(05-22-2014 02:57 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Nah... No to games... I rather have the full $5 mil and call it a day.

If Boise wants to schedule, don't call, we'll call you.

You express my sentiment. We need the money more than the games. Pay up, Boise.

(05-24-2014 07:41 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 05:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:49 PM)PT_american Wrote:  I mean everything quo suggests implies the league wasn't falling apart and we got what we were worth and it simple isn't true. There was enormous uncertainty.

I have not implied that the league "wasn't falling apart". At the time of the contract negotiations there were, in fact, two reasons to question the future composition of the league:

1) In the wake of Boise's defection, there was evidence that the MWC was also courting Houston and SMU, raising the possibility that we could lose those schools.

2) In the wake of Maryland's departure for the B1G, the ACC faced possible additional losses as FSU and Clemson were grumbling about the future of the conference, and had FSU and/or Clemson bolted for the Big 12, the ACC would likely have back-filled by taking UConn, Cincy, USF, or some other AAC school(s).

HOWEVER, my point has been that these threats to AAC "stability" do NOT account for the value of our media deal, because those threats could be and were in fact handled by the non-financial terms of the contract, specifically the grouping of schools into A and B categories that spelled out what would happen should future defections occurred.

Since these provisions protected any media company from future membership changes, that factor does not explain the monetary value of the contract.

Quo this is where you are wrong. The contract merely protects them from paying more money out annually. So instead of 20 million the pay 15 if team x leaves for example. It doesn't protect them from the lost advertising dollars they will no longer get during the UConn vs Cinn game since they are gone potentially in those scenarios. It also doesn't protect their brand when no one tunes into the game and they are unable to cross market other events on their network.

The advertising dollars are lost, but so are the production costs of carrying the games. You might as well say that NBC is suffering right now because thanks to ESPN matching their offer, they won't be getting those ad dollars. But of course they will just air alternate programming. If the ad dollars really were all that great, they would have bid more for our rights to get them.

As for branding, as I said to pesik, while brand-image and cross-marketing is substantial for high-profile leagues like the NFL where there is prestige to carrying that league, there is no such prestige/branding value of carrying the AAC, at least nothing that isn't marginal/trivial compared to alternate programming, and again, if that was high, it would be accounted for in their offer to us.

No, the terms of the contract protected NBC/ESPN from the major financial threat: That of having to air games between less-valuable teams, e.g., if Cincy leaves, instead of airing a Cincy-UCF game they have to air a ULL-UCF game (if ULL replaced Cincy as backfill). That's what the networks were worried about, and that's why those terms are in the contract.

(05-24-2014 09:02 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't know what Aresco personally said, because he has little to no credibility. But even if he had credibility on this, it wouldn't matter, because the facts speak otherwise.

The terms of the contract itself covered the networks in case of further 'instability', so that could not have been the reason the dollars were so low. The reason the dollars were so low was because that's what our schools were perceived to be worth.

ill put it in simpler terms imagine you are negotiating for a watch and a stranger (in our case perception/rumors) walks in and says there is a good chance that watch breaks in 2 months, even if the owner says he'll give you a money back guarantee, the fact you know theirs a huge chance it breaks the price of what you are willing to pay has dramatically lowered

and you alsio have to look at it at the other side of the shoes, the tv networks, they use our conferences as branding to build and invest heavily in tieing our brand to their brand.

Your argument boils down to their being some kind of threats to the media companies that could not be captured by the non-financial terms. But, the terms of the contract itself essentially refute you. They spell out exactly what happens if teams leave and capture the ENTIRE range of possible outcomes, from one team leaving to all teams leaving, including which combination of teams leave! Every possible defection contingency is accounted for. So the threat of defections or dissolution** could not have had any significant impact on those terms.

And importantly, this really does capture all of the significant losses. NBC's "branding" image investment in the AAC was of trivial value. Networks lose sporting properties all the time and they just move on. There is no way that the dissolution of the AAC would reflect poorly on NBC (or ESPN). Maybe this is a factor with really big-time leagues like the NFL or MLB, but the AAC is tiny potatoes. Nobody would blame those networks for that failure, so that's no explanation either.

Finally, if we were really "low balled" because of instability, what explains the MWC contract? The MWC was not plagued by all these rumors of defections, and signed a contract at the same time we did, and for the same seven year period, and for essentially the same money. And that almost perfectly comports with the common perceptions of us, which that while there is a G5, the two most powerful/valuable P5s, are the AAC and MWC. For you to be correct, the AAC would have to be a lot more valuable than the MWC, and if you are honest, you'd have to admit that nobody outside of an AAC forum thinks that. We are generally regarded as equally valuable and powerful, and just an eyeball test confirms that. You'd have to be an AAC egomaniac to think that our schools are significantly more prominent and valuable than their schools.

No, the evidence is clear: We were paid what we were worth.

PS- not that it's relevant, but your watch example makes little sense because except for a status piece like a Rolex, watches are defined by their reliability. If anyone tells you a watch is likely to break within two months, a buyer would doubt its ability to keep time from the get-go, making it essentially worthless, especially in a world where you have a zillion other watches to choose from.

** While the uncertainty with the pre-GoR ACC meant there were credible threats of losing maybe 2-3 schools, such as UConn and Cincy, to backfill should the ACC lose FSU and Clemson, there was no real threat of AAC dissolution. The worst-case scenario that had any realistic chance of occurring was that there was still going to be a core of at least 8 schools that had no better place to go, namely: USF, UCF, Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, and SMU.

And the contract was designed to perfectly protect the networks should that worst-case scenario arise. They could easily renegotiate that down to say $1m per team per year, which is what that conference (plus 3-4 backfills from C-USA or Sun Belt) would be worth.

1) that is why i used the big east example. your a nBE homer but if you're honest with yourself, in national relevance the aac= the nBE (probably more AAC since winning the title).. you didnt answer the question from earlier, if the big east collapsed would that hurt FS1, even with a renegotiation clause?..

you are the type to never concede a point, so ill give it to you straight. if the big east collapsed it would hurt FS1. fox has spent millions branding the big east with fs1 because it was a stable product they could attempt to build on. if the big east had crazy rumours of instability (pretend the big 10 wanted 4 bball only members and vill and Georgetown became extremely vocal about joining fbs football)..guaranteed fs1 would have lowered the offer dramatically .. that is the truth

2) the MWC comparison is dumb, it is not general fans negotiating our contracts, but in the know tv execs with information about ratings, markets, sustainability, stability, market growth etc.. and we are in no way similar to the MWC in those respect, our contract and theirs have absolutely nothing to do with ours.
again the general fans perception to the "new big east" and the AAC is similar probably leaning more AAC today, if perception and general fan were the negotiating factor the nBE wouldn't have gotten anything remotely that high


** losing smu to the mwc was a legitimate rumor and losing a florida to the big 12 was also a legitimate rumor you are looking at a core 5 if all the rumors had played out.. Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis were the only ones without a rumored new home

1) I ignored your new Big East example because it tells us nothing except that FOX decided to value them that highly. Obviously, FOX doesn't want the Big East to collapse (nobody ever wants that) but seriously, how much is the FOX corporation hurt if it does? The Big East, like the AAC, is a small potatoes entity. We're not talking about the NFL here, there simply isn't the same brand-identity stakes at play.

2) The MWC comparison is actually highly relevant. It's not just fans but the whole sports world that considers the MWC and AAC to be about on a par in terms of value. And the media companies run by those "in the know" executives did too.

Fact is, the only place in the known universe where AAC is considered to be a lot more valuable than MWC is in the minds of partisan AAC fans. No place else.

3) As for rumors, a core 5 that you describe would mean that ALL rumors played out, something extremely unlikely and hence not likely to influence media company thinking. Nobody prices a package based on every ridiculous rumor floated around by hopeful fans. But even in that scenario, a core 5 would be enough, with backfills from C-USA and Sun Belt, and the new contract would be priced accordingly.

Bottom line is I don't concede here because the facts say that you are flat-out wrong. You are letting your fan-dom guide your thinking. Bad move. All the evidence shows that any loss-of-value issues could, and were, handled by the terms of the contract that allowed for renegotiation if membership changed.

(05-24-2014 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:02 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 09:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't know what Aresco personally said, because he has little to no credibility. But even if he had credibility on this, it wouldn't matter, because the facts speak otherwise.

The terms of the contract itself covered the networks in case of further 'instability', so that could not have been the reason the dollars were so low. The reason the dollars were so low was because that's what our schools were perceived to be worth.

ill put it in simpler terms imagine you are negotiating for a watch and a stranger (in our case perception/rumors) walks in and says there is a good chance that watch breaks in 2 months, even if the owner says he'll give you a money back guarantee, the fact you know theirs a huge chance it breaks the price of what you are willing to pay has dramatically lowered

and you alsio have to look at it at the other side of the shoes, the tv networks, they use our conferences as branding to build and invest heavily in tieing our brand to their brand.

Your argument boils down to their being some kind of threats to the media companies that could not be captured by the non-financial terms. But, the terms of the contract itself essentially refute you. They spell out exactly what happens if teams leave and capture the ENTIRE range of possible outcomes, from one team leaving to all teams leaving, including which combination of teams leave! Every possible defection contingency is accounted for. So the threat of defections or dissolution** could not have had any significant impact on those terms.

And importantly, this really does capture all of the significant losses. NBC's "branding" image investment in the AAC was of trivial value. Networks lose sporting properties all the time and they just move on. There is no way that the dissolution of the AAC would reflect poorly on NBC (or ESPN). Maybe this is a factor with really big-time leagues like the NFL or MLB, but the AAC is tiny potatoes. Nobody would blame those networks for that failure, so that's no explanation either.

Finally, if we were really "low balled" because of instability, what explains the MWC contract? The MWC was not plagued by all these rumors of defections, and signed a contract at the same time we did, and for the same seven year period, and for essentially the same money. And that almost perfectly comports with the common perceptions of us, which that while there is a G5, the two most powerful/valuable P5s, are the AAC and MWC. For you to be correct, the AAC would have to be a lot more valuable than the MWC, and if you are honest, you'd have to admit that nobody outside of an AAC forum thinks that. We are generally regarded as equally valuable and powerful, and just an eyeball test confirms that. You'd have to be an AAC egomaniac to think that our schools are significantly more prominent and valuable than their schools.

No, the evidence is clear: We were paid what we were worth.

PS- not that it's relevant, but your watch example makes little sense because except for a status piece like a Rolex, watches are defined by their reliability. If anyone tells you a watch is likely to break within two months, a buyer would doubt its ability to keep time from the get-go, making it essentially worthless, especially in a world where you have a zillion other watches to choose from.

** While the uncertainty with the pre-GoR ACC meant there were credible threats of losing maybe 2-3 schools, such as UConn and Cincy, to backfill should the ACC lose FSU and Clemson, there was no real threat of AAC dissolution. The worst-case scenario that had any realistic chance of occurring was that there was still going to be a core of at least 8 schools that had no better place to go, namely: USF, UCF, Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, and SMU.

And the contract was designed to perfectly protect the networks should that worst-case scenario arise. They could easily renegotiate that down to say $1m per team per year, which is what that conference (plus 3-4 backfills from C-USA or Sun Belt) would be worth.

1) that is why i used the big east example. your a nBE homer but if you're honest with yourself, in national relevance the aac= the nBE (probably more AAC since winning the title).. you didnt answer the question from earlier, if the big east collapsed would that hurt FS1, even with a renegotiation clause?..

you are the type to never concede a point, so ill give it to you straight. if the big east collapsed it would hurt FS1. fox has spent millions branding the big east with fs1 because it was a stable product they could attempt to build on. if the big east had crazy rumours of instability (pretend the big 10 wanted 4 bball only members and vill and Georgetown became extremely vocal about joining fbs football)..guaranteed fs1 would have lowered the offer dramatically .. that is the truth

2) the MWC comparison is dumb, it is not general fans negotiating our contracts, but in the know tv execs with information about ratings, markets, sustainability, stability, market growth etc.. and we are in no way similar to the MWC in those respect, our contract and theirs have absolutely nothing to do with ours.
again the general fans perception to the "new big east" and the AAC is similar probably leaning more AAC today, if perception and general fan were the negotiating factor the nBE wouldn't have gotten anything remotely that high


** losing smu to the mwc was a legitimate rumor and losing a florida to the big 12 was also a legitimate rumor you are looking at a core 5 if all the rumors had played out.. Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis were the only ones without a rumored new home

1) I ignored your new Big East example because it tells us nothing except that FOX decided to value them that highly. Obviously, FOX doesn't want the Big East to collapse (nobody ever wants that) but seriously, how much is the FOX corporation hurt if it does? The Big East, like the AAC, is a small potatoes entity. We're not talking about the NFL here, there simply isn't the same brand-identity stakes at play.

2) The MWC comparison is actually highly relevant. It's not just fans but the whole sports world that considers the MWC and AAC to be about on a par in terms of value. And the media companies run by those "in the know" executives did too.

Fact is, the only place in the known universe where AAC is considered to be a lot more valuable than MWC is in the minds of partisan AAC fans. No place else.

3) As for rumors, a core 5 that you describe would mean that ALL rumors played out, something extremely unlikely and hence not likely to influence media company thinking. Nobody prices a package based on every ridiculous rumor floated around by hopeful fans. But even in that scenario, a core 5 would be enough, with backfills from C-USA and Sun Belt, and the new contract would be priced accordingly.

Bottom line is I don't concede here because the facts say that you are flat-out wrong. You are letting your fan-dom guide your thinking. Bad move. All the evidence shows that any loss-of-value issues could, and were, handled by the terms of the contract that allowed for renegotiation if membership changed.

first off EVERYONE says the AAC is the top G5, EVERYONE...literally only a few mwc fans even argue that they are better even then half of them just say we are a "wash" (and if their fans are saying that you know we are better)

every article ive read has said that included the G5 and picked a front runner has called acknowledge the aac is the front runner of the g5.

literllay go the mwc forum they worry that "our perception" will unfairly give us the g5 slot every year, and their are like 3/4 active boards which that are talking about how sdsu might still jump here....
that statement you made is just wrong...

and if we are the same, how come we have guaranteed abc games and dramatically more televised games than they do. they have 1 cbs game that is their title game (and only on a 2 year contract), we have 3 not including our title game.

if we are the same we should have been able to agree on all similar terms on EVERYTHING..the MWC argument is weak, with no base to stand on besides a weak argument of perception.we are diffrent leagues with different circumstances different networks,with different teams..
espn even released an article before our deal was announced that the value of our deal with the team we have after bsu and sdsu left would be around 3-4 million per (why some of us were disappointed with the 2 million)..

this isnt even rocket science. to sell an unstable product even with protections the price WILL be decreased. this is common sense ..i have no clue why you are arguing this

(05-24-2014 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 07:41 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 05:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:49 PM)PT_american Wrote:  I mean everything quo suggests implies the league wasn't falling apart and we got what we were worth and it simple isn't true. There was enormous uncertainty.

I have not implied that the league "wasn't falling apart". At the time of the contract negotiations there were, in fact, two reasons to question the future composition of the league:

1) In the wake of Boise's defection, there was evidence that the MWC was also courting Houston and SMU, raising the possibility that we could lose those schools.

2) In the wake of Maryland's departure for the B1G, the ACC faced possible additional losses as FSU and Clemson were grumbling about the future of the conference, and had FSU and/or Clemson bolted for the Big 12, the ACC would likely have back-filled by taking UConn, Cincy, USF, or some other AAC school(s).

HOWEVER, my point has been that these threats to AAC "stability" do NOT account for the value of our media deal, because those threats could be and were in fact handled by the non-financial terms of the contract, specifically the grouping of schools into A and B categories that spelled out what would happen should future defections occurred.

Since these provisions protected any media company from future membership changes, that factor does not explain the monetary value of the contract.

Quo this is where you are wrong. The contract merely protects them from paying more money out annually. So instead of 20 million the pay 15 if team x leaves for example. It doesn't protect them from the lost advertising dollars they will no longer get during the UConn vs Cinn game since they are gone potentially in those scenarios. It also doesn't protect their brand when no one tunes into the game and they are unable to cross market other events on their network.

The advertising dollars are lost, but so are the production costs of carrying the games. You might as well say that NBC is suffering right now because thanks to ESPN matching their offer, they won't be getting those ad dollars. But of course they will just air alternate programming. If the ad dollars really were all that great, they would have bid more for our rights to get them.

As for branding, as I said to pesik, while brand-image and cross-marketing is substantial for high-profile leagues like the NFL where there is prestige to carrying that league, there is no such prestige/branding value of carrying the AAC, at least nothing that isn't marginal/trivial compared to alternate programming, and again, if that was high, it would be accounted for in their offer to us.

No, the terms of the contract protected NBC/ESPN from the major financial threat: That of having to air games between less-valuable teams, e.g., if Cincy leaves, instead of airing a Cincy-UCF game they have to air a ULL-UCF game (if ULL replaced Cincy as backfill). That's what the networks were worried about, and that's why those terms are in the contract.

Man you really don't get it. How are the productions cost gone when they still have to produce the games for a different set of teams that hold less value to advertisers???? I am over arguing since you are clearly not in the field of business. It was a toxic asset and they didn't want to risk a lot of money for an unknown product that could still be changing. Here is a summary but I am sure you think they could still offset everything that is lost with the drop in media deal. Yeah not likely.

Costs
Media deal (can be written to protect against teams leaving)
Production costs (fixed, still need to produce if scrub teams come on board)

Revenue ( these both drop significantly if teams change)
Price cable companies will pay for channel (by market)
Advertising (largest source or revenue for channel) strong content demands strong dollars. No protection here if league membership changes

Fact #1: There's not a tv exec in the known universe who believes the MWC is on equal viewing power as the AAC. Its not even close.

Fact#2: Most everyone in the business knows that the AAC is more powerful in football than the MWC. Numbers have been run to show that the AAC is more powerful even if the MWC were to add BYU. The MWC and AAC are not "about equal" in power. There is a clear divide.

Fact#3: Every team in the AAC supports and will implement the stipend plan. The MWC conference supports it, but some teams will not implement it. That's a big divide.

Fact# 4: The AAC performed extremely well in football this past season. Won the BCS bowl over the B12 champs. The MWC did not. (Unless you believe Fresno's run through cupcake central was something to brag about.)

Fact#5: The AAC had a very good year in basketball. The BE did not.

Fact#6: Fox did not pay the BE what they were worth. They paid them as an investment in what they hoped they could be worth. (Hence the very long contract) Fox is not real optimistic right now about the prospects of that panning out, especially considering some of their other sports are doing very well, and how pathetic the BE conference was overall. (Both in performance and viewership) I'm sure someone will get on here and tout the BE's inflated RPI number, but we see how well that helped them get out of the first weekend in the tournament.

Fact#7: ESPN IS excited about the performance and viewership they received from the AAC demographics this past year.

What we are seeing is the life being sucked out of the MWC and BE. Unless something dramatic happens, they will continue to fall. The drop in their first year was substantial. And neither conference has real good options for improving. The MWC lacks tv sets in their area, plus the Boise deal has screwed all of them. (Any new team will want a better deal than Boise to join the MWC.) The C7 would have to take less money per team in order to invite some additional schools to prop up their brand. (Fox aint paying a dime more) I don't see them doing that.

Maybe after two or three years of the same performance gaps between the MWC / BE and AAC will allow people like Quo start to get it. But I doubt it. If you cant see the divide right now, you just don't want to see it.

(05-24-2014 10:21 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:02 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  ill put it in simpler terms imagine you are negotiating for a watch and a stranger (in our case perception/rumors) walks in and says there is a good chance that watch breaks in 2 months, even if the owner says he'll give you a money back guarantee, the fact you know theirs a huge chance it breaks the price of what you are willing to pay has dramatically lowered

and you alsio have to look at it at the other side of the shoes, the tv networks, they use our conferences as branding to build and invest heavily in tieing our brand to their brand.

Your argument boils down to their being some kind of threats to the media companies that could not be captured by the non-financial terms. But, the terms of the contract itself essentially refute you. They spell out exactly what happens if teams leave and capture the ENTIRE range of possible outcomes, from one team leaving to all teams leaving, including which combination of teams leave! Every possible defection contingency is accounted for. So the threat of defections or dissolution** could not have had any significant impact on those terms.

And importantly, this really does capture all of the significant losses. NBC's "branding" image investment in the AAC was of trivial value. Networks lose sporting properties all the time and they just move on. There is no way that the dissolution of the AAC would reflect poorly on NBC (or ESPN). Maybe this is a factor with really big-time leagues like the NFL or MLB, but the AAC is tiny potatoes. Nobody would blame those networks for that failure, so that's no explanation either.

Finally, if we were really "low balled" because of instability, what explains the MWC contract? The MWC was not plagued by all these rumors of defections, and signed a contract at the same time we did, and for the same seven year period, and for essentially the same money. And that almost perfectly comports with the common perceptions of us, which that while there is a G5, the two most powerful/valuable P5s, are the AAC and MWC. For you to be correct, the AAC would have to be a lot more valuable than the MWC, and if you are honest, you'd have to admit that nobody outside of an AAC forum thinks that. We are generally regarded as equally valuable and powerful, and just an eyeball test confirms that. You'd have to be an AAC egomaniac to think that our schools are significantly more prominent and valuable than their schools.

No, the evidence is clear: We were paid what we were worth.

PS- not that it's relevant, but your watch example makes little sense because except for a status piece like a Rolex, watches are defined by their reliability. If anyone tells you a watch is likely to break within two months, a buyer would doubt its ability to keep time from the get-go, making it essentially worthless, especially in a world where you have a zillion other watches to choose from.

** While the uncertainty with the pre-GoR ACC meant there were credible threats of losing maybe 2-3 schools, such as UConn and Cincy, to backfill should the ACC lose FSU and Clemson, there was no real threat of AAC dissolution. The worst-case scenario that had any realistic chance of occurring was that there was still going to be a core of at least 8 schools that had no better place to go, namely: USF, UCF, Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, and SMU.

And the contract was designed to perfectly protect the networks should that worst-case scenario arise. They could easily renegotiate that down to say $1m per team per year, which is what that conference (plus 3-4 backfills from C-USA or Sun Belt) would be worth.

1) that is why i used the big east example. your a nBE homer but if you're honest with yourself, in national relevance the aac= the nBE (probably more AAC since winning the title).. you didnt answer the question from earlier, if the big east collapsed would that hurt FS1, even with a renegotiation clause?..

you are the type to never concede a point, so ill give it to you straight. if the big east collapsed it would hurt FS1. fox has spent millions branding the big east with fs1 because it was a stable product they could attempt to build on. if the big east had crazy rumours of instability (pretend the big 10 wanted 4 bball only members and vill and Georgetown became extremely vocal about joining fbs football)..guaranteed fs1 would have lowered the offer dramatically .. that is the truth

2) the MWC comparison is dumb, it is not general fans negotiating our contracts, but in the know tv execs with information about ratings, markets, sustainability, stability, market growth etc.. and we are in no way similar to the MWC in those respect, our contract and theirs have absolutely nothing to do with ours.
again the general fans perception to the "new big east" and the AAC is similar probably leaning more AAC today, if perception and general fan were the negotiating factor the nBE wouldn't have gotten anything remotely that high


** losing smu to the mwc was a legitimate rumor and losing a florida to the big 12 was also a legitimate rumor you are looking at a core 5 if all the rumors had played out.. Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis were the only ones without a rumored new home

1) I ignored your new Big East example because it tells us nothing except that FOX decided to value them that highly. Obviously, FOX doesn't want the Big East to collapse (nobody ever wants that) but seriously, how much is the FOX corporation hurt if it does? The Big East, like the AAC, is a small potatoes entity. We're not talking about the NFL here, there simply isn't the same brand-identity stakes at play.

2) The MWC comparison is actually highly relevant. It's not just fans but the whole sports world that considers the MWC and AAC to be about on a par in terms of value. And the media companies run by those "in the know" executives did too.

Fact is, the only place in the known universe where AAC is considered to be a lot more valuable than MWC is in the minds of partisan AAC fans. No place else.

3) As for rumors, a core 5 that you describe would mean that ALL rumors played out, something extremely unlikely and hence not likely to influence media company thinking. Nobody prices a package based on every ridiculous rumor floated around by hopeful fans. But even in that scenario, a core 5 would be enough, with backfills from C-USA and Sun Belt, and the new contract would be priced accordingly.

Bottom line is I don't concede here because the facts say that you are flat-out wrong. You are letting your fan-dom guide your thinking. Bad move. All the evidence shows that any loss-of-value issues could, and were, handled by the terms of the contract that allowed for renegotiation if membership changed.

first off EVERYONE says the AAC is the top G5, EVERYONE...literally only a few mwc fans even argue that they are better even then half of them just say we are a "wash" (and if their fans are saying that you know we are better)

We are the top G5. But, the consensus is that we are the top G5 by a narrow margin over the MWC. We are just about equal. That's why

Thus, it makes sense that our TV deal is very close to theirs, which it is.

It makes absolutely no sense, but you guys keep clinging to the "low ball" myth even in the face of overwhelming logic and evidence to the contrary.

(05-24-2014 10:52 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 07:41 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 05:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:49 PM)PT_american Wrote:  I mean everything quo suggests implies the league wasn't falling apart and we got what we were worth and it simple isn't true. There was enormous uncertainty.

I have not implied that the league "wasn't falling apart". At the time of the contract negotiations there were, in fact, two reasons to question the future composition of the league:

1) In the wake of Boise's defection, there was evidence that the MWC was also courting Houston and SMU, raising the possibility that we could lose those schools.

2) In the wake of Maryland's departure for the B1G, the ACC faced possible additional losses as FSU and Clemson were grumbling about the future of the conference, and had FSU and/or Clemson bolted for the Big 12, the ACC would likely have back-filled by taking UConn, Cincy, USF, or some other AAC school(s).

HOWEVER, my point has been that these threats to AAC "stability" do NOT account for the value of our media deal, because those threats could be and were in fact handled by the non-financial terms of the contract, specifically the grouping of schools into A and B categories that spelled out what would happen should future defections occurred.

Since these provisions protected any media company from future membership changes, that factor does not explain the monetary value of the contract.

Quo this is where you are wrong. The contract merely protects them from paying more money out annually. So instead of 20 million the pay 15 if team x leaves for example. It doesn't protect them from the lost advertising dollars they will no longer get during the UConn vs Cinn game since they are gone potentially in those scenarios. It also doesn't protect their brand when no one tunes into the game and they are unable to cross market other events on their network.

The advertising dollars are lost, but so are the production costs of carrying the games. You might as well say that NBC is suffering right now because thanks to ESPN matching their offer, they won't be getting those ad dollars. But of course they will just air alternate programming. If the ad dollars really were all that great, they would have bid more for our rights to get them.

As for branding, as I said to pesik, while brand-image and cross-marketing is substantial for high-profile leagues like the NFL where there is prestige to carrying that league, there is no such prestige/branding value of carrying the AAC, at least nothing that isn't marginal/trivial compared to alternate programming, and again, if that was high, it would be accounted for in their offer to us.

No, the terms of the contract protected NBC/ESPN from the major financial threat: That of having to air games between less-valuable teams, e.g., if Cincy leaves, instead of airing a Cincy-UCF game they have to air a ULL-UCF game (if ULL replaced Cincy as backfill). That's what the networks were worried about, and that's why those terms are in the contract.

Man you really don't get it. How are the productions cost gone when they still have to produce the games for a different set of teams that hold less value to advertisers????

Production costs aren't "gone", but the media company is compensated by being able to pay the conference less, and air fewer games, if teams leave.

And you make it seem like there's a Whopping Difference in advertising rates between UCF - Temple football and UCF - USM (should Temple leave and USM replace them). That's ridiculous. We're not talking about replacing Alabama with USM, we're talking about replacing Temple with USM.

All of that can easily be compensated for by reducing the value of that contract. If our membership changed to look more like C-USA, or Sun Belt, then the contract could be changed down to Sun Belt dollars level.

Fully protected.

(05-24-2014 04:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Fact# 4: The AAC performed extremely well in football this past season. Won the BCS bowl over the B12 champs. The MWC did not. (Unless you believe Fresno's run through cupcake central was something to brag about.)

I snipped the rest of the propaganda to get at a tangible claim you made, and you are wrong about this. We were AWFUL in football this year, far worse than the old Big East ever was.

And we were barely better than the MWC. Our overall Sagarin rating was 65.15, the MWC's was 63.37, just about the same.

And that's with Louisville, who we lose next year.

Good Grief ... Stop living in Fairy Land and accept the fact that our valuation was based on our schools, and our schools were worth $2m per year. That's it.

Will it be different 7 years from now? Let's hope so. But as of now ...

(05-24-2014 10:21 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 09:02 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:24 PM)pesik Wrote:  ill put it in simpler terms imagine you are negotiating for a watch and a stranger (in our case perception/rumors) walks in and says there is a good chance that watch breaks in 2 months, even if the owner says he'll give you a money back guarantee, the fact you know theirs a huge chance it breaks the price of what you are willing to pay has dramatically lowered

and you alsio have to look at it at the other side of the shoes, the tv networks, they use our conferences as branding to build and invest heavily in tieing our brand to their brand.

Your argument boils down to their being some kind of threats to the media companies that could not be captured by the non-financial terms. But, the terms of the contract itself essentially refute you. They spell out exactly what happens if teams leave and capture the ENTIRE range of possible outcomes, from one team leaving to all teams leaving, including which combination of teams leave! Every possible defection contingency is accounted for. So the threat of defections or dissolution** could not have had any significant impact on those terms.

And importantly, this really does capture all of the significant losses. NBC's "branding" image investment in the AAC was of trivial value. Networks lose sporting properties all the time and they just move on. There is no way that the dissolution of the AAC would reflect poorly on NBC (or ESPN). Maybe this is a factor with really big-time leagues like the NFL or MLB, but the AAC is tiny potatoes. Nobody would blame those networks for that failure, so that's no explanation either.

Finally, if we were really "low balled" because of instability, what explains the MWC contract? The MWC was not plagued by all these rumors of defections, and signed a contract at the same time we did, and for the same seven year period, and for essentially the same money. And that almost perfectly comports with the common perceptions of us, which that while there is a G5, the two most powerful/valuable P5s, are the AAC and MWC. For you to be correct, the AAC would have to be a lot more valuable than the MWC, and if you are honest, you'd have to admit that nobody outside of an AAC forum thinks that. We are generally regarded as equally valuable and powerful, and just an eyeball test confirms that. You'd have to be an AAC egomaniac to think that our schools are significantly more prominent and valuable than their schools.

No, the evidence is clear: We were paid what we were worth.

PS- not that it's relevant, but your watch example makes little sense because except for a status piece like a Rolex, watches are defined by their reliability. If anyone tells you a watch is likely to break within two months, a buyer would doubt its ability to keep time from the get-go, making it essentially worthless, especially in a world where you have a zillion other watches to choose from.

** While the uncertainty with the pre-GoR ACC meant there were credible threats of losing maybe 2-3 schools, such as UConn and Cincy, to backfill should the ACC lose FSU and Clemson, there was no real threat of AAC dissolution. The worst-case scenario that had any realistic chance of occurring was that there was still going to be a core of at least 8 schools that had no better place to go, namely: USF, UCF, Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, and SMU.

And the contract was designed to perfectly protect the networks should that worst-case scenario arise. They could easily renegotiate that down to say $1m per team per year, which is what that conference (plus 3-4 backfills from C-USA or Sun Belt) would be worth.

1) that is why i used the big east example. your a nBE homer but if you're honest with yourself, in national relevance the aac= the nBE (probably more AAC since winning the title).. you didnt answer the question from earlier, if the big east collapsed would that hurt FS1, even with a renegotiation clause?..

you are the type to never concede a point, so ill give it to you straight. if the big east collapsed it would hurt FS1. fox has spent millions branding the big east with fs1 because it was a stable product they could attempt to build on. if the big east had crazy rumours of instability (pretend the big 10 wanted 4 bball only members and vill and Georgetown became extremely vocal about joining fbs football)..guaranteed fs1 would have lowered the offer dramatically .. that is the truth

2) the MWC comparison is dumb, it is not general fans negotiating our contracts, but in the know tv execs with information about ratings, markets, sustainability, stability, market growth etc.. and we are in no way similar to the MWC in those respect, our contract and theirs have absolutely nothing to do with ours.
again the general fans perception to the "new big east" and the AAC is similar probably leaning more AAC today, if perception and general fan were the negotiating factor the nBE wouldn't have gotten anything remotely that high


** losing smu to the mwc was a legitimate rumor and losing a florida to the big 12 was also a legitimate rumor you are looking at a core 5 if all the rumors had played out.. Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Memphis were the only ones without a rumored new home

1) I ignored your new Big East example because it tells us nothing except that FOX decided to value them that highly. Obviously, FOX doesn't want the Big East to collapse (nobody ever wants that) but seriously, how much is the FOX corporation hurt if it does? The Big East, like the AAC, is a small potatoes entity. We're not talking about the NFL here, there simply isn't the same brand-identity stakes at play.

2) The MWC comparison is actually highly relevant. It's not just fans but the whole sports world that considers the MWC and AAC to be about on a par in terms of value. And the media companies run by those "in the know" executives did too.

Fact is, the only place in the known universe where AAC is considered to be a lot more valuable than MWC is in the minds of partisan AAC fans. No place else.

3) As for rumors, a core 5 that you describe would mean that ALL rumors played out, something extremely unlikely and hence not likely to influence media company thinking. Nobody prices a package based on every ridiculous rumor floated around by hopeful fans. But even in that scenario, a core 5 would be enough, with backfills from C-USA and Sun Belt, and the new contract would be priced accordingly.

Bottom line is I don't concede here because the facts say that you are flat-out wrong. You are letting your fan-dom guide your thinking. Bad move. All the evidence shows that any loss-of-value issues could, and were, handled by the terms of the contract that allowed for renegotiation if membership changed.

first off EVERYONE says the AAC is the top G5, EVERYONE...literally only a few mwc fans even argue that they are better even then half of them just say we are a "wash" (and if their fans are saying that you know we are better)

every article ive read has said that included the G5 and picked a front runner has called acknowledge the aac is the front runner of the g5.

literllay go the mwc forum they worry that "our perception" will unfairly give us the g5 slot every year, and their are like 3/4 active boards which that are talking about how sdsu might still jump here....
that statement you made is just wrong...

and if we are the same, how come we have guaranteed abc games and dramatically more televised games than they do. they have 1 cbs game that is their title game (and only on a 2 year contract), we have 3 not including our title game.

if we are the same we should have been able to agree on all similar terms on EVERYTHING..the MWC argument is weak, with no base to stand on besides a weak argument of perception.we are diffrent leagues with different circumstances different networks,with different teams..
espn even released an article before our deal was announced that the value of our deal with the team we have after bsu and sdsu left would be around 3-4 million per (why some of us were disappointed with the 2 million)..

this isnt even rocket science. to sell an unstable product even with protections the price WILL be decreased. this is common sense ..i have no clue why you are arguing this

You said the MWC only has one national tv game while the AAC has 3. You're wrong. Air Force plays Navy and Army on CBS; both games, every year. That's at least 3 for the MWC, not counting the ESPN games that could move to ABC, just like you're counting with the AAC contract. I think the AAC has a slight edge over the MWC as well, I just hate when people are dishonest.

(05-24-2014 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 04:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Fact# 4: The AAC performed extremely well in football this past season. Won the BCS bowl over the B12 champs. The MWC did not. (Unless you believe Fresno's run through cupcake central was something to brag about.)

I snipped the rest of the propaganda to get at a tangible claim you made, and you are wrong about this. We were AWFUL in football this year, far worse than the old Big East ever was.

And we were barely better than the MWC. Our overall Sagarin rating was 65.15, the MWC's was 63.37, just about the same.

You snipped this one bit because you believed, incorrectly, that you had some data to make your point. (The rest of what I posted you had to admit was true.)

Even the point you are trying to make is weak. First, even the Sagarin ranking you used showed the AAC better than the MWC. But that's not the point. The point is that starting this year the metrics are different. Last year running through a cupcake schedule got you ranked in the BCS computer. This year it wont. Their conference is not strong enough to uphold a good overall SOS.

This is why you hear belly-aching from the MWC right now. They are falling further behind the AAC, and they feel the noose tightening.

(05-24-2014 06:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 04:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Fact# 4: The AAC performed extremely well in football this past season. Won the BCS bowl over the B12 champs. The MWC did not. (Unless you believe Fresno's run through cupcake central was something to brag about.)

I snipped the rest of the propaganda to get at a tangible claim you made, and you are wrong about this. We were AWFUL in football this year, far worse than the old Big East ever was.

And we were barely better than the MWC. Our overall Sagarin rating was 65.15, the MWC's was 63.37, just about the same.

You snipped this one bit because you believed, incorrectly, that you had some data to make your point. (The rest of what I posted you had to admit was true.)

I snipped the rest because it was either irrelevant or fact-less propaganda. I mean, how am I supposed to take seriously stuff like: "Fact #1: There's not a tv exec in the known universe who believes the MWC is on equal viewing power as the AAC. Its not even close."

.... when the fact of the matter is that the objective evidence - our respective TV contracts actually signed by media companies - shows that we are valued the same?

See now why i snipped?

Anyway, as to the point you made about metrics: Sagarin isn't perfect, but it gives a good idea of the metric that will be used in the future, because like all computer formulas, it is based strongly on SOS.

(05-24-2014 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:   I snipped the rest because it was either irrelevant or fact-less propaganda.
See now why i snipped?

Yes, because facts that state that the AAC is head and shoulders above other conferences such as the BE and MWC gets you all butthurt.

(05-24-2014 10:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:   I snipped the rest because it was either irrelevant or fact-less propaganda.
See now why i snipped?

Yes, because facts that state that the AAC is head and shoulders above other conferences such as the BE and MWC ...

Those "facts" exist only in your delusional fanboy brain.