(03-26-2017 02:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ESPN does not value the AAC much. They have other options. A10 basketball, CUSA, SBC, MWC football and Basketball. Heck they could run Big West Basketball and get similar ratings. The leverage is all ESPN.

The AAC has to balance a slightly higher offer from another network against ESPN exposure. The B1G did that for tier-2 rights, and accepted a bit less money. The exposure is more important to the AAC than even a small difference in money. We are after all talking about $25m per year for a conference level. Does $30m on CBSSN help the conference more than $25m on ESPN? The answer is obvious no, because nobody watches CBSSN. That is the leverage ESPN has, and still will have. Would Facebook or YouTube or Google offer $40m per year I think the question gets interesting

It could be interesting.

Remember, CBS does a sublicensing arrangement so whether the AAC goes ESPN, Fox or Google they can still get their second tier content out to CBS.

Then again Aresco could decide to play it super safe.

I've actually had the chance to read some ESPN contracts.

Each had the following features.
- Look in periods. Nothing more than designated times where one party or the other can request that they look at the contract discuss extending it or it ending it early. If there is no agreement the existing contract rolls along. Mostly a pointless clause in that it restricts the times when a party can ask to deal but they can both waive that by agreement. But if one side doesn't like the terms proposed there is no obligation to do anything.
- Period of exclusive negotiation. As the contract nears expiration there is a time period where the party is only allowed to talk to ESPN.
- Period of open negotiation. If you don't like ESPN's offer at the end of the exclusive period you can talk to others but in doing so, you've rejected ESPN's offer and it is now off the table.
- ESPN then holds the right extend the agreement by simply accepting the exact terms of a bono fide offer the other party has received. As we saw with the AAC this can work to ESPN's advantage. NBC was looking to buy the whole banana and put games on some low household number channels. ESPN was easily able to address that by taking stuff to ESPN News and subbing content to CBS Sports Net.

The current MAC deal was produced during a look in period so those do matter.

It seems to me that if NBC really wants in the game they need to include a "poison pill" clause - something they can do at a profit (like guarantee over the air on Saturday) but would be hard for ESPN to match.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

When all is said and done, I expect the American Athletic Conference to sign with several entities and ESPN will probably be a lesser one of them.

(03-27-2017 02:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It seems to me that if NBC really wants in the game they need to include a "poison pill" clause - something they can do at a profit (like guarantee over the air on Saturday) but would be hard for ESPN to match.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

They thought they did. Based on the early offers from ESPN, NBC thought there was no way ESPN would be able match the exposure NBC offered.

(03-27-2017 02:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It seems to me that if NBC really wants in the game they need to include a "poison pill" clause - something they can do at a profit (like guarantee over the air on Saturday) but would be hard for ESPN to match.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes, but what does NBC show OTA on Saturday? Basically, Notre Dame.

So what are the odds that they would be willing to show say Temple vs Tulane on the actual NBC station? Zero sounds like the most likely value to me.

(03-27-2017 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 02:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It seems to me that if NBC really wants in the game they need to include a "poison pill" clause - something they can do at a profit (like guarantee over the air on Saturday) but would be hard for ESPN to match.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes, but what does NBC show OTA on Saturday? Basically, Notre Dame.

So what are the odds that they would be willing to show say Temple vs Tulane on the actual NBC station? Zero sounds like the most likely value to me.

Navy vs Houston might be a pretty good lead in game for Notre Dame. We got 5 or 6 games on ABC last year, so there are probably 5-8 games that might be a nice lead in or follow up for the networks Notre Dame game--especially when you consider the fact that NBC has no other FBS properties. My guess is Navy vs Houston knocks the socks off ice skating---which is one of the things they showed on Saturdays last fall.

(03-27-2017 02:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've actually had the chance to read some ESPN contracts.

Each had the following features.
- Look in periods. Nothing more than designated times where one party or the other can request that they look at the contract discuss extending it or it ending it early. If there is no agreement the existing contract rolls along. Mostly a pointless clause in that it restricts the times when a party can ask to deal but they can both waive that by agreement. But if one side doesn't like the terms proposed there is no obligation to do anything.
- Period of exclusive negotiation. As the contract nears expiration there is a time period where the party is only allowed to talk to ESPN.
- Period of open negotiation. If you don't like ESPN's offer at the end of the exclusive period you can talk to others but in doing so, you've rejected ESPN's offer and it is now off the table.
- ESPN then holds the right extend the agreement by simply accepting the exact terms of a bono fide offer the other party has received. As we saw with the AAC this can work to ESPN's advantage. NBC was looking to buy the whole banana and put games on some low household number channels. ESPN was easily able to address that by taking stuff to ESPN News and subbing content to CBS Sports Net.

The current MAC deal was produced during a look in period so those do matter.

Well, it sounds like we had to accept their offer. Is that clause typically in the contracts of other networks (Fox, NBC, CBS-Sports, etc)?

(03-27-2017 02:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've actually had the chance to read some ESPN contracts.

Each had the following features.
- Look in periods. Nothing more than designated times where one party or the other can request that they look at the contract discuss extending it or it ending it early. If there is no agreement the existing contract rolls along. Mostly a pointless clause in that it restricts the times when a party can ask to deal but they can both waive that by agreement. But if one side doesn't like the terms proposed there is no obligation to do anything.
- Period of exclusive negotiation. As the contract nears expiration there is a time period where the party is only allowed to talk to ESPN.
- Period of open negotiation. If you don't like ESPN's offer at the end of the exclusive period you can talk to others but in doing so, you've rejected ESPN's offer and it is now off the table.
- ESPN then holds the right extend the agreement by simply accepting the exact terms of a bono fide offer the other party has received. As we saw with the AAC this can work to ESPN's advantage. NBC was looking to buy the whole banana and put games on some low household number channels. ESPN was easily able to address that by taking stuff to ESPN News and subbing content to CBS Sports Net.

The current MAC deal was produced during a look in period so those do matter.

I'd insist on no right to match. That will drive off other bidders in the future. There's really no benefit for the conference.

(03-27-2017 04:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 02:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It seems to me that if NBC really wants in the game they need to include a "poison pill" clause - something they can do at a profit (like guarantee over the air on Saturday) but would be hard for ESPN to match.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes, but what does NBC show OTA on Saturday? Basically, Notre Dame.

So what are the odds that they would be willing to show say Temple vs Tulane on the actual NBC station? Zero sounds like the most likely value to me.

Navy vs Houston might be a pretty good lead in game for Notre Dame. We got 5 or 6 games on ABC last year, so there are probably 5-8 games that might be a nice lead in or follow up for the networks Notre Dame game--especially when you consider the fact that NBC has no other FBS properties. My guess is Navy vs Houston knocks the socks off ice skating---which is one of the things they showed on Saturdays last fall.

Keep in mind that NBC only has 7 Notre Dame games in a 14-week season. The AAC could certainly come up with 7 more games - with one of those being ND @ Navy every other year.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

i never understood why nbc never went after old B-E
NE schools complamented ND with thier subway fans

NBC has NASCAR and Golf in the fall.

(03-27-2017 09:11 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC has NASCAR and Golf in the fall.

Flip side of why Fox went after the new Big East ... they had more Fall sports inventory than winter sports inventory, a non-FB, power BBall conference was a good fit to their inventory needs.

(03-27-2017 07:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Keep in mind that NBC only has 7 Notre Dame games in a 14-week season. The AAC could certainly come up with 7 more games - with one of those being ND @ Navy every other year.

Sure the AAC could, but would NBC want them. OTA time on NBC is valuable air time. I doubt it.

We mock ice skating, but ice skating draws good ratings.

(03-28-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Keep in mind that NBC only has 7 Notre Dame games in a 14-week season. The AAC could certainly come up with 7 more games - with one of those being ND @ Navy every other year.

Sure the AAC could, but would NBC want them. OTA time on NBC is valuable air time. I doubt it.

We mock ice skating, but ice skating draws good ratings.

NBC seems to do fairly well counter-programming college football with ice skating, golf, tennis, and auto racing.

Hard to believe for most posters here but college football just has very few brands that draw really large national audiences. CFP championship draws about half the audience of the Super Bowl and regular season games are consistently outdrawn by NFL games with similar potential reach.

Given those facts counter-programming to reach valuable audiences makes a lot of sense.

(03-28-2017 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Keep in mind that NBC only has 7 Notre Dame games in a 14-week season. The AAC could certainly come up with 7 more games - with one of those being ND @ Navy every other year.

Sure the AAC could, but would NBC want them. OTA time on NBC is valuable air time. I doubt it.

We mock ice skating, but ice skating draws good ratings.

NBC seems to do fairly well counter-programming college football with ice skating, golf, tennis, and auto racing.

Hard to believe for most posters here but college football just has very few brands that draw really large national audiences. CFP championship draws about half the audience of the Super Bowl and regular season games are consistently outdrawn by NFL games with similar potential reach.

Given those facts counter-programming to reach valuable audiences makes a lot of sense.

I agree that counter programming may be a better strategy for NBC than adding to the crowd of games.

When comparing college rating to NFL, it is important to consider that there are generally 5 or more college games on during each times lot on a fall Saturday, while the NFL offers regional coverage on one or two channels on Sunday. You need to add up the total audience for each time slot to get an accurate comparison. The NFL still wins, but the combined college football audience is impressive, and is frequently in the range of NFL windows.

(03-28-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Keep in mind that NBC only has 7 Notre Dame games in a 14-week season. The AAC could certainly come up with 7 more games - with one of those being ND @ Navy every other year.

Sure the AAC could, but would NBC want them. OTA time on NBC is valuable air time. I doubt it.

We mock ice skating, but ice skating draws good ratings.

No it doesn't.

(03-28-2017 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Keep in mind that NBC only has 7 Notre Dame games in a 14-week season. The AAC could certainly come up with 7 more games - with one of those being ND @ Navy every other year.

Sure the AAC could, but would NBC want them. OTA time on NBC is valuable air time. I doubt it.

We mock ice skating, but ice skating draws good ratings.

NBC seems to do fairly well counter-programming college football with ice skating, golf, tennis, and auto racing.

Hard to believe for most posters here but college football just has very few brands that draw really large national audiences. CFP championship draws about half the audience of the Super Bowl and regular season games are consistently outdrawn by NFL games with similar potential reach.

Given those facts counter-programming to reach valuable audiences makes a lot of sense.

We live in a world of 400+ networks (most of which have nothing to do with sports) and nearly unlimited "on demand" streaming options. Id argue live college football IS counter programming.

(03-27-2017 09:03 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  i never understood why nbc never went after old B-E
NE schools complamented ND with thier subway fans

... because those schools didn't have the brand value to draw viewers.

If one idea has been disproven over and over, it's the notion that people tune in merely because a school is "in their market" or whatever.

The big names drive interest in college football. That's how it has always worked.

(03-25-2017 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 11:02 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 06:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 05:53 PM)DocAllentown Wrote:  I doubt it even gets to the point of a bidding war. Should be interesting.

NBC bid last time and still has no FBS football beyond Notre Dame. The AAC, along with Navy (which includes a Notre Dame game every other year as well as an Army-Navy game every other year) might be a nice option. NBC did not counter bid in 2013 when ESPN matched--mainly because the AAC had no real ratings track record. They might be willing to bid more this time around now that they have a good idea what the league can do. While I think the final deal will end up in the 5-6 per team ramge---I cant say a 4 million per team deal isn't reasonable possibility.

That said---I still don't think this ever gets to a competitive bidding situation. Not because I don't think there is another bidder, but precisely because ESPN expects there WILL be competitive bidders. I think they end up doing an early extension long before we get to where competitive bidding might be a factor.

Not sure NBC could have come back and counter bid back then, the concept of having the right to match seeming to mean if ESPN matched NBC's offer, the AAC was contractually required to sign with ESPN. But I'm not a lawyer so ...

I guess it's theoretically possible that a right of first refusal could be a watered-down thing that only guarantees that before signing with X, you give Y a chance to match, but if Y matches, you can then go back to X and ask for more, which if X offers more than what Y matched, Y would then have a chance to match, etc. But I've never heard of such a thing.

NBC says 2! Do I hear a match? ESPN says 2! Do I hear a 2.1? NBC says 2.1! Do I hear a 2.2? ESPN says 2.2! Do I hear a 2.3?.....
No, it doesn't work that way, but it would be a funny to watch an AAC auction on ESPN.

Yeah, that wouldn't make sense to me either. I know that Coog has quoted a USA Today article that says the clause did work that way, that even if ESPN matched, the AAC could go back to NBC and ask if they were willing to bid more, but ... that just makes no sense, doesn't seem to comport with any kind of 'match' I've ever heard of, which implies finality, meaning, "once I get my offer from A, I have to give B a chance to match it, and if B does, I have to accept B's offer, period".

But I'm not a contract lawyer, and I'm not privy to the language of the contract, so I don't know.

It is a right to match, not a right of first refusal. The problem with going back to NBC to see if they wanted to raise the bid, is the AAC actually signed with NBC: they signed a contract. The language of their current contract allows them to get out of the NBC contract to take a contract where ESPN matched it (I am pretty sure the terms had to be the same, not better or worse, to allow the out). NBC would likely balk if they came back to ask for more, because they already had a contract signed. But the AAC was free to choose either contract. NBC specifically wrote it in a way they figured ESPN would never match (timeslot guarantees). But they did. The conference then took two days to decide which offer to take.