Some real creative thinking in this thread and. I thought yall were all dumb dumbs

Silly me

(01-12-2016 04:59 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  AAC teams get more money now than C-USA teams. Nothing to argue about there. But, the future is fragile for all of us. ESPN's revenue model is built on cable providers sending them boatloads of money to carry their channels. In 2014 cable providers gave ESPN $6.04 for every subscriber they had. Fox Sports was $0.68. In these days of sinking cable subscription rates due to the economy and people cutting the cord because they can stream HD content for less money and more convenience, ESPN is losing revenue. With the push to unbundle cable channels ESPN could find themselves having to sell to only specific sports fans, and the monthly charge could quickly escalate to $30-40 per home. At that rate, many people would go to bars to watch games, or skip them altogether, further driving down ESPN's revenue.

At this moment their costs are very high, and largely fixed, while their revenues may have apexed. There is a reason they are cutting costs, and letting go talent. ESPN's model is precarious, and there is no doubt they are building a streaming infrastructure because they know it. Today you need a cable subscription to get their online content, tomorrow it may not be that way. It will not be free. or cheap, because the little old lady next door that only watches TV evangelists and the Hallmark channel will no longer be subsidizing sports fans. Think nothing this big could ever happen, and certainly not overnight? Run down to the Blockbuster store and pick up a movie. Or Virgin Records. Technology is a great disrupter, and companies like Google and Apple may become the source of most of our TV content soon, and we know they like the ala carte model.

I think that the bottom line is do not count on any contract we sign being fulfilled. That is what banruptcy reorganization is all about. Void those contracts and move on. Then it will be athletic departments that have fixed costs and falling revenues. We are all going to get screwed in this, and ironically it may be the SunBelt and other conferences that do not live off media money that fair the best.

Or maybe I am wrong.

This is a CUSA financial disaster any way you look it. Britton got out ahead of this because the initial numbers the league was getting were similar . to what the conference will end up with. CUSA head quarters is floating these figures to media to help lesson blow when the real numbers are officially reported.

CUSA simply went to the well to many times and when schools like Houston, UCF, ECU etc left, there simply were no schools with the type of reps or success that these schools had. Does MTSU, North Texas and WKU do anything for tv ratings or conference strength? No , the answer is no.

TV execs know this as well. So you can rationalize the ESPN financial issues all you want, the bottom line is that this new tv contract for CUSA is about perceived and real weakness in the conference. Schools that add value will always add value, schools that don't, won't, not matter how much you dress them up.

UCF, Houston ECU, Cincy, Uconn USF, ect will be just fine because these schools bring something to the table that no one in CUSA can.

(01-12-2016 05:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:59 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  AAC teams get more money now than C-USA teams. Nothing to argue about there. But, the future is fragile for all of us. ESPN's revenue model is built on cable providers sending them boatloads of money to carry their channels. In 2014 cable providers gave ESPN $6.04 for every subscriber they had. Fox Sports was $0.68. In these days of sinking cable subscription rates due to the economy and people cutting the cord because they can stream HD content for less money and more convenience, ESPN is losing revenue. With the push to unbundle cable channels ESPN could find themselves having to sell to only specific sports fans, and the monthly charge could quickly escalate to $30-40 per home. At that rate, many people would go to bars to watch games, or skip them altogether, further driving down ESPN's revenue.

At this moment their costs are very high, and largely fixed, while their revenues may have apexed. There is a reason they are cutting costs, and letting go talent. ESPN's model is precarious, and there is no doubt they are building a streaming infrastructure because they know it. Today you need a cable subscription to get their online content, tomorrow it may not be that way. It will not be free. or cheap, because the little old lady next door that only watches TV evangelists and the Hallmark channel will no longer be subsidizing sports fans. Think nothing this big could ever happen, and certainly not overnight? Run down to the Blockbuster store and pick up a movie. Or Virgin Records. Technology is a great disrupter, and companies like Google and Apple may become the source of most of our TV content soon, and we know they like the ala carte model.

I think that the bottom line is do not count on any contract we sign being fulfilled. That is what banruptcy reorganization is all about. Void those contracts and move on. Then it will be athletic departments that have fixed costs and falling revenues. We are all going to get screwed in this, and ironically it may be the SunBelt and other conferences that do not live off media money that fair the best.

Or maybe I am wrong.

Your wrong. I mean, your correct in that the way we pay for cable content may change. The thing I see is the basic model is unchanged. Cable, rent by mail, streaming---they are all changes in delivery and billing methods. The basic model is the same---consumer want entertainment content and will pay for it. All that's changing is the delivery/billing method.

I am making up numbers here, but if delivery methods change, and unbundling happens (and don't we all want that?), and 30% of subscribers decide not to get the ESPN package it loses lots of revenue. 30% would kill any company. So, they can hike their rates, or cut their expenses. Or both. But it is a slippery slope that you're on. Things will not be the same.

Current G5 contracts-

AAC- $126M/7yr through 2020
MWC- $126M/7yr through 2020
MAC- $124M/13yr through 2027*


*$8M/yr for final 3yrs of current deal, $10M/yr for 10yrs of new deal starting in 2018.

(01-12-2016 05:12 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:59 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  AAC teams get more money now than C-USA teams. Nothing to argue about there. But, the future is fragile for all of us. ESPN's revenue model is built on cable providers sending them boatloads of money to carry their channels. In 2014 cable providers gave ESPN $6.04 for every subscriber they had. Fox Sports was $0.68. In these days of sinking cable subscription rates due to the economy and people cutting the cord because they can stream HD content for less money and more convenience, ESPN is losing revenue. With the push to unbundle cable channels ESPN could find themselves having to sell to only specific sports fans, and the monthly charge could quickly escalate to $30-40 per home. At that rate, many people would go to bars to watch games, or skip them altogether, further driving down ESPN's revenue.

At this moment their costs are very high, and largely fixed, while their revenues may have apexed. There is a reason they are cutting costs, and letting go talent. ESPN's model is precarious, and there is no doubt they are building a streaming infrastructure because they know it. Today you need a cable subscription to get their online content, tomorrow it may not be that way. It will not be free. or cheap, because the little old lady next door that only watches TV evangelists and the Hallmark channel will no longer be subsidizing sports fans. Think nothing this big could ever happen, and certainly not overnight? Run down to the Blockbuster store and pick up a movie. Or Virgin Records. Technology is a great disrupter, and companies like Google and Apple may become the source of most of our TV content soon, and we know they like the ala carte model.

I think that the bottom line is do not count on any contract we sign being fulfilled. That is what banruptcy reorganization is all about. Void those contracts and move on. Then it will be athletic departments that have fixed costs and falling revenues. We are all going to get screwed in this, and ironically it may be the SunBelt and other conferences that do not live off media money that fair the best.

Or maybe I am wrong.

Your wrong. I mean, your correct in that the way we pay for cable content may change. The thing I see is the basic model is unchanged. Cable, rent by mail, streaming---they are all changes in delivery and billing methods. The basic model is the same---consumer want entertainment content and will pay for it. All that's changing is the delivery/billing method.

I am making up numbers here, but if delivery methods change, and unbundling happens (and don't we all want that?), and 30% of subscribers decide not to get the ESPN package it loses lots of revenue. 30% would kill any company. So, they can hike their rates, or cut their expenses. Or both. But it is a slippery slope that you're on. Things will not be the same.

Lucky they get games that are espn worthy and are only forking over $2 million per team. That is on top of selling games to cbs sports. Espn is doing fine with our deal. Now paying Kansas, Iowa state, etc $20 million per year? I don't know

(01-12-2016 05:09 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:01 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:56 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:45 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Negotiated before the season started. So no Fiesta Bowl, SMU becoming a basketball power, etc...a lot of instability and unknown if the big 12 was going to gut us.

Fine, no Fiesta bowl. But still had Cincy and UConn fresh off BCS bowl appearances. And SMU becoming a basketball power is countered by Memphis fallen from the power ranks. And is there really stability now??? Big12 still may expanded and Houston, Memphis, Cincy, and UConn want out ASAP.

Well if the current group makes it to 2019 that is 7-8 years of stability. Uconn winning national title after the deal in both sports. Fiesta Bowl win, Peach Bowl win, games on ABC, etc. 4 ranked teams in 1 week of football. You get ranked teams and people tend to watch.

Espn had to agree to shell out money and essentially broadcast every football and basketball game.

Agree. The American Conference has done special things. And we can argue on the small details all day long. Doesn't change the fact that ESPN has no reason to increase if no one else is will to challenge them for the material.

Why are you concerned with ESPN and the AAC teams? You are no longer on ESPN and you don't play the AAC teams.

Therein lies the problem.



As for our negotiations, we'll negotiate like ESPN's other partners do.

So many trolls and so little time to deal with all. Glad people like AttackCoog correct as many as possible.

1. CUSA blows. Simple fact is that youre markets arent good and you dont come in top 3-4 in almost all of them.

2. MWC blows. The Boise St moron will attempt to say otherwise but again, they dont come in #1,2 or 3 in almost all of their markets.... except in Boise, Wyoming, Hawaii.... and all of that combined is less than a single market of any of our top market teams. SDSU does a decent job but they tend to be more of a pro town than anything, but they have potential. Boise does lock down the Boise Idaho market... but its Boise Fu@%*ing Idaho. In other words, "who gives a crap less land."

3. ESPN makes money hand over fist and will continue to do so. They are already making moves so that they arent as heavily cable dependent. They realized they could make even more money by letting a few high expense guys go.... they ARENT cutting back on inventory.
A. Cutting inventory eliminates sellable content and ESPN needs alot for their FOUR channels.
B. Cutting inventory allows competitors to have sellable content that they dont currently have.
Keeping as much content as possible is a two pronged strategy that has allowed ESPN to dominate the sports marketplace. Fox is growing fast and if they get the Big 10 (as most analysts predict) ESPN will be looking to lock down everything else...including the AAC.

4. Now, more than ever, there will be more competition for content. CBS and NBC NEED college content. Both are ridiculously weak and they know it. Fox could use more. All three have invested heavily into infrastructure for their sports division and all three are lacking in enough content... Fox less so than the other two.

So it comes down to the question, why will the AAC get a bump in pay when other conferences are losing money or are stagnant?
1. We have won on the field and court.
2. We have better markets than any G5 and it isnt close.
A. we have teams directly in the number 4,5,8,10, 13 and 17th DMA. Thats half our conference within the top 17 markets.
3. Our ratings have been consistently higher than any other G5.
4. We have east coast markets, which are more marketable than west coast. Simple fact is there are more people living in the eastern half of the US than there is on the west.

We not only outperform our counterparts, but we do so in bigger markets and at better time slots. That my friends is valuable.

How do we increase that... Personally, I think by adding more markets. CSU and Air Force would bring in the #18 market, SDSU would bring in the #28 market..... and if we are able to get enough money in that deal, I can see BYU coming along. (but thats another story and long post as to why)

(01-12-2016 03:18 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:13 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:23 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:16 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  This puts CUSA and Sun Belt on equaline footing. This is a huge blow for CUSa. Looks like the AAC is on its way to be a true tweeter conference.

I think the MCW is next for a big reduction. BoI see cannot sustain them and the West coast generally has poor college football ratings.

MWC footprint only has 20% of the population and you have to stay up late to watch their games.

MWC teams control their markets, they aren't 2nd or 3rd fiddle to other teams. This was pretty much proven when the AAC added teams like Tulane hoping to get a better deal and in fact getting much less than expected

Is this a ****** joke or are you genuinely stupid?

What other conference out there lost BCS status and went from projected 10 million per year, down to hopping to get 5-6 with sdsu and bsu, to settling for 2? I can't think of any that dropped that far. By the rational above when talking about cusa becoming the sun belt, the AAC became cusa. It is what it is.

Hardly. cUSA (old) never won two BCS bowls in 3 years. The current AAC is performing closer to the old Big East football conference. I see a lot of similarities. And your comparisons are not valid, as the AAC is not really related to the parent old Big East, unless you consider carrying forward THREE teams legit... the AAC was a true new conference, and it's very first TV negotiation was really influenced by the fact it was being ripped apart by the P5. Hell, didn't even have a name when the TV deal was struck. Given that, the exposure ESPN gave us was freakin awesome.

Next deal will be a better measuring of the value of the AAC.

(01-12-2016 05:17 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Current G5 contracts-

AAC- $126M/7yr through 2020
MWC- $126M/7yr through 2020
MAC- $124M/13yr through 2027*


*$8M/yr for final 3yrs of current deal, $10M/yr for 10yrs of new deal starting in 2018.

those numbers only show cash initially reported and arent 100% accurate. The MWC can make less depending on a few factors and the AAC contract is closer to $130 million....but thats not the real difference.

The real difference is that 90% of all football and basketball games in the AAC are on ESPN with some on CBS. 100% of the home football games are aired.

the MWC didnt even come close with most industry sources saying that about 60% or less of the MWC games will be shown.

Then look at times slots. A significant portion of the MWC will be shown in the late night western time slots, which has significantly lower viewership.

When comparing contracts, there is so much more than just dollars and cents. Aresco did a great job of getting the American alot of exposure and he has repeatedly said that this contract was undervalued because of the newness of the league and timing factors. With 7 stable years and the Big 12 finally not expanding, I expect to see ESPN, Fox, NBC and CBS all make bids for our league.
2016 is the Big 10 and many analysts have said they think that many networks saves their money in order to make big bids for them. Only one will win and I tend to believe that Fox will go HUGE in order to secure it, since they are already 51% partners on the Big 10 network. They need to pair the Big 10 with the Big East in order to have a foundation for their sports network.

That will leave ESPN, NBC and CBS as needing content.... and Fox could still use some more, since the Big 10 tier 1 rights are only roughly half the games (the other half go on the big 10 network)

If NBC and CBS are smart, they realize that ESPN and FoX have been boxing them out of college sports and they make a large bid for an "expanded" AAC. You add CSU, Air Force, BYU and SDSU into the AAC, and promote the hell out of them as the next P5 member. Take 2 games each week and put it on NBC at the noon and 4pm time slots, with Notre Dame rounding out the day. Then CBS gets second pick to show 2-3 games per week and probably uses BYU as the night time feature. The rest of the content goes to their networks.

That type of exposure would eclipse what ESPN could do for us and I bet they can get it all for roughly $96 million a year. ($6 million per team x 16 teams) Thats dirt cheap for a conference that has put up the viewership and wins that we have.... and its the type of money that I believe BYU would go for.... especially with that type of exposure.

(01-12-2016 05:44 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:18 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:13 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:23 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  MWC footprint only has 20% of the population and you have to stay up late to watch their games.

MWC teams control their markets, they aren't 2nd or 3rd fiddle to other teams. This was pretty much proven when the AAC added teams like Tulane hoping to get a better deal and in fact getting much less than expected

Is this a ****** joke or are you genuinely stupid?

What other conference out there lost BCS status and went from projected 10 million per year, down to hopping to get 5-6 with sdsu and bsu, to settling for 2? I can't think of any that dropped that far. By the rational above when talking about cusa becoming the sun belt, the AAC became cusa. It is what it is.

Hardly. cUSA (old) never won two BCS bowls in 3 years. The current AAC is performing closer to the old Big East football conference. I see a lot of similarities. And your comparisons are not valid, as the AAC is not really related to the parent old Big East, unless you consider carrying forward THREE teams legit... the AAC was a true new conference, and it's very first TV negotiation was really influenced by the fact it was being ripped apart by the P5. Hell, didn't even have a name when the TV deal was struck. Given that, the exposure ESPN gave us was freakin awesome.

Next deal will be a better measuring of the value of the AAC.

The problem with his argument is that he isnt looking at the factors that caused the low bids.
1. Fox didnt bid at all. They are saving ALL their shells for 2016 in the hopes of landing the Big 10.
2. NBC and ESPN bid low, because they figured that the Big 12 may raid this conference and make it near worthless.
3. Nobody could predict what level of competitiveness this conference would become since we had no real history together.

You have an unknown commodity who isnt expected to live being bid on.... of course its low. 7 years later and what I expect will be 3-4 Access bowl wins and at least 1 ncaa championships later... yeah, I expect a bump and not just a million or two.

(01-12-2016 05:58 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:44 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:18 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:13 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  MWC teams control their markets, they aren't 2nd or 3rd fiddle to other teams. This was pretty much proven when the AAC added teams like Tulane hoping to get a better deal and in fact getting much less than expected

Is this a ****** joke or are you genuinely stupid?

What other conference out there lost BCS status and went from projected 10 million per year, down to hopping to get 5-6 with sdsu and bsu, to settling for 2? I can't think of any that dropped that far. By the rational above when talking about cusa becoming the sun belt, the AAC became cusa. It is what it is.

Hardly. cUSA (old) never won two BCS bowls in 3 years. The current AAC is performing closer to the old Big East football conference. I see a lot of similarities. And your comparisons are not valid, as the AAC is not really related to the parent old Big East, unless you consider carrying forward THREE teams legit... the AAC was a true new conference, and it's very first TV negotiation was really influenced by the fact it was being ripped apart by the P5. Hell, didn't even have a name when the TV deal was struck. Given that, the exposure ESPN gave us was freakin awesome.

Next deal will be a better measuring of the value of the AAC.

The problem with his argument is that he isnt looking at the factors that caused the low bids.
1. Fox didnt bid at all. They are saving ALL their shells for 2016 in the hopes of landing the Big 10.
2. NBC and ESPN bid low, because they figured that the Big 12 may raid this conference and make it near worthless.
3. Nobody could predict what level of competitiveness this conference would become since we had no real history together.

You have an unknown commodity who isnt expected to live being bid on.... of course its low. 7 years later and what I expect will be 3-4 Access bowl wins and at least 1 ncaa championships later... yeah, I expect a bump and not just a million or two.

I'd take $4 million per team. That would put a large divide with the g4. Fully adding a new category for our league. At this point if we can double what the next league gets that would be huge. Then factoring the ncaa credits are on another level though we better step up because we are likely only getting 2 bids this year with smu out.

I honestly feel for utep, Southern miss, uab, and rice. Sucks for them in a period of skyrocketing costs. Lucky they get more playoff money though.

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

The Big East/ American tv deal was already drastically reduce when a few of the old teams left... No disrespect intended but in reality some of the those that left the old BigEast their football was just plain awful bad.

With improve tv ratings Memphis, Navy, Temple, and Houston pulled while being rank through out the 15 season plus the CCG and with of our other good teams down in their big markets, I seriously doubt the new AAC tv deal drops, if anything it should go up quite nicely.

I get what your saying Knighttime, but I dont think it will be that low. NBC can outspend ESPN if they wanted to, but they have a history of not doing it. NBC?Comcast is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. (Disney revenue is $48 billion... Comcast is $68 billion. Net assets Comcast is nearly double that of Disney)

If NBC strikes out on getting the Big 10 and decides to get into this game, the AAC could benefit greatly. I suspect that ESPN wont let us go for super cheap. $48 million per year is nothing for either of them. Heck, $72 million is nothing. If you figure on average that the AAC is gonna have about 78 home games per year, then each game needs to make $923K per game to just break even on the contract. We probably dont make that much, but that number also doesnt factor in the championship game or ANY of the basketball games.

(01-12-2016 06:07 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:58 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:44 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:18 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:13 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  Is this a ****** joke or are you genuinely stupid?

What other conference out there lost BCS status and went from projected 10 million per year, down to hopping to get 5-6 with sdsu and bsu, to settling for 2? I can't think of any that dropped that far. By the rational above when talking about cusa becoming the sun belt, the AAC became cusa. It is what it is.

Hardly. cUSA (old) never won two BCS bowls in 3 years. The current AAC is performing closer to the old Big East football conference. I see a lot of similarities. And your comparisons are not valid, as the AAC is not really related to the parent old Big East, unless you consider carrying forward THREE teams legit... the AAC was a true new conference, and it's very first TV negotiation was really influenced by the fact it was being ripped apart by the P5. Hell, didn't even have a name when the TV deal was struck. Given that, the exposure ESPN gave us was freakin awesome.

Next deal will be a better measuring of the value of the AAC.

The problem with his argument is that he isnt looking at the factors that caused the low bids.
1. Fox didnt bid at all. They are saving ALL their shells for 2016 in the hopes of landing the Big 10.
2. NBC and ESPN bid low, because they figured that the Big 12 may raid this conference and make it near worthless.
3. Nobody could predict what level of competitiveness this conference would become since we had no real history together.

You have an unknown commodity who isnt expected to live being bid on.... of course its low. 7 years later and what I expect will be 3-4 Access bowl wins and at least 1 ncaa championships later... yeah, I expect a bump and not just a million or two.

I'd take $4 million per team. That would put a large divide with the g4. Fully adding a new category for our league. At this point if we can double what the next league gets that would be huge. Then factoring the ncaa credits are on another level though we better step up because we are likely only getting 2 bids this year with smu out.

I honestly feel for utep, Southern miss, uab, and rice. Sucks for them in a period of skyrocketing costs. Lucky they get more playoff money though.

I think we will want to see improved revenue as quickly as possible. My guess is that we will do something similar to what the MAC did, especially since we are largely happy with our ESPN exposure and really probably would rather not leave ESPN. We'd probably get a better contract waiting to the end and re-testing the open market, but I think we would prefer additional funds hit earlier rather than later.

So, we probably get 4 or 6 million a school in exchange for extending the current agreement. We get 2-4 million extra to pay coaches and coverer new autonomous expenses. That money helps place a level of separation between the AAC and other G5's on the recruiting trail (which should, all else being equal, help conference on field performance).

A big problem the CUSA has is that it built its conference with start ups. Nobody knows their brands. They seriously have to find an identity as a group.

IMO, they may want to look at the old ABA and the stunts they used to do at halftime of games. I might be inclined to try and locate a CUSA game on whatever stations they're going to be on, if I knew someone would wrestle a bear at halftime.

Otherwise, they're going to have to win some trophies that people care about and gain some kind of relevance.

(01-12-2016 06:38 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  A big problem the CUSA has is that it built its conference with start ups. Nobody knows their brands. They seriously have to find an identity as a group.

IMO, they may want to look at the old ABA and the stunts they used to do at halftime of games. I might be inclined to try and locate a CUSA game on whatever stations they're going to be on, if I knew someone would wrestle a bear at halftime.

Otherwise, they're going to have to win some trophies that people care about and gain some kind of relevance.

I like the Semi-Pro reference Here's mine. Bunch of jive turkey's in the AAC anyway. Yeah that's right I called you a JT.

(01-12-2016 04:58 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  This thread should never have been started here. CUSA's contract has as much to do with the American's contract as the American's contract has to do with the B1G's. Which is absolutely nothing.

I expect to see a thread here about the Big Ten contract negotiations, though. The market rising or falling effects everyone.

There is certainly SOME trickle-down effect from ESPN's cutbacks. CBS and Fox clearly aren't worried about ESPN outbidding them.
On the other hand, they might not be worried because they just don't care about the content
--CBS-SN signed the CUSA deal to show Houstont/Memphis/UCF/ECU/etc, now they get those games through an ESPN sublicense.
--ASN has apparently not been paying anything to show their games. So a lot of the new(est) CUSA games aren't worth the costs of televising them.

It could have been worse for C-USA, given their membership shift. CBS and Fox could have offered "Nahh, we're good."

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

1) TV deal was done before the AAC first season with UCF. That year was however played under the old contract.

2) No you are making less $$ than expected.

3) Agree to a point. only matters at end of this deal, if ESPN and AAC can't come to a deal by end of no competitive offer part of dealings.

(01-12-2016 04:44 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:19 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

ESPN had 70% of all of Disney profits. They still are fine. Don't cry for them.

The AAC will get a raise. Just a matter of how much. Navy wasn't in the current deal. Our content is better suited for TV. Bigger stadiums, more fans, more hoops content, etc. Remember cbs quit mostly airing c-Usa hoops games and turned around and bought our games from espn.

Actually, Navy announced they would be joining the big east in 2012. Any TV negotiations for the American most certainly included Navy being a part of the conference.

Dude your info is completely wrong. The deal was negotiated with nbc and matched by ESPN just after the big east was splitting and Boise and sdsu jumped ship. We didn't get credit for navy credit in this contract. Our contract started in 2014 at the end of the old beast contract. It was negotiated prior to 2013

(01-12-2016 04:56 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:45 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Negotiated before the season started. So no Fiesta Bowl, SMU becoming a basketball power, etc...a lot of instability and unknown if the big 12 was going to gut us.

Fine, no Fiesta bowl. But still had Cincy and UConn fresh off BCS bowl appearances. And SMU becoming a basketball power is countered by Memphis fallen from the power ranks. And is there really stability now??? Big12 still may expanded and Houston, Memphis, Cincy, and UConn want out ASAP.

Lol they aren't the only ones. You are one misinformed msu fan.