(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.

There is more than just simple logic like 'what the market would bear'. Nobody knew if the aac would get gutted again because we were losing members right and left. There is a financial comment to lock up content by the networks and nobody knew who would be around.

Flash forward now. We had 5 out of 10 teams in the top 25 of hoops. We beat the big 12 champs in football. We had decent football ratings and perfect ESPN material for Friday night content. This is valuable stuff that wasn't really known last year.

We had the worst timing for that tv contract. If the c-7 stayed for one more year, I think the negative vibe of constant defections would have been avoided.

(05-03-2014 03:37 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(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:  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,

What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

the open market isnt an open bid for it, but aresco going to each individual network one at a time negotiating and see what they have to offer , its not "they offered me this amount of money, what can you offer me" there are too many aspects of the contract and too many part of to be negotiated for it to work like that. also from my understanding their are actual rules and legislation into how this actually works why nbc couldnt rebid. if it was a bidding war, you and i know both know that NBC sports with almost no legitimate programming would have easily rebid. if it was a bidding situation we honestly would have gotten dramatically more money as we are the only major conference with full conference rights open till 2020

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

correct

The only way we were going to get more money is if a bidding war opened up...if this was an auction it would have looked like this:

Auctioneer: And I have the AAC media deal, let's start the bidding at 1.8/school.

ESPN: <ESPN raises hand with huge smile on face>

Auctioneer: <Nods to ESPN> 1.8, 1.8, do I hear 1.9?

Crickets

NBC: snickering

Crickets

Auctioneer: Come on folks, 1.9 for a fine conference like this with teams like...like...<turns to side of podium and whispers "who's in the American again? Oh, yeah...>teams like Cincy, 'southern florida', and, and UCONN!

Cricets

Auctioneer: 1.8 to espn, going once, going twice........uh......sold to espn for 1.8.

ESPN execs smacking each other on the back and laughing

(05-02-2014 01:13 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  This is for 2013, correct?

Obviously the CUSA teams numbers would be lower because of 1)Distribution...what network were those games on? and 2) Quality of opponent...for example...

ECU's home games were...

1)Old Dominion
2)Florida Atlantic
3)Virginia Tech
4) Southern Miss (winless)
5) Tulsa
6) UAB

At least 4 of those games have virtually no viewers on the other side of ECU...Tulsa may have a few. The VT game was on....wait for it...Fox Sports 1. And we know how the ratings there were working out. FAU was on FS1 as well on a Thursday night. UAB and ODU were basically local in Greenville. Tulsa and Southern Miss were regional FS networks.

A much better comparison will be when all teams are playing in the same conference and then viewers are counted.

^^This^^^

(05-02-2014 12:39 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  NOTE: THESE RATINGS ARE FOR FOOTBALL ONLY

Here are the average number of viewers by AAC member for AAC home games (that is, the only games that matter for a TV deal).
For "split" TV games I gave the benefit of the doubt and split the attendance in two. The only AAC home game where this occurred was UConn-Michigan which was split with KSU-Texas.

AVERAGE VIEWERS (MILLIONS) PER TELEVISED HOME GAME BY TEAM
3.805 Navy
1.497 Louisville
1.320 UConn
1.316 UCF
1.034 SMU
0.765 USF
0.638 Rutgers
0.562 Cincy
0.443 Temple
0.371 Houston
0.264 ECU
0.200 Tulsa
0.176 Memphis
N/A Tulane

AAC Average Viewers (2013) 0.838
AAC Average Viewers (2015 lineup) 0.912
# of Games Nationally Televised (2013) 30
# of Games Nationally Televised (2015 lineup) 28
Total Viewers (2013) 25.1 million
Total Viewers (2015 lineup) 25.5 million

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.


I calculated the same for the ACC to see if our TV deal was equal in value based on viewers.

3.162 Florida State
2.637 Clemson
2.270 Miami
2.205 Syracuse
2.074 Pitt
1.659 Georgia Tech
1.656 Virginia Tech
1.559 NC State
1.557 Duke
1.527 Boston College
1.499 UNC
1.497 Louisville
0.979 Maryland
0.860 Virginia
0.759 Wake Forest

ACC Average Viewers (2013) 1.932
ACC Average Viewers (2014 lineup) 1.990
# of Games Nationally Televised (2013) 49
# of Games Nationally Televised (2014 lineup) 49
Total Viewers (2013) 94.9 million
Total Viewers (2014 lineup) 97.5 million

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.

Good post.

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage. honestly speaking most of these networks have limitless money especially in comparison to range of money we were expected to be bought at 20-50 mil, the difference of 22mil a year and 50mil isn't honestly pennies to espn who is a 50 billion dollar company and a company who is trying to monopolize the market, same with NBC's worth. what most of these networks were limited on is time slots/space for guaranteed games especially in comparison to the amount we wanted televised and other requirements like the 2/3 guaranteed abc/nbc games in bothe basketball and football. we also have 1 guaranteed basketball game on cbs

(05-04-2014 09:27 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  The only way we were going to get more money is if a bidding war opened up...if this was an auction it would have looked like this:

Auctioneer: And I have the AAC media deal, let's start the bidding at 1.8/school.

ESPN: <ESPN raises hand with huge smile on face>

Auctioneer: <Nods to ESPN> 1.8, 1.8, do I hear 1.9?

Crickets

NBC: snickering

Crickets

Auctioneer: Come on folks, 1.9 for a fine conference like this with teams like...like...<turns to side of podium and whispers "who's in the American again? Oh, yeah...>teams like Cincy, 'southern florida', and, and UCONN!

Cricets

Auctioneer: 1.8 to espn, going once, going twice........uh......sold to espn for 1.8.

ESPN execs smacking each other on the back and laughing

Bearcats#1 i mean this in the nicest way possible because iive actually grown fond of you and your negativity but you and fans like you will be sole demise of cincy

your attitude will be poison in your fanbase and spread amongst each other. you over-emphasize anything negative refuse to give credit to anything positive. instead of accepting your situation you choose to complain and attack every chance you get

and i say it will be your demise because cincy's fan support and brand needs to grow to honestly have a legitimate shot at a P5, but everything you spout something negative it has a chance to honestly influence a potential fan and like a virus they will spread that same view to someone else and then to someone else etc. cincy barely ever sold out in a small 35k stadium in a power conference to begin with while winning games, but im sure you and fans like you constantly saying we play in a crap conference will definitely help that. we get it we arent the P5, you need to accept that and start looking at the cup half full at the very least not say anything if it isnt nice. we have some great teams in this league and other s with great potential.

irony is your complaining about not being in a P5 could honestly affect you not getting into a P5 even more

(05-02-2014 12:54 PM)pesik Wrote:  I hate things like this especially without naming the network it was on and time slot and ading that into the equation.

no offense to uconn but (not exact numbers) they had like 4 games televised 1 on abc 1 on espn and 2 on espnu/news
houston had like 8 games televised 2 on espn, 6 on espnnews, ..the average is bound to be dragged down

(a&m had a game on espnnews for the first half because of an overflow game it had 300k viewers, when it switched back to espn it jumped to 4million)
blank ratings arent a fair comparison of tv value, especially as a conference when the acc has more espn/espn2 games

I'll take it a step further. The OP said the average number of viewers PER TELEVISED GAME. I would argue that if a game is NOT televised, it provided zero value to the conference regarding the television contract. Therefore total season viewership should be compared (or at a minimum zeroes should be averaged in for non-televised games).

Example, a really bad and unpopular team might get 2 conference games on TV, but only when they're playing the 2 most popular teams. So If they averaged 800k viewers in those games, they only had 1.6 million viewers for the season. Going by average viewership per conference game played, their average is really 200k viewers.

Meanwhile, an above average team might only average 400k viewers per game, but all of their games are on TV so they have 3.2 million viewers for the season.

PLUS the bad/unpopular team may be dragging down the popular team's viewership, in my example above, the unpopular team had 800k viewers per game against the popular team, but mostly like the popular team is averaging more in the other games (say 1 million per game), but the bad team is dragging them down.

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

(05-04-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

Quo, do you believe our TV deal is worth $1.8M per school? Do you think Big East's is worth $4M per school? Are things instrinsically worth what companies bid? The actual value is the viewership (and thus ad revenue). ESPN/NBC underbid, Fox Sports overbid the actual value by viewership now that we have the numbers to look at. The effect of competition on bidding is real, but there is always an actual value something has and ESPN right now is getting a steal. Their execs know it, the conference knows it.

(05-04-2014 03:37 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

Quo, do you believe our TV deal is worth $1.8M per school? Do you think Big East's is worth $4M per school? Are things instrinsically worth what companies bid? The actual value is the viewership (and thus ad revenue). ESPN/NBC underbid, Fox Sports overbid the actual value by viewership now that we have the numbers to look at. The effect of competition on bidding is real, but there is always an actual value something has and ESPN right now is getting a steal. Their execs know it, the conference knows it.

Fox Sports had to get content for their new sports channels especially for weekday content and post football content. They had to pay up because the C-7 had to buy the Big East name + pay all the penalties for leaving early. It will be interesting to see what they get in the next valuation. I don't think Fox thought their ratings were going to be non-existent.

(05-04-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What part of "it doesn't matter if it was an auction or not" isn't sinking in?

Bottom line is that Aresco took our package to the open market precisely to avail himself of ALL possible offers. Your notion that he conducted negotiations so as to keep other networks from making offers is stupifying.

no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

What??? that is the most foolish thing you have written, we have 85% of our football games guaranteed televised. we dont own the remaining 15% to sell, espn owns 100%(*) of it. guaranteed games is just how much of those they are required to televise. espn televises 10-15% of mac games but own a 100% of it, they do not own the remaining 80% to resell. ESPN buys everything and we negotiate how much they must show. the rest of the inventory goes on espn3 (*technically cbsports owns like 13 basketball and 4 football but thats besides the point, but those are counted in the 85% required televised)

im guessing this was just a rushed response because i give you way more credit than that

(05-04-2014 03:37 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

Quo, do you believe our TV deal is worth $1.8M per school? Do you think Big East's is worth $4M per school? Are things instrinsically worth what companies bid? The actual value is the viewership (and thus ad revenue).

Don't confuse intrinsic worth with monetary worth. E.g., I have a memento from the night I asked my wife to marry me. I cherish it, carry it with me, and wouldn't sell it for anything. That's intrinsic worth.

But its monetary worth or value is simply the highest amount of money someone else is willing to pay me for it, which I imagine would be next to nothing.

Thus, "actual value", monetary value, of our media rights is what the highest bidder was willing and able to pay, and in our case that was $1.8 million per school as of March, 2013. In the case of the Big East, it was double that.

What will it be 6 years from now when it is up for renewal? We shall see.

(05-04-2014 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  no one ever said that, no need to twist anything, i said no one just "makes an offer" it took months of negotiating before an offer was made by NBC, no one is just throwing offers around

it doesnt matter what you are saying you are still describing it the same way. you are still portraying the "open market" like an "auction' despite the fact like you are saying you arent

You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

What??? that is the most foolish thing you have written, we have 85% of our football games guaranteed televised.

Good Lord ... The more I use clear and logical language to explain things to you, the more confused your replies get.

I give up, I've obviously failed to instruct you. Not just that but my tutoring is actually making you dumber. Someone else is going to have to take over.

(05-04-2014 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  What??? that is the most foolish thing you have written, we have 85% of our football games guaranteed televised.

Good Lord ... The more I use clear and logical language to explain things to you, the more confused your replies get.

I give up, I've obviously failed to instruct you. Not just that but my tutoring is actually making you dumber. Someone else is going to have to take over.

haha now that's the quo we all love to hate, wittily escaping a mental error and smoothly trying to turn it around

nice try but A+ on quick thinking and execution

(05-04-2014 12:04 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:27 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  The only way we were going to get more money is if a bidding war opened up...if this was an auction it would have looked like this:

Auctioneer: And I have the AAC media deal, let's start the bidding at 1.8/school.

ESPN: <ESPN raises hand with huge smile on face>

Auctioneer: <Nods to ESPN> 1.8, 1.8, do I hear 1.9?

Crickets

NBC: snickering

Crickets

Auctioneer: Come on folks, 1.9 for a fine conference like this with teams like...like...<turns to side of podium and whispers "who's in the American again? Oh, yeah...>teams like Cincy, 'southern florida', and, and UCONN!

Cricets

Auctioneer: 1.8 to espn, going once, going twice........uh......sold to espn for 1.8.

ESPN execs smacking each other on the back and laughing

Bearcats#1 i mean this in the nicest way possible because iive actually grown fond of you and your negativity but you and fans like you will be sole demise of cincy

your attitude will be poison in your fanbase and spread amongst each other. you over-emphasize anything negative refuse to give credit to anything positive. instead of accepting your situation you choose to complain and attack every chance you get

and i say it will be your demise because cincy's fan support and brand needs to grow to honestly have a legitimate shot at a P5, but everything you spout something negative it has a chance to honestly influence a potential fan and like a virus they will spread that same view to someone else and then to someone else etc. cincy barely ever sold out in a small 35k stadium in a power conference to begin with while winning games, but im sure you and fans like you constantly saying we play in a crap conference will definitely help that. we get it we arent the P5, you need to accept that and start looking at the cup half full at the very least not say anything if it isnt nice. we have some great teams in this league and other s with great potential.

irony is your complaining about not being in a P5 could honestly affect you not getting into a P5 even more

optimism is strong in this one....but don't worry my padawan, I will break you. Sooner or later you will come to the dark side...it is your destiny.

(05-04-2014 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:13 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:26 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You do not seem to realize that Aresco did in fact take our media rights to the open market after the exclusive window with ESPN ended. Your problem seems to be that you equate the term "open market" with some kind of instant spot-auction format, but that's not what open market means.

It means that the package is up for sale to any network willing and able to make an offer on it.

You can talk about all the intricacies of negotiating a TV deal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that every network was well aware that our media package was available for bid, and they all had the time to decide whether to make an offer and for how much.

And what the market offered us was ... $1.8m per school.

why isn't it getting through to you that it was more than money, you weren't behind closed doors, how do you know we weren't offered more money but dramatically less coverage.

You might as well ask me how I don't know that behind closed doorsCBS didn't offer Aresco 70 virgins for him to play with if he signed a deal? It's not my job to speculate because I have the FACT of what we do know was actually offered - both NBC and ESPN offered $1.8m per school and we accepted.

If you have special knowledge of what happened behind closed doors then by all means produce it, but otherwise, those are the facts that tell us what the market offered us.

Beyond that, though, your scenario is exceedingly unlikely, simply because what any conference would LIKE to have offered by a network is "more money for less coverage" so we can readily infer that if that was offered, we would have taken it. Because that would mean we get more money for the games they did buy and yet still have more inventory left over that we can sell to other networks for even more money.

E.g., you can bet that when the B1G is ready to sign its new deal in 2016, it would MUCH rather ESPN offer it $2 Billion for half its games rather than $1.5 Billion for all of them, because not only would it pocket $500 million more for those games it sells to ESPN, it then has the other half of its games to sell to FOX, CBS, NBC, or whomever for tons more money.

This is so elementary that it is astonishing that it has to be explained, but there are so many daft Aresco apologists around here who go on and on about our "exposure", and try to make a virtue of his having sold ALL of our games to ESPN for peanut money.

And don't even bother to say something about the alleged unique exposure value of signing with ESPN, because (a) most of our games aren't on ESPN or ESPN2, the big exposure channels, anyway, and (b) Aresco originally signed with NBCSN for that same chicken-feed money.

What??? that is the most foolish thing you have written, we have 85% of our football games guaranteed televised.

Good Lord ... The more I use clear and logical language to explain things to you, the more confused your replies get.

I give up, I've obviously failed to instruct you. Not just that but my tutoring is actually making you dumber. Someone else is going to have to take over.

we all know you dont have much respect for the AAC or our commissioner.

you have made it abundantly clear on pretty much every post your feelings about the conference. the topic could be discussing the weather in orlando this weekend, and you will manage to turn it into a AAC/Aresco defecation.

with that being said, you have consistently said that aresco did a super $hitty job with everything to date.

we all know how we were all underwhelmed with the bowl lineup...... but lets talk about money.

dont deflect the question........ looking at our conference...... what would you expect a reasonable per school deal would have been in which you would say aresco did a "good" job in that department? dont go on a tangent....... i just want a number..... or is that too hard for you to do?

(05-04-2014 07:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 12:04 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:27 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

I will break you. Sooner or later you will come to the dark side...it is your destiny.

Destiny, or Density??