Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Why wasn't CUSA's TV deal (circa '09/10/11) like the AAC's is now???
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 13,166
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 981
I Root For: Herd, Our Lady, & Heels
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #61
RE: Why wasn't CUSA's TV deal (circa '09/10/11) like the AAC's is now???
Boise is beginning to lose some of its luster. If it continues in its downturn, its tv deal might hit the crapper.
05-10-2016 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ThreeifbyLightning Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,885
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 370
I Root For: Univ of Middle Tennessee
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Why wasn't CUSA's TV deal (circa '09/10/11) like the AAC's is now???
(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  i feel your logic is completely ridiculous...ive read some of your other posts you normally seem pretty straight forward and logically but this post reeks of the bittter ex or the jealous friend

I suppose you are welcome to think whatever you want. I was pretty straightforward this time as well in that I wasn't comparing deals or suggesting that ours should be or should have been comparable. I could offer my credentials to discuss this but already get accused by wkcc fans of being the smartest guy in the room (it's actually the one thing they get right).

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  the AAC was dramatically underpaid and its not been a discussion

It is now. Remember, the point here is in terms of today's situation not what happened then. At the time, it could be argued that it was undervalued, but the comparison point is in terms of today's market dynamics. Very different.

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  1) cbssports brought in a market expert and said our value was 4mil a team and espn reporters were roaming around with a similar number (which is why everyone was shocked and surprised by the 2 mil per deal)

I'm pretty sure that was with Boise, and let me just state that the whole Boise thing was a perfect example of ESPN acting like a 1980's Wall Street firm. The numbers thrown around for Boise were ludicrous. Same for the Longhorn Network. ESPN was throwing money around in '13 and '14 like it was candy but sure the AAC was the one contract they sand bagged on. And maybe they did? They would sandbag you even more today and I've been very consistent with that point.

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  2) nbcsports wanted a 12 year deal...the AAC wanted a 3 year deal..if nbcsports was overpaying theyd have wanted a shorter deal and we'd have been begging to take a long term deal...we ended up negotiating it to a 6 year deal with a renegotiation in 3 year (and another confirmation was aresco himself said they wanted such a short deal because we were undervalue at the time and felt in 3 years the chaos would have stopped and we'd have proven our worth)

Let me explain exactly what happened with NBC. Over the years, I developed some network contacts (sorry I guess I couldn't help myself as the western fans know), and let's get first things first. You should have taken the 12 year deal. Second, NBC had no idea what they were doing. They didn't know if they were over bidding or under bidding. They just wanted content for their fledgling network. The deal they offered you guys is the only serious run they have made at college football outside of Notre Dame, and they had no strategy or vision for what they want to achieve. They have since pared back any interest in college football, because they frankly don't know what they are doing and got spooked by having to keep pace with ESPN's spending and then the subscriber losses. Even NBC in their lack of vision knew that ESPN was overpaying everyone and if they had little expectation that ESPN wouldn't match because of the networks spending problem.

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  the reason we were dramatically underpaid was literally mid-negotiations we lost 11 members and rumored to lose 7 more (the big 10 commish openly said he was after 3 acc teams, who would back fill with aac teams, the big 12 was openly after teams, and everyone thought houston and smu might jump mwc if the aac lost enough, and that navy might decide not to join)
it wasnt till after we signed our tv deal that the ACC decided to sign a GoR and the big 12 said they were happy at 10 and the MWC rumors and superior reputation completely died

I won't dispute or argue the point. Even if I concede that the deal was at or even below market value in 2013, the whole point I was attempting to make which I guess I didn't do a good job of explaining was the overpay is in terms of 2016 conditions. That deal right now - looks very good for the AAC - but it should have been longer IMO. Again from my perspective Aresco made a mistake there. A TV deal is typically supposed to go the other way for a network. The network pays you a static dollar amount over a pre-set number of years, which means the average annual value (AAV) stays the same (all six years in your case) but the network counts on two things to anticipate that its revenues will increase over the life of that contract. First is increased subscribers (and thus subscriber fees) and second is charging more to advertisers in the latter years than they do in the earlier years. But the dynamic has been flipped upside down due to the massive loss in subscribers.

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  3) it is already confirmed we are getting a raise by the end of 2017 when we renegotiate (to what extent is unknown) but any sort of raise literally just 4 years after signing your original deal completely retorts the notion of overpaid.. the official negotiations haven't started but aresco's early indications says we will have enough money to compete with the power leagues (however you want to interpret that)

How is it "confirmed" if negotiations haven't even started yet?? You guys ought to know by now that Aresco is a master of spin. He's using the press to do everything he can to make the AAC appear to be "autonomous worthy." If you're drinking the Aresco Koolaid then I don't really see the point in carrying the conversation any further. We've taken it as far as I'm willing to go. But the environment will have to dramatically improve between now and then for the league to get a raise. I just don't see how this is going to be settled out by then. We're in the early stages of what could be a decade or more in massive changes in how people consume television. ESPN has been slow to adapt and that's an understatement as they attempt suck every last drip out of the cable tit that they can.

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  but your context notion is completely flawed.."everyone else is overpaid so that must mean we are overpaid"...the AAC and ACC are on tv with similar exposure deals, and somewhat similar ratings (the acc is marginally better)...they are paying 26mil for wake forest alone..and 22 mil for the entire AAC..

That's a fair point. It is a little bit of failed logic I admit, but come on. Look at what was going on. ESPN was throwing money around like it was prepping for Dec 31 1999 again. The crisis that was the Big East and AAC rising from the ashes certainly impacted the value which I readily admit, but again I'm saying the overpay is in 2016 terms not 2013 terms and since the '13 contract is still active in '16 that's why I say now here in 2016 in 2016 market terms that they overpaid.

(05-10-2016 09:36 AM)pesik Wrote:  and stop with the jealousy, the MAC deal wasnt overpaid, they added value to espn where they cannot get it anywhere else..no one else is willing to do Tuesday and Wednesday games, there is no revenue sports in the winter on weekdays (no baseball or basketball)
if the mac and aac renegotiated today im certain both would be increased. the mac marginally (they increased their brand worth with their performance last year, still the only fbs willing to do Tuesday/wed) and the AAC substantially (dramatically better stability, only risk losing 2 teams, won a bball title, 3 womens bball titles, 4 top 25 teams last year in football and bball , 2 nye/bcs wins, all in the 3 years since the deal was signed)

The bold part is just mind boggling. Do you not understand what's happening in this industry right now? It is the most significant shift in the landscape of television....since well the TV was invented. All of that other stuff you mentioned in this paragraph doesn't mean jack ****. All that matters is the network's ability to generate revenue off of subscription fees and advertising. ESPN makes a bulk of their revenue off of those subscription fees. We are in a pattern that will likely see declining subscriber fees in cable, satellite, and fiber for the next five to 10 years. I have absolutely no jealously toward the MAC or the AAC. To your initial assessment I'm still very much using sound, straight-forward perspectives sticking to the circumstances before us based on industry dynamics. Good luck.
05-10-2016 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.