(02-10-2015 11:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:09 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Group of 5 was created by the CFP as to conferences that don't have a Major Bowl Tie-In to Rose, Sugar or Orange. To become part of this club, a G5 would have to get a tie-in to a major bowl. This Tie-In will not happen for at least 11 years, if ever. Worse case scenario for a P5 conference should be 54 Million dollars which what the ACC will get at minimum for 2015 due to the loss of the Orange bowl. Otherwise, it will be 77.5 Million during Orange years. G5 makes 16.5 Million. Even in the off years, the P5 makes 3x what a G5 could make. This does not take the TV Contracts into account. Rumor is the ACC is shooting for 2016 for the ACC Network. If it can pull in 70% of what the SEC does, it will be a huge success. G5 have as much chance as a FCS moving up to FBS. It will be teams the move to the P5 not a conference.

I think Aersco was smart doing a the TV Contract they way he did. However, I am not sure he will get the payday he hopes. The AAC needs ESPN, not ESPN needs the AAC. What I would love to see Aersco pull off is a deal with NBC to have AAC Games shown national every week. Believe it or not, I think the AAC would be wise to do a short term contract with NBC even if ESPN offered more money. Imagine having the AAC Game of the Week over the air and that be the home of the AAC Championship. That would be a huge step for the AAC.

That's EXACTLY what happened last time. ESPN actually offered more money during the exclusive period than the AAC ended up getting. The issue was there were fewer televised games than with the old Big East contract and more games shoved to ESPN-3. As a newly developing league, Aresco and the presidents felt they needed exposure more than the money. So they passed on what they might have received from ESPN to take their chances on the open market.

The problem with that open market strategy was two-fold. One--ESPN had the right to match and open market offer. The AAC could not sign an agreement without offering ESPN the right to match the exact same deal. Two---on the heels of all the late 2012 defections, the AAC appeared very unstable which chased away most bidders. Effectively, the only serious bidder on the open market was NBC. You needed at least two bidders to create some price competition and the AAC was never able to create that dynamic (this is something CUSA should work to avoid as I think they could end up with this same problem when they go on the market).

With that dynamic, NBC was convinced that all they had to do was offer tremendous exposure (which ESPN would be unable, or at least unwilling, to match) with little money and the AAC would be forced to accept. NBC saw that they would get a solid FBS football league with good basketball for a song. They knew ESPN would never offer the kind of exposure they could, so they figured ESPN would never match the bid---thus they could low ball the price.

Turns out, ESPN found a way to match NBC's exposure (mainly by opening Saturday slots on ESPN-News) and ended up getting the ACC for less than they were originally willing to pay (though they did have to significantly dial up the exposure to match the NBC contract specifications). For the AAC, exposure on ESPN beats exposure on NBC-Sports by a mile---so the decision to stick with ESPN was a no-brainer.

This is correct in all respects except the two parts I bolded.

First, the part about NBC's thinking is purely speculative. We don't know what NBC thought ESPN would or would not do, and there is no evidence that they "low-balled" us or would have made a different offer had they known ESPN would match the offer they did make. An alternative explanation is that they offered exactly what they thought the AAC was worth, in terms of both money and exposure. This makes sense, because game theory says that any time you are in a negotiating situation where another party has the right to match your offer, you should make the very best offer you are willing to make, because you will not get a chance to make a counter-offer.

Second, ESPN had the right to match NBC's offer, so Aresco and the AAC had no "decision" to make, they had to take ESPN's offer, or else go without any kind of TV deal at all. Aresco had no power to stick with NBC's offer.

(02-10-2015 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Second, ESPN had the right to match NBC's offer, so Aresco and the AAC had no "decision" to make, they had to take ESPN's offer, or else go without any kind of TV deal at all. Aresco had no power to stick with NBC's offer.

If this is true, then the AAC will never be able to leave ESPN. Only the network can sever the bond that ties...cue creepy music.

(02-10-2015 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:09 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Group of 5 was created by the CFP as to conferences that don't have a Major Bowl Tie-In to Rose, Sugar or Orange. To become part of this club, a G5 would have to get a tie-in to a major bowl. This Tie-In will not happen for at least 11 years, if ever. Worse case scenario for a P5 conference should be 54 Million dollars which what the ACC will get at minimum for 2015 due to the loss of the Orange bowl. Otherwise, it will be 77.5 Million during Orange years. G5 makes 16.5 Million. Even in the off years, the P5 makes 3x what a G5 could make. This does not take the TV Contracts into account. Rumor is the ACC is shooting for 2016 for the ACC Network. If it can pull in 70% of what the SEC does, it will be a huge success. G5 have as much chance as a FCS moving up to FBS. It will be teams the move to the P5 not a conference.

I think Aersco was smart doing a the TV Contract they way he did. However, I am not sure he will get the payday he hopes. The AAC needs ESPN, not ESPN needs the AAC. What I would love to see Aersco pull off is a deal with NBC to have AAC Games shown national every week. Believe it or not, I think the AAC would be wise to do a short term contract with NBC even if ESPN offered more money. Imagine having the AAC Game of the Week over the air and that be the home of the AAC Championship. That would be a huge step for the AAC.

That's EXACTLY what happened last time. ESPN actually offered more money during the exclusive period than the AAC ended up getting. The issue was there were fewer televised games than with the old Big East contract and more games shoved to ESPN-3. As a newly developing league, Aresco and the presidents felt they needed exposure more than the money. So they passed on what they might have received from ESPN to take their chances on the open market.

The problem with that open market strategy was two-fold. One--ESPN had the right to match and open market offer. The AAC could not sign an agreement without offering ESPN the right to match the exact same deal. Two---on the heels of all the late 2012 defections, the AAC appeared very unstable which chased away most bidders. Effectively, the only serious bidder on the open market was NBC. You needed at least two bidders to create some price competition and the AAC was never able to create that dynamic (this is something CUSA should work to avoid as I think they could end up with this same problem when they go on the market).

With that dynamic, NBC was convinced that all they had to do was offer tremendous exposure (which ESPN would be unable, or at least unwilling, to match) with little money and the AAC would be forced to accept. NBC saw that they would get a solid FBS football league with good basketball for a song. They knew ESPN would never offer the kind of exposure they could, so they figured ESPN would never match the bid---thus they could low ball the price.

Turns out, ESPN found a way to match NBC's exposure (mainly by opening Saturday slots on ESPN-News) and ended up getting the ACC for less than they were originally willing to pay (though they did have to significantly dial up the exposure to match the NBC contract specifications). For the AAC, exposure on ESPN beats exposure on NBC-Sports by a mile---so the decision to stick with ESPN was a no-brainer.

This is correct in all respects except the two parts I bolded.

First, the part about NBC's thinking is purely speculative. We don't know what NBC thought ESPN would or would not do, and there is no evidence that they "low-balled" us or would have made a different offer had they known ESPN would match the offer they did make. An alternative explanation is that they offered exactly what they thought the AAC was worth, in terms of both money and exposure. This makes sense, because game theory says that any time you are in a negotiating situation where another party has the right to match your offer, you should make the very best offer you are willing to make, because you will not get a chance to make a counter-offer.

Second, ESPN had the right to match NBC's offer, so Aresco and the AAC had no "decision" to make, they had to take ESPN's offer, or else go without any kind of TV deal at all. Aresco had no power to stick with NBC's offer.

As I understand it, the ESPN right to match was not a perpetual right to hold a set of media rights by simply matching competing offers on a one time basis.

It is simply a contractual obligation for the conference to allow ESPN the last opportunity to match (or beat) the offer prior to signing a contract with another network. CUSA violated this clause by signing with Fox without presenting the offer to ESPN first. CUSA would still have been free to sign with Fox if they chose, ESPN claimed CUSA violated the agreement by not even giving ESPN a chance to view the competing offer. My understanding is the same dynamic was in operation with the AAC.

I would say you could be right as far as NBC's valuation of the AAC. My understanding is NBC COULD have increased its bid if they wished once ESPN matched, but chose not to. I actually think that NBC wanted a low priced bargain. Once they saw that ESPN would match thier exposure, then NBC realized that they couldn't get the AAC for cheap as ESPN would just continue to match the price as long as it was a bargain.

This is just speculation on my part, but it does appear NBC would have an ace in the hole. If the NBC contract offered a minimum 6 prime time guaranteed over-the-air spots to be played by the AAC on the weeks ND does not play at home and say Prime Time Slots on NBCSN during the Home ND games. I doubt ESPN would or could match the offer since ABC/ESPN has the deal with the P5 which would make it difficult to match or offer the AAC that timeslot. Granted, I would say for the over-all conference it could be an exposure hit for having every team on TV tied to NBC and NBCSN. The question then turns into what exposure do you want. The conference getting National Prime Time games verse P5 games on ABC, FOX and CBS but take the hit on less viewers for NBCSN. Or take more exposure from ESPN and playing at time slot and channel dictated.

Imagine if the AAC had these scenarios.
P5 verse AAC Home Teams NBC televised.
Best AAC verse AAC matchups Prime Time
AAC afternoon games leading into ND Night Game with NBCSN showing Prime Time AAC game.
AAC Championship on NBC up against P5 Championship games.

Not saying it is going to ever happen or if NBC would even be interested, but would AAC fans rather stick with ESPN for more "coverage" of every team or have the AAC be NBC college football prime time conference?

IDK, but the AAC did get 3 reg. season games on ABC OTA out of the match, plus champ game on ABC/ESPN (worst case). I would think guaranteed coverage for the whole league would be an easier sell to the presidents as someone has to be at the bottom every year...just look at the coverage SMU got this past season. There's a thread on the AAC board talking about how the coaches have credited the increased exposure with better recruiting. Memphis even credits it with helping to increase applications and enrollment...which is the ultimate goal of athletics or so they say.

(02-10-2015 03:40 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  IDK, but the AAC did get 3 reg. season games on ABC OTA out of the match, plus champ game on ABC/ESPN (worst case). I would think guaranteed coverage for the whole league would be an easier sell to the presidents as someone has to be at the bottom every year...just look at the coverage SMU got this past season. There's a thread on the AAC board talking about how the coaches have credited the increased exposure with better recruiting. Memphis even credits it with helping to increase applications and enrollment...which is the ultimate goal of athletics or so they say.

Please note when I said Prime Time, I was talking the 8pm EST time slot. I should have been clearer. It may mean more to recruits to be on ESPN News and ESPN 3 at a mininum verse being on NBC. I know I am no longer in the TV target audience

Please take what I write with a grain of salt and my opinion only. I'm more interested in the business side of sports than the actual sports themselves. I can't remember the last time I watched a game start to finish so timing means little to me (mom of six...well 5 competitive boys...I'm always on baby's schedule). Right now, it's baseball season and they are cutthroat as some play up to get as many on the same team as possible...parental preference (just makes scheduling easier).

(02-09-2015 02:19 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  One point the AAC that is consistently missed on these boards is the AAC has more tradition than the other G5 conferences and that is essentially what is holding this conference together.

What tradition does the AAC have? As a conference, these schools have been together for a year. No tradition there, save some of them used to duke it out in C-USA at various times. Hardly the stuff of Ivy and Oak Trees. And individual schools? Houston, Tulane, and SMU have legacies in P5 conferences, but all of that was generations ago, long forgotten by everyone else. And some of the bigger names, like UConn, USF, and UCF have no football history at all to speak of.

I think he meant teams that individually have history in FBS like ECU, Houston, SMU, Tulane, etc....Compare that to the ODU's UNCC, Georgia State's of the world and it's a big difference.

I get that but 80% of fans are Wal Mart fans who don't know the AAC exists.

(02-10-2015 02:36 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Second, ESPN had the right to match NBC's offer, so Aresco and the AAC had no "decision" to make, they had to take ESPN's offer, or else go without any kind of TV deal at all. Aresco had no power to stick with NBC's offer.

If this is true, then the AAC will never be able to leave ESPN. Only the network can sever the bond that ties...cue creepy music.

I believe it is true. If ESPN matched NBC, then Aresco and the AAC had to take the ESPN offer. The only thing they could have done try to wiggle out would be to claim that ESPN hadn't truly "matched" the NBC offer. Of course, had the AAC claimed that ESPN hadn't really matched the offer and attempted to sign with NBC, there would have been litigation with ESPN, litigation that the AAC would probably lose, since ESPN had in fact matched the offer, so that wasn't ever a serious consideration.

That's what Aresco meant when he said the AAC was "reviewing" the ESPN offer. It wasn't reviewing it in the sense of being able to decide between the ESPN offer and the NBC offer, the review was the only one allowed - to make sure that ESPN really had matched the NBC offer.

But, I don't see how that makes the "match" condition perpetual. If the NBC offer that ESPN matched did not contain a match provision, then the current ESPN deal wouldn't either. If it does, that was something that the AAC voluntarily accepted, it wasn't obligated to unless the NBC deal had it too.

(02-10-2015 03:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:09 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Group of 5 was created by the CFP as to conferences that don't have a Major Bowl Tie-In to Rose, Sugar or Orange. To become part of this club, a G5 would have to get a tie-in to a major bowl. This Tie-In will not happen for at least 11 years, if ever. Worse case scenario for a P5 conference should be 54 Million dollars which what the ACC will get at minimum for 2015 due to the loss of the Orange bowl. Otherwise, it will be 77.5 Million during Orange years. G5 makes 16.5 Million. Even in the off years, the P5 makes 3x what a G5 could make. This does not take the TV Contracts into account. Rumor is the ACC is shooting for 2016 for the ACC Network. If it can pull in 70% of what the SEC does, it will be a huge success. G5 have as much chance as a FCS moving up to FBS. It will be teams the move to the P5 not a conference.

I think Aersco was smart doing a the TV Contract they way he did. However, I am not sure he will get the payday he hopes. The AAC needs ESPN, not ESPN needs the AAC. What I would love to see Aersco pull off is a deal with NBC to have AAC Games shown national every week. Believe it or not, I think the AAC would be wise to do a short term contract with NBC even if ESPN offered more money. Imagine having the AAC Game of the Week over the air and that be the home of the AAC Championship. That would be a huge step for the AAC.

That's EXACTLY what happened last time. ESPN actually offered more money during the exclusive period than the AAC ended up getting. The issue was there were fewer televised games than with the old Big East contract and more games shoved to ESPN-3. As a newly developing league, Aresco and the presidents felt they needed exposure more than the money. So they passed on what they might have received from ESPN to take their chances on the open market.

The problem with that open market strategy was two-fold. One--ESPN had the right to match and open market offer. The AAC could not sign an agreement without offering ESPN the right to match the exact same deal. Two---on the heels of all the late 2012 defections, the AAC appeared very unstable which chased away most bidders. Effectively, the only serious bidder on the open market was NBC. You needed at least two bidders to create some price competition and the AAC was never able to create that dynamic (this is something CUSA should work to avoid as I think they could end up with this same problem when they go on the market).

With that dynamic, NBC was convinced that all they had to do was offer tremendous exposure (which ESPN would be unable, or at least unwilling, to match) with little money and the AAC would be forced to accept. NBC saw that they would get a solid FBS football league with good basketball for a song. They knew ESPN would never offer the kind of exposure they could, so they figured ESPN would never match the bid---thus they could low ball the price.

Turns out, ESPN found a way to match NBC's exposure (mainly by opening Saturday slots on ESPN-News) and ended up getting the ACC for less than they were originally willing to pay (though they did have to significantly dial up the exposure to match the NBC contract specifications). For the AAC, exposure on ESPN beats exposure on NBC-Sports by a mile---so the decision to stick with ESPN was a no-brainer.

This is correct in all respects except the two parts I bolded.

First, the part about NBC's thinking is purely speculative. We don't know what NBC thought ESPN would or would not do, and there is no evidence that they "low-balled" us or would have made a different offer had they known ESPN would match the offer they did make. An alternative explanation is that they offered exactly what they thought the AAC was worth, in terms of both money and exposure. This makes sense, because game theory says that any time you are in a negotiating situation where another party has the right to match your offer, you should make the very best offer you are willing to make, because you will not get a chance to make a counter-offer.

Second, ESPN had the right to match NBC's offer, so Aresco and the AAC had no "decision" to make, they had to take ESPN's offer, or else go without any kind of TV deal at all. Aresco had no power to stick with NBC's offer.

As I understand it, the ESPN right to match was not a perpetual right to hold a set of media rights by simply matching competing offers on a one time basis.

It is simply a contractual obligation for the conference to allow ESPN the last opportunity to match (or beat) the offer prior to signing a contract with another network. CUSA violated this clause by signing with Fox without presenting the offer to ESPN first. CUSA would still have been free to sign with Fox if they chose, ESPN claimed CUSA violated the agreement by not even giving ESPN a chance to view the competing offer. My understanding is the same dynamic was in operation with the AAC.

My understanding was that ESPN claimed CUSA violated a number of terms - they claimed they negotiated with FOX during a time when ESPN was supposed to have exclusive negotiating rights, that they reneged on an agreement with ESPN, and they did not give ESPN their first-refusal rights. So it was a number of things. I guess we would have to delve deeper into this.

FWIW, about the match provision going forward: My understanding was that the "match" provision was never perpetual. the AAC only had to accept the ESPN offer if it matched what NBC offered, both in money and in terms, such as a new match condition. The AAC was not obligated to accept any terms ESPN wanted above and beyond what was in the NBC deal, so if the NBC offer did not contain a match provision, then ESPN could not put one in their "matching" offer, unless the AAC agreed to it, because if the ESPN "matching" offer had a match term and the NBC offer didn't, then ESPN's offer wouldn't actually "match" the NBC offer (whew! LOL).

So if the current ESPN deal does have a match provision, then that isn't the result of some perpetual contract term, but rather was something newly-agreed to by the AAC when it certified that the ESPN offer matched the NBC offer.

(02-11-2015 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:09 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Group of 5 was created by the CFP as to conferences that don't have a Major Bowl Tie-In to Rose, Sugar or Orange. To become part of this club, a G5 would have to get a tie-in to a major bowl. This Tie-In will not happen for at least 11 years, if ever. Worse case scenario for a P5 conference should be 54 Million dollars which what the ACC will get at minimum for 2015 due to the loss of the Orange bowl. Otherwise, it will be 77.5 Million during Orange years. G5 makes 16.5 Million. Even in the off years, the P5 makes 3x what a G5 could make. This does not take the TV Contracts into account. Rumor is the ACC is shooting for 2016 for the ACC Network. If it can pull in 70% of what the SEC does, it will be a huge success. G5 have as much chance as a FCS moving up to FBS. It will be teams the move to the P5 not a conference.

I think Aersco was smart doing a the TV Contract they way he did. However, I am not sure he will get the payday he hopes. The AAC needs ESPN, not ESPN needs the AAC. What I would love to see Aersco pull off is a deal with NBC to have AAC Games shown national every week. Believe it or not, I think the AAC would be wise to do a short term contract with NBC even if ESPN offered more money. Imagine having the AAC Game of the Week over the air and that be the home of the AAC Championship. That would be a huge step for the AAC.

That's EXACTLY what happened last time. ESPN actually offered more money during the exclusive period than the AAC ended up getting. The issue was there were fewer televised games than with the old Big East contract and more games shoved to ESPN-3. As a newly developing league, Aresco and the presidents felt they needed exposure more than the money. So they passed on what they might have received from ESPN to take their chances on the open market.

The problem with that open market strategy was two-fold. One--ESPN had the right to match and open market offer. The AAC could not sign an agreement without offering ESPN the right to match the exact same deal. Two---on the heels of all the late 2012 defections, the AAC appeared very unstable which chased away most bidders. Effectively, the only serious bidder on the open market was NBC. You needed at least two bidders to create some price competition and the AAC was never able to create that dynamic (this is something CUSA should work to avoid as I think they could end up with this same problem when they go on the market).

With that dynamic, NBC was convinced that all they had to do was offer tremendous exposure (which ESPN would be unable, or at least unwilling, to match) with little money and the AAC would be forced to accept. NBC saw that they would get a solid FBS football league with good basketball for a song. They knew ESPN would never offer the kind of exposure they could, so they figured ESPN would never match the bid---thus they could low ball the price.

Turns out, ESPN found a way to match NBC's exposure (mainly by opening Saturday slots on ESPN-News) and ended up getting the ACC for less than they were originally willing to pay (though they did have to significantly dial up the exposure to match the NBC contract specifications). For the AAC, exposure on ESPN beats exposure on NBC-Sports by a mile---so the decision to stick with ESPN was a no-brainer.

This is correct in all respects except the two parts I bolded.

First, the part about NBC's thinking is purely speculative. We don't know what NBC thought ESPN would or would not do, and there is no evidence that they "low-balled" us or would have made a different offer had they known ESPN would match the offer they did make. An alternative explanation is that they offered exactly what they thought the AAC was worth, in terms of both money and exposure. This makes sense, because game theory says that any time you are in a negotiating situation where another party has the right to match your offer, you should make the very best offer you are willing to make, because you will not get a chance to make a counter-offer.

Second, ESPN had the right to match NBC's offer, so Aresco and the AAC had no "decision" to make, they had to take ESPN's offer, or else go without any kind of TV deal at all. Aresco had no power to stick with NBC's offer.

As I understand it, the ESPN right to match was not a perpetual right to hold a set of media rights by simply matching competing offers on a one time basis.

It is simply a contractual obligation for the conference to allow ESPN the last opportunity to match (or beat) the offer prior to signing a contract with another network. CUSA violated this clause by signing with Fox without presenting the offer to ESPN first. CUSA would still have been free to sign with Fox if they chose, ESPN claimed CUSA violated the agreement by not even giving ESPN a chance to view the competing offer. My understanding is the same dynamic was in operation with the AAC.

My understanding was that ESPN claimed CUSA violated a number of terms - they claimed they negotiated with FOX during a time when ESPN was supposed to have exclusive negotiating rights, that they reneged on an agreement with ESPN, and they did not give ESPN their first-refusal rights. So it was a number of things. I guess we would have to delve deeper into this.

FWIW, I would not expect that the AAC/ESPN "match" provision is perpetual, unless the AAC renewed it in the latest deal. That is, unless the NBC offer that ESPN matched had a "match" provision, then the current ESPN deal wouldn't have one either. If the current contract does have a match provision, then that means the AAC/Big East agreed to accept that provision when they signed ESPN's matching offer, they didn't have to accept it, since that would be going beyond the terms of the NBC offer. My understanding was that the AAC only had to accept the ESPN offer it matched what NBC offered, both in money and in terms, such as a match condition.

Well, that pattern appears to be the ESPN standard, so I'm guessing that all ESPN contracts has the right to match and the AAC is pretty much in screwed if ESPN matches any other offer when the current contract is over with.

(02-11-2015 09:10 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well, that pattern appears to be the ESPN standard, so I'm guessing that all ESPN contracts has the right to match and the AAC is pretty much in screwed if ESPN matches any other offer when the current contract is over with.

I get what you are saying, but again, I don't see how the ESPN match provision can truly be perpetual. If the NBC offer did not have a match provision, then ESPN would seemingly not be able to insert one into their "matching" offer. Well, they could, but then the AAC could have rejected the ESPN offer on the grounds that the "matching" provision meant that ESPN was not actually matching the NBC offer, and so the AAC was not obligated to take it.

Of course, if the NBC offer had a matching provision, then ESPN's matching offer could (and would) too.

(02-11-2015 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:10 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well, that pattern appears to be the ESPN standard, so I'm guessing that all ESPN contracts has the right to match and the AAC is pretty much in screwed if ESPN matches any other offer when the current contract is over with.

I get what you are saying, but again, I don't see how the ESPN match provision can truly be perpetual. If the NBC offer did not have a match provision, then ESPN would seemingly not be able to insert one into their "matching" offer. Well, they could, but then the AAC could have rejected the ESPN offer on the grounds that the "matching" provision meant that ESPN was not actually matching the NBC offer, and so the AAC was not obligated to take it.

Of course, if the NBC offer had a matching provision, then ESPN's matching offer could (and would) too.

That's an interesting take. I suppose it would boil down to the wording of what "matching" means in those contracts. If it isn't precisely defined to be limited to the dollars of compensation or length of term, I suspect the only thing keeping it enforceable is that nobody has yet challenged it the way you just did. And if the AAC wants out from ESPN, there's not much downside to raising such a challenge in court.

I don't see a dominant G5 conference....

The Mountain West is still decent, and Boise State stole the Access bid this past year...

The AAC has good teams at the top, but isn't overall a stronger conference....

Hell, C-USA and Marshall nearly won the BCS bid last year...

(02-13-2015 12:09 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I don't see a dominant G5 conference....

The Mountain West is still decent, and Boise State stole the Access bid this past year...

The AAC has good teams at the top, but isn't overall a stronger conference....

Hell, C-USA and Marshall nearly won the BCS bid last year...

Don't inconvenient the AAC fanboys with trivial details like that.