured humor.

(05-02-2014 02:52 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:22 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:13 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:02 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  We have been on an obscure channel for the past year........ so these mean nothing

That's not the only large error in the assumption

He's also assuming that Memphis football and basketball get rating that are the same, or "but they are probably not very far off." I can't even comment on how that assumption.

That wasn't the assumption...you read it wrong. The assumption was the value of AAC basketball is not very far off from the value of ACC basketball, relative to the TV deals in whole.

Reading it again after seeing your comment; I see that was what you meant. It was a difficult comparison to put in writing and I understand your difficulty and my confusion.

I'm sure Memphis' TV ratings for basketball are stellar and bring a lot of value to the TV deal. I'm just unable to spend hours doing the same analysis on basketball because there are so many more games. Someone could though, the data's available.

No problem, I fully understand and I wouldn't expect you to based on how I now understand your comment.

Need to add Army asap! Get the trifecta of Army, Air Force, and BYU would be a game changer for the tv contract.

(05-02-2014 03:04 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  A better apples to apples comparison is to simply use the games televised on a single network, such as ESPN (not ESPN News) and divide the total viewership for all games by the number of games and use that average for all teams. An even better number would be if you could only take the conference games, as certain OOC opponents could skew the numbers one way or the other.

That wouldn't be bad, but the purpose of this analysis wasn't who could and would get the most views if all things were equal, it's who is bringing the most viewership to AAC controlled games contributing to the TV deal. Of course it's not entirely fair because Houston might be put on ESPNews a bunch of times while Cincinnati gets put on ESPN2.

OOC skews the numbers, but again, we are just trying to see who gets the most viewership at AAC controlled games since that viewership is what helps in TV negotiations. I think UConn deserves some props for getting Michigan to play at their place. Likewise for Temple getting Notre Dame at the Linc in 2015.

You can't inlcude the three incoming teams then. No one knows the true value they hold to the AAC in viewership until they play an AAC schedule under an AAC TV contract. Only then can you compare or rank them to the current AAC schools...an even then it would be more fair to have multiple years to find realistic numbers. One year is a start...but UCF has never seen numbers like they did this year. This isn't a knock by any means...but unless they pull the same trick as last year, their numbers will almost certainly be lower. They won't dip to the bottom by any stretch of the imagination. Their success this year will lead to more games on better channels and their market will help. But they won't get Louisville's numbers year in and year out for years to come. That takes brand recognition. So they could move down, especially if someone like Houston has a great season and they quickly move up. Ebb and flow. This is why I think this conference needs the same 4-5 schools (pick whomever you desire) to remain at the top of the conference perrenially. Perception is everything.

(05-02-2014 01:14 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  I assume ESPN lowballed us because they anticipated UConn and Cincy going, but since the ACC grant of rights has been locked in, ESPN is just ripping the AAC off.

Is that the same reason NBC "low balled" us?

When only two bidders emerge from a market and they both offer the same amount of money, that is the market speaking as to what we are worth. Because if those really were "low ball" offers, then other networks would have recognized the attempted theft and swooped in with a better one. But they didn't, so we know $2m is what we were worth.

That fact is unpleasant for many around here, but that's not the fact's problem.

(05-03-2014 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:14 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  I assume ESPN lowballed us because they anticipated UConn and Cincy going, but since the ACC grant of rights has been locked in, ESPN is just ripping the AAC off.

Is that the same reason NBC "low balled" us?

When only two bidders emerge from a market and they both offer the same amount of money, that is the market speaking as to what we are worth. Because if those really were "low ball" offers, then other networks would have recognized the attempted theft and swooped in with a better one. But they didn't, so we know $2m is what we were worth.

That fact is unpleasant for many around here, but that's not the fact's problem.

first off their werent only 2 bidders tv contracts arent an open auction, were evryone can see veryones bid, so that notion to start off is ridiculous.
we choose who we wanted to negotiate with and again espn matched the same day meaning it wasnt even i question they were getting a good deal monetary wise or they would have taken more time to deliberate, aresco could have easily gotten more money to chose the road of more exposure and drmatically more guaranteed televised games, something i agree with

are you honestly a USF fan? be honest, you are obviously a nBE fan, but i have yet to see even the remotest sign that you are even a fan of anyone in his league as you look for any type of sign to attack the league and then go full force at it

(05-03-2014 01:05 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:14 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  I assume ESPN lowballed us because they anticipated UConn and Cincy going, but since the ACC grant of rights has been locked in, ESPN is just ripping the AAC off.

Is that the same reason NBC "low balled" us?

When only two bidders emerge from a market and they both offer the same amount of money, that is the market speaking as to what we are worth. Because if those really were "low ball" offers, then other networks would have recognized the attempted theft and swooped in with a better one. But they didn't, so we know $2m is what we were worth.

That fact is unpleasant for many around here, but that's not the fact's problem.

first off their werent only 2 bidders tv contracts arent an open auction, were evryone can see veryones bid, so that notion to start off is ridiculous.
we choose who we wanted to negotiate with

Are you actually claiming we "chose" to only entertain offers from ESPN and NBC? Seriously?

(05-03-2014 01:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:05 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:14 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  I assume ESPN lowballed us because they anticipated UConn and Cincy going, but since the ACC grant of rights has been locked in, ESPN is just ripping the AAC off.

Is that the same reason NBC "low balled" us?

When only two bidders emerge from a market and they both offer the same amount of money, that is the market speaking as to what we are worth. Because if those really were "low ball" offers, then other networks would have recognized the attempted theft and swooped in with a better one. But they didn't, so we know $2m is what we were worth.

That fact is unpleasant for many around here, but that's not the fact's problem.

first off their werent only 2 bidders tv contracts arent an open auction, were evryone can see veryones bid, so that notion to start off is ridiculous.
we choose who we wanted to negotiate with

Are you actually claiming we "chose" to only entertain offers from ESPN and NBC? Seriously?

we don't know who he entertained, he never released it, we only know nbc because the negotiations went deep. aresco was a major player at cbs to believe we didn't even talk to them seems unrealistic. and who knows NBC might have thrown out a deal we couldn't pass up with the coverage and he didn't feel the need to look elsewhere till he knew this wouldn't work out. aresco always refers to it as "unprecedented" coverage when talking about the deal. meaning he knew he would have had a hard time get this many guaranteed games else where

whatever the situation it wasn't an auction but separate negotiations and the meeting were closed so let's not pretend we know what happened and that money was the only item of value being negotiated

Agree with Quo's earlier comment about stability (UConn and Cincy leaving) being the key factor in the lowball offers. Or maybe it's not fair to say lowball as the perceived value of the conference was tied to these rumors. Either way, going forward, this conference's TV value will be more heavily dependent upon "on-field" performance. At least imo. That's what we should be focused on.

(05-03-2014 02:05 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:05 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:14 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  I assume ESPN lowballed us because they anticipated UConn and Cincy going, but since the ACC grant of rights has been locked in, ESPN is just ripping the AAC off.

Is that the same reason NBC "low balled" us?

When only two bidders emerge from a market and they both offer the same amount of money, that is the market speaking as to what we are worth. Because if those really were "low ball" offers, then other networks would have recognized the attempted theft and swooped in with a better one. But they didn't, so we know $2m is what we were worth.

That fact is unpleasant for many around here, but that's not the fact's problem.

first off their werent only 2 bidders tv contracts arent an open auction, were evryone can see veryones bid, so that notion to start off is ridiculous.
we choose who we wanted to negotiate with

Are you actually claiming we "chose" to only entertain offers from ESPN and NBC? Seriously?

we don't know who he entertained, he never released it, we only know nbc because the negotiations went deep. aresco was a major player at cbs to believe we didn't even talk to them seems unrealistic. and who knows NBC might have thrown out a deal we couldn't pass up with the coverage and he didn't feel the need to look elsewhere till he knew this wouldn't work out. aresco always refers to it as "unprecedented" coverage when talking about the deal. meaning he knew he would have had a hard time get this many guaranteed games else where

whatever the situation it wasn't an auction but separate negotiations and the meeting were closed so let's not pretend we know what happened and that money was the only item of value being negotiated

It doesn't matter if it literally was an auction or not, point is, Aresco surely was willing to field offers from ANY credible network. That was the whole point of spurning ESPN during the exclusive negotiation window - to take our package to the open market, meaning where any network could make a bid.

It is undoubtedly true that if the money offered by NBC and ESPN was truly "low ball" other networks would have stepped up with better offers. That's how markets work. Thus there is no reason, other than to ameliorate the bruised egos of some AAC fans, to think we were 'low balled'. We got what the market would bear.

(05-03-2014 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 02:05 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:05 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 12:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Is that the same reason NBC "low balled" us?

When only two bidders emerge from a market and they both offer the same amount of money, that is the market speaking as to what we are worth. Because if those really were "low ball" offers, then other networks would have recognized the attempted theft and swooped in with a better one. But they didn't, so we know $2m is what we were worth.

That fact is unpleasant for many around here, but that's not the fact's problem.

first off their werent only 2 bidders tv contracts arent an open auction, were evryone can see veryones bid, so that notion to start off is ridiculous.
we choose who we wanted to negotiate with

Are you actually claiming we "chose" to only entertain offers from ESPN and NBC? Seriously?

we don't know who he entertained, he never released it, we only know nbc because the negotiations went deep. aresco was a major player at cbs to believe we didn't even talk to them seems unrealistic. and who knows NBC might have thrown out a deal we couldn't pass up with the coverage and he didn't feel the need to look elsewhere till he knew this wouldn't work out. aresco always refers to it as "unprecedented" coverage when talking about the deal. meaning he knew he would have had a hard time get this many guaranteed games else where

whatever the situation it wasn't an auction but separate negotiations and the meeting were closed so let's not pretend we know what happened and that money was the only item of value being negotiated

It doesn't matter if it literally was an auction or not, point is, Aresco surely was willing to field offers from ANY credible network. That was the whole point of spurning ESPN during the exclusive negotiation window - to take our package to the open market, meaning where any network could make a bid.

It is undoubtedly true that if the money offered by NBC and ESPN was truly "low ball" other networks would have stepped up with better offers. That's how markets work. Thus there is no reason, other than to ameliorate the bruised egos of some AAC fans, to think we were 'low balled'. We got what the market would bear.

what dont you get this wasnt a public auction, first off the deal was entirely private after months and months of negotiation tons of different aspects, to act as if this was something public that he could freely just switch around is foolish and very ignorant of the situation and makes me feel as if you have verry little understanding of how this work. and very honestly your theory could have very well damaged ourselves even more if they found out we were trying to pin them versus others and could have decreased the offer they were wiling to give in money or exposure. secondly there were other parts of the negotiations besides money, again money was just a small part of the equation, someone else could have potentially offered us more money, but couldnt offer the slots (remember cbspoorts,and nbcsports are 1 channel and foxsports is 2 but we wouldn't have accepted fs2, they offered to televise 85% of our games its hard to believe everyone will have the slots for that) someone else could have offered money but wanted other incentive like stadium branding or whatever, who knows

im honestly sick of you pretending like you know more than aresco in respect to tv deals, which you clearly dont.
you are portraying this like a 1 dimensional thing, like a art painting at an auction.