http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/american-ath...-deal.html

Whenever the official line is "We're going out-of-the-box" that signifies "we're scared of the future". Aresco is saying a lot of what CUSA folks said and we see what happened.

(10-31-2016 09:07 PM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/american-ath...-deal.html

Whenever the official line is "We're going out-of-the-box" that signifies "we're scared of the future". Aresco is saying a lot of what CUSA folks said and we see what happened.

I think comparing the two leagues right now is an example of apples to oranges. Cusa,outside of Marshall and Southern Miss had few traditional brands to sell their product.

AaC has a long list of tweener brands to work with. Aresco doing what all good negotiaters do,he lets competition become his best friend. AAC has both on feild performance and tv numbers to strike a decent deal.

(10-31-2016 09:07 PM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/american-ath...-deal.html

Whenever the official line is "We're going out-of-the-box" that signifies "we're scared of the future". Aresco is saying a lot of what CUSA folks said and we see what happened.

I tend to think the 2 situations are a bit different. CUSA was entering its first round of open market negotiations with its new membership. Additionally, the networks had 3 years of CUSA TV numbers to analyze when determining the value of the new grouping. While cord cutting probably did play a role in CUSA's drop in media revenue--I think this was the primary factor (especially when you consider that most every new CUSA school is earning MORE in its new deal than was earning in its former conference---which would run counter to a network "money squeeze" situation).

On the other hand, the AAC took their "new membership" medicine in 2013---inking a contract that was about a 33% reduction from the old expiring Big East deal. It should also be noted that the new 2013 AAC deal was about 80% less than the deal the old Big East was offered by ESPN and rejected in April of 2011). So, its clear the membership change was a HUGE factor in the new AAC contract numbers. Furthermore--the AAC had zero track record when the deal was signed. In fact, when that deal was done, the AAC hadn't played a game and many believed the conference would collapse before it ever did play a game. Now, 3 years later, the reality is the AAC has vastly outperformed those very pessimistic expectations both on the field and in the tv ratings.

Thus, because of the AAC now has a track record to analyze---the AAC will be viewed as a much more valuable and less risky media property than it was in 2013. I think the AAC will see some competitive bidding and will earn a significant raise. Still, it will be paid chicken feed compared to the P5---that P5/G5 divide is what it is. I also think CUSA will find it's value will slowly climb from here---as it simply had to take the open market value "reset" due to new membership that the AAC took a few years earlier.

I don't think there is much money in streaming yet. My guess is that will be a place to earn incremental dollars, monetize third tier rights, and a place to obtain more exposure for rights that cant get tv broadcast windows.

(11-01-2016 03:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:07 PM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/american-ath...-deal.html

Whenever the official line is "We're going out-of-the-box" that signifies "we're scared of the future". Aresco is saying a lot of what CUSA folks said and we see what happened.

I think comparing the two leagues right now is an example of apples to oranges.

(11-01-2016 03:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:07 PM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/american-ath...-deal.html

Whenever the official line is "We're going out-of-the-box" that signifies "we're scared of the future". Aresco is saying a lot of what CUSA folks said and we see what happened.

I tend to think the 2 situations are a bit different. CUSA was entering its first round of open market negotiations with its new membership. Additionally, the networks had 3 years of CUSA TV numbers to analyze when determining the value of the new grouping. While cord cutting probably did play a role in CUSA's drop in media revenue--I think this was the primary factor (especially when you consider that most every new CUSA school is earning MORE in its new deal than was earning in its former conference---which would run counter to a network "money squeeze" situation).

On the other hand, the AAC took their "new membership" medicine in 2013---inking a contract that was about a 33% reduction from the old expiring Big East deal. It should also be noted that the new 2013 AAC deal was about 80% less than the deal the old Big East was offered by ESPN and rejected in April of 2011). So, its clear the membership change was a HUGE factor in the new AAC contract numbers. Furthermore--the AAC had zero track record when the deal was signed. In fact, when that deal was done, the AAC hadn't played a game and many believed the conference would collapse before it ever did play a game. Now, 3 years later, the reality is the AAC has vastly outperformed those very pessimistic expectations both on the field and in the tv ratings.

Thus, because of the AAC now has a track record to analyze---the AAC will be viewed as a much more valuable and less risky media property than it was in 2013. I think the AAC will see some competitive bidding and will earn a significant raise. Still, it will be paid chicken feed compared to the P5---that P5/G5 divide is what it is. I also think CUSA will find it's value will slowly climb from here---as it simply had to take the open market value "reset" due to new membership that the AAC took a few years earlier.

I don't think there is much money in streaming yet. My guess is that will be a place to earn incremental dollars, monetize third tier rights, and a place to obtain more exposure for rights that cant get tv broadcast windows.

BS. All ESPN, FOX, NBC and CBS are willing to pay for are the SEC, B1G, Big XII, Pac 12, ACC and ND. They all know that the only real bidding wars are for those properties. No one else moves the meter. They are going to ease the pain of thier losses due to lost subscriptions by first paying the G5 less money because we really have no other place to go. They know they can get the content on the cheap.

If I were a Disney Shareholder, and they went out and paid increases for any G5 conference, I would be raising hell at the shareholders meeting. Bad business to pay top dollar for something you can get cheaper since there is NO real competition for that product.

(11-01-2016 04:32 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  BS. All ESPN, FOX, NBC and CBS are willing to pay for are the SEC, B1G, Big XII, Pac 12, ACC and ND. They all know that the only real bidding wars are for those properties. No one else moves the meter. They are going to ease the pain of thier losses due to lost subscriptions by first paying the G5 less money because we really have no other place to go. They know they can get the content on the cheap.

If I were a Disney Shareholder, and they went out and paid increases for any G5 conference, I would be raising hell at the shareholders meeting. Bad business to pay top dollar for something you can get cheaper since there is NO real competition for that product.

Those networks are interested in paying for whatever content makes them money whether that's televising Gilligan's Island reruns or Alabama football. If they think televising the Sunbelt/MAC/AAC/CUSA/MWC makes them money, they'll do it. If two networks think the Sunbelt/MAC/AAC/CUSA/MWC makes them money, they'll bid on it.

Face it, the TV bubble is about to burst like the housing market.

(11-01-2016 03:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:07 PM)HeadsetGuy Wrote:  http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/american-ath...-deal.html

Whenever the official line is "We're going out-of-the-box" that signifies "we're scared of the future". Aresco is saying a lot of what CUSA folks said and we see what happened.

I think comparing the two leagues right now is an example of apples to oranges. Cusa,outside of Marshall and Southern Miss had few traditional brands to sell their product.

AaC has a long list of tweener brands to work with. Aresco doing what all good negotiaters do,he lets competition become his best friend. AAC has both on feild performance and tv numbers to strike a decent deal.

I have to agree with that.....branding still has value in that league...

we basically only have two now....and that's stretching it....

regardless, their tv dollars won't be dick-other-than-poo either.....does a handful of Ks meen anything now that espenis is shoved down their esophagus daily?

abandonment is being handed out like heroin in philly....

(11-01-2016 05:31 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Face it, the TV bubble is about to burst like the housing market.

That's not even stirring the pot. That's just stating the obvious.

All numbers suggest that cable/satellite TV is hemorrhaging subscribers, despite companies putting their hopes in live programming to counteract the trend.

Even the ratings for ESPN's Monday Night Football have been dreadful this year.

(11-01-2016 06:06 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:31 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Face it, the TV bubble is about to burst like the housing market.

That's not even stirring the pot. That's just stating the obvious.

All numbers suggest that cable/satellite TV is hemorrhaging subscribers, despite companies putting their hopes in live programming to counteract the trend.

Even the ratings for ESPN's Monday Night Football have been dreadful this year.

ESPN faces an ugly dilemma. They receive the highest price per subscriber because they have cornered the market on so much sports content that sports fans will drop any cable provider that doesn't offer those networks. It basically forces every cable provider to include ESPN in their base package.

NBC, Fox, and others would LOVE to pick off some of those ESPN properties and start making their networks more valuable. For ESPN--every sports property they lose means they become less important and more expendable to a whole new group of fans of the sports property they just lost. That means when they lose a sports property, they likely INCREASE the bleeding of ESPN subscribers. Its a tough situation for ESPN. If they don't bid high enough to hold a property--they lose subscribers. If they bid too high they lose subscribers because their subscriber cost rises. The reality is---its probably more dangerous to ESPN's long term model to lose properties than it is to place their perception as the king of sports at risk.