(05-10-2014 08:24 AM)otown Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:09 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 10:55 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The nature of our instability was that the conference could have collapsed within a year. ESPN took a risk putting any money on us not just because of losses in media strength but lack of a clear future. That's why the number is so low. It's low for all the reasons you're saying but it's so low because of existential threats. Edit: what that means is that now we are not in an immanent state if collapse the value of our property is currently higher than what we are being paid for it.

I know it's ego-bruising to accept the stark fact of the matter, but that fact remains: The market valued us at $1.8 million per school because that's what the market thought our membership was worth, period. Now can that worth rise or fall in the future? Sure. But don't fool yourself, instability had nothing to do with the dollars we were offered.

have you never heard the phrase "getting a real estate steal?" ESPN went into negotiations at the PERFECT time. nobody really felt the need to add inventory at that time.

if you and 5 others are in the market for a house in a neighborhood that did not have any homes for sale for the past 10 years...... and one comes available at a steal..... what do you do? you all go into a bidding war and drive up the price. all 6 of you live in an apartment and live close to that neighborhood. you all want in since you all want to buy at that time.

now, if you are the only one still in an apartment and the 5 others bought overpriced mcmansions 4 years earlier before the market went south.......their money is all tied up. what is going to happen? you are going to be one very happy bidder at that auction because the only other person that showed up was the only owner of one of the mcmansions that saved a few bucks and was willing to see what the few bucks can bring in. he had nothing to lose. you obviously got a steal, because you easily outbid him, but at a basement price.

the market was artificially low. that simple.

Usually, markets are only called "artificially" low when companies have engaged in illegal collusion or restraint of trade, like what Apple and Google did with their agreement to not raid each other for employees. In that case, a Silicon Valley tech employee could say that the market rate for their job was artificially low during that time because the market had been 'fixed', which means it wasn't a true free market.

But otherwise, the market is just the market. As was the case with our negotiations. I think proof of this is that within a month or so of the announcement of our agreement, the SEC and ESPN reached their massive "SEC Network" deal that pays the SEC gobs of money, so there's no evidence that general market conditions were artificially depressed, or even unusually low as a result of the natural up and down rhythms of supply and demand. There was just little demand for us.

if you think the SEC network was not in the works years before Louisville and rutgers were given their golden parachutes as well as the C7 split....... you are mistaken. even though it was announced in may 2013, they have been working on this well before the last round of big east poaching.

espn did their bidding with full knowledge of their SEC network plans.

if you are going to use the SEC network as an example to compare to AAC..... well...... i just gotta laugh.

It's not up to me to use the SEC as an example to disprove your claims about the alleged "artificially low" market for the AAC, because those claims are, so far, completely without basis.

But FWIW, my example is very relevant anyway, because even if the SEC Network discussions had been going on for years, if the market for sports media had indeed tanked in the spring of 2013, the final negotiated value would have been very low, reflecting that tanked market. It's not like ESPN was bound to sign a deal in Spring 2013 that reflected say Fall of 2011 prices.

No, all evidence shows that the market just had little demand for us.

fwiw, last year we signed home-and-home agreements with Nebraska, BYU, and Miami (FL). In the past 5 years we've also had home-and-homes with Illinois, Purdue, NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and Oregon State. I don't think we have much trouble convincing opponents that we're a "major" program. It'll only get easier once the Nippert renovation is complete.

Many of these contracts included a basketball home-and-home. That's where having a top-notch basketball program helps: if you want our bball team to play at your arena, you have to play a football game at our stadium. I'll bet that UConn (as well as Memphis and Temple) does the same thing to get better home football schedules.

(05-10-2014 11:11 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  That's where having a top-notch basketball program helps: if you want our bball team to play at your arena, you have to play a football game at our stadium. I'll bet that UConn (as well as Memphis and Temple) does the same thing to get better home football schedules.

I would be very surprised if any major football program would sacrifice the big money of a home football game to induce Cincy's basketball team to play in their arena. I mean, are Kentucky and Duke, much bigger basketball names than Cincy, able to do that? I doubt it ...

(05-10-2014 02:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:11 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  That's where having a top-notch basketball program helps: if you want our bball team to play at your arena, you have to play a football game at our stadium. I'll bet that UConn (as well as Memphis and Temple) does the same thing to get better home football schedules.

I would be very surprised if any major football program would sacrifice the big money of a home football game to induce Cincy's basketball team to play in their arena. I mean, are Kentucky and Duke, much bigger basketball names than Cincy, able to do that? I doubt it ...

Cincy has done this in the past Quo, for the record, but it was back in the Huggs day.

Just sayin'