Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CBS SPORTS TO REMAIN HOME OF ANNUAL ARMY-NAVY FOOTBALL CLASSIC THROUGH 2028
Author Message
quo vadis Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,977
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 487
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #31
RE: CBS SPORTS TO REMAIN HOME OF ANNUAL ARMY-NAVY FOOTBALL CLASSIC THROUGH 2028
(05-20-2017 09:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 05:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 03:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 01:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I found this from the original Navy joining the Big East. You have to think there must have been an extension clause that allowed Navy to keep the game. Only question is it one time only or renewable end of each contract? I find it ironic, Aresco represented CBS at that time.

From the article

"The Army-Navy game remains on that second Saturday in December," he said.

Gladchuk also said that Navy's television deals with CBS and CBS Sports Network had to be accommodated by the Big East.

"Partnership with CBS was one of the reasons this agreement took a little time to finalize," he said.

CBS owns the TV rights to the Army-Navy game and Navy's home games against Notre Dame through 2018. Navy has a separate deal with CBS Sports Network for the TV rights to its other home games that runs through 2017.

"We have a great relationship with the academies, and our deals will be grandfathered for the length of our contracts" said Mike Aresco, executive vice president for programming at CBS Sports.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tball-2015

Im telling you, Aresco has been saying for years that the Army-Navy game would be part of the new package---and it may be. Just because its been renewed separately doesn't necessarily mean the money isn't going into the shared pot (similar to Boise's ESPN deal). Of course, it also doesn't mean it IS going into the same pot either. Just don't know yet. My inclination is to think it is not being shared---but I base that more on a prior AAC history of negative outcomes when it comes to media more than any real facts.

AC, I agree with you that Aresco has infered that Army/Navy would be part of the TV package.

Please note, I simply was saying you think the contract may have had an extension clause since most do. Not saying there was one but if Aresco is the wheeler and dealer everyone says he is, you have to think when he was at CBS he made it the best possible deal for them. You would also think, since he made the comments in the article, he should know the contract. From the article, it sounded like the Big East/AAC was getting nothing from the existing contract.

You think Aresco would be out in front of this to keep the AAC fans from wondering. I can't think of any Power Conference that would allow a team to play an OOC rival and not have it shared in the confernece. You think Aresco would address it sooner than later.

Let's think about Aresco's modus as commissioner these past 5 years: If anything happens that can possibly, even in the most tenuous way, be touted as some kind of positive for the AAC, he trumpets it to high heaven.

But, if something happens that is negative, he either ignores it until somehow cornered point-blank by an interviewer, or else pooh-poohs it as trivial despite its apparent negative nature. But he doesn't seem to go out of his way to proactively talk about it.

Which makes his silence so far ominous. Sure, as Attackcoog says, maybe Navy is sharing their share of the dough with the rest of us, we just don't know. But IMO, Aresco's silence is ominous.

To be fair, no commissioner talks about he financial details of tv deals. That said, I doubt the money is being shared. I agtee---if this were a positive for future revenue, Aresco would have said so (though he would not have said what the amount is). In a related note I find interesting---I've not heard a peep about the amount CBS is paying. i bet we'd have a number to kick around if McMurphy was still employed.

Really? They might not tell us the fine-grained details, but they do tell us something. E.g. there is usually an announcement such as "the PAC signed a deal with ESPN that will pay the conference $2 B over 10 years, or an average of $20m per school per year". We get that information. And e.g., how do we know how the B1G and SEC and PAC, etc. split their TV and bowl money? Because they've told us. I don't see anything 'proprietary' about whether Navy's share of the Army-Navy contract is being shared by the conference or does it all go to Navy.

Like you, I'd be interested in the $$$ of the new Army/Navy deal as well. Could give us new info about the direction of rights fees generally.
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2017 10:45 AM by quo vadis.)
05-20-2017 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,177
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 832
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: CBS SPORTS TO REMAIN HOME OF ANNUAL ARMY-NAVY FOOTBALL CLASSIC THROUGH 2028
(05-20-2017 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 09:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 05:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 03:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im telling you, Aresco has been saying for years that the Army-Navy game would be part of the new package---and it may be. Just because its been renewed separately doesn't necessarily mean the money isn't going into the shared pot (similar to Boise's ESPN deal). Of course, it also doesn't mean it IS going into the same pot either. Just don't know yet. My inclination is to think it is not being shared---but I base that more on a prior AAC history of negative outcomes when it comes to media more than any real facts.

AC, I agree with you that Aresco has infered that Army/Navy would be part of the TV package.

Please note, I simply was saying you think the contract may have had an extension clause since most do. Not saying there was one but if Aresco is the wheeler and dealer everyone says he is, you have to think when he was at CBS he made it the best possible deal for them. You would also think, since he made the comments in the article, he should know the contract. From the article, it sounded like the Big East/AAC was getting nothing from the existing contract.

You think Aresco would be out in front of this to keep the AAC fans from wondering. I can't think of any Power Conference that would allow a team to play an OOC rival and not have it shared in the confernece. You think Aresco would address it sooner than later.

Let's think about Aresco's modus as commissioner these past 5 years: If anything happens that can possibly, even in the most tenuous way, be touted as some kind of positive for the AAC, he trumpets it to high heaven.

But, if something happens that is negative, he either ignores it until somehow cornered point-blank by an interviewer, or else pooh-poohs it as trivial despite its apparent negative nature. But he doesn't seem to go out of his way to proactively talk about it.

Which makes his silence so far ominous. Sure, as Attackcoog says, maybe Navy is sharing their share of the dough with the rest of us, we just don't know. But IMO, Aresco's silence is ominous.

To be fair, no commissioner talks about he financial details of tv deals. That said, I doubt the money is being shared. I agtee---if this were a positive for future revenue, Aresco would have said so (though he would not have said what the amount is). In a related note I find interesting---I've not heard a peep about the amount CBS is paying. i bet we'd have a number to kick around if McMurphy was still employed.

Really? They might not tell us the fine-grained details, but they do tell us something. E.g. there is usually an announcement such as "the PAC signed a deal with ESPN that will pay the conference $2 B over 10 years, or an average of $20m per school per year". We get that information. And e.g., how do we know how the B1G and SEC and PAC, etc. split their TV and bowl money? Because they've told us. I don't see anything 'proprietary' about whether Navy's share of the Army-Navy contract is being shared by the conference or does it all go to Navy.

Like you, I'd be interested in the $$$ of the new Army/Navy deal as well. Could give us new info about the direction of rights fees generally.

No. I can't remember any such announcement. The number typically leaks out, but it's usually not announced by the conference. Sports articles will certainly give an amount, but I don't remember a conference press release or press conference doing so. They usually speak in vague generalities like "gives us financial security", "best deal in the country", "competitive deal", "similarly positioned", "on a par with" etc.
05-21-2017 12:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,977
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 487
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #33
RE: CBS SPORTS TO REMAIN HOME OF ANNUAL ARMY-NAVY FOOTBALL CLASSIC THROUGH 2028
(05-21-2017 12:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 09:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 05:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 03:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  AC, I agree with you that Aresco has infered that Army/Navy would be part of the TV package.

Please note, I simply was saying you think the contract may have had an extension clause since most do. Not saying there was one but if Aresco is the wheeler and dealer everyone says he is, you have to think when he was at CBS he made it the best possible deal for them. You would also think, since he made the comments in the article, he should know the contract. From the article, it sounded like the Big East/AAC was getting nothing from the existing contract.

You think Aresco would be out in front of this to keep the AAC fans from wondering. I can't think of any Power Conference that would allow a team to play an OOC rival and not have it shared in the confernece. You think Aresco would address it sooner than later.

Let's think about Aresco's modus as commissioner these past 5 years: If anything happens that can possibly, even in the most tenuous way, be touted as some kind of positive for the AAC, he trumpets it to high heaven.

But, if something happens that is negative, he either ignores it until somehow cornered point-blank by an interviewer, or else pooh-poohs it as trivial despite its apparent negative nature. But he doesn't seem to go out of his way to proactively talk about it.

Which makes his silence so far ominous. Sure, as Attackcoog says, maybe Navy is sharing their share of the dough with the rest of us, we just don't know. But IMO, Aresco's silence is ominous.

To be fair, no commissioner talks about he financial details of tv deals. That said, I doubt the money is being shared. I agtee---if this were a positive for future revenue, Aresco would have said so (though he would not have said what the amount is). In a related note I find interesting---I've not heard a peep about the amount CBS is paying. i bet we'd have a number to kick around if McMurphy was still employed.

Really? They might not tell us the fine-grained details, but they do tell us something. E.g. there is usually an announcement such as "the PAC signed a deal with ESPN that will pay the conference $2 B over 10 years, or an average of $20m per school per year". We get that information. And e.g., how do we know how the B1G and SEC and PAC, etc. split their TV and bowl money? Because they've told us. I don't see anything 'proprietary' about whether Navy's share of the Army-Navy contract is being shared by the conference or does it all go to Navy.

Like you, I'd be interested in the $$$ of the new Army/Navy deal as well. Could give us new info about the direction of rights fees generally.

No. I can't remember any such announcement. The number typically leaks out, but it's usually not announced by the conference. Sports articles will certainly give an amount, but I don't remember a conference press release or press conference doing so. They usually speak in vague generalities like "gives us financial security", "best deal in the country", "competitive deal", "similarly positioned", "on a par with" etc.

OK, but even if so, that wouldn't preclude Aresco telling us what we want to know, which is whether Navy's cut of the new contract money will be shared with the rest of the AAC or whether they keep it all. No specific numbers are needed for that.
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2017 07:36 AM by quo vadis.)
05-21-2017 07:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,177
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 832
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #34
RE: CBS SPORTS TO REMAIN HOME OF ANNUAL ARMY-NAVY FOOTBALL CLASSIC THROUGH 2028
(05-21-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-21-2017 12:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 09:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 05:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's think about Aresco's modus as commissioner these past 5 years: If anything happens that can possibly, even in the most tenuous way, be touted as some kind of positive for the AAC, he trumpets it to high heaven.

But, if something happens that is negative, he either ignores it until somehow cornered point-blank by an interviewer, or else pooh-poohs it as trivial despite its apparent negative nature. But he doesn't seem to go out of his way to proactively talk about it.

Which makes his silence so far ominous. Sure, as Attackcoog says, maybe Navy is sharing their share of the dough with the rest of us, we just don't know. But IMO, Aresco's silence is ominous.

To be fair, no commissioner talks about he financial details of tv deals. That said, I doubt the money is being shared. I agtee---if this were a positive for future revenue, Aresco would have said so (though he would not have said what the amount is). In a related note I find interesting---I've not heard a peep about the amount CBS is paying. i bet we'd have a number to kick around if McMurphy was still employed.

Really? They might not tell us the fine-grained details, but they do tell us something. E.g. there is usually an announcement such as "the PAC signed a deal with ESPN that will pay the conference $2 B over 10 years, or an average of $20m per school per year". We get that information. And e.g., how do we know how the B1G and SEC and PAC, etc. split their TV and bowl money? Because they've told us. I don't see anything 'proprietary' about whether Navy's share of the Army-Navy contract is being shared by the conference or does it all go to Navy.

Like you, I'd be interested in the $$$ of the new Army/Navy deal as well. Could give us new info about the direction of rights fees generally.

No. I can't remember any such announcement. The number typically leaks out, but it's usually not announced by the conference. Sports articles will certainly give an amount, but I don't remember a conference press release or press conference doing so. They usually speak in vague generalities like "gives us financial security", "best deal in the country", "competitive deal", "similarly positioned", "on a par with" etc.

OK, but even if so, that wouldn't preclude Aresco telling us what we want to know, which is whether Navy's cut of the new contract money will be shared with the rest of the AAC or whether they keep it all. No specific numbers are needed for that.

Correct. While I don't have definitive proof or a link, I'm fairly certain the other AAC teams wont be seeing any benefit from the Army-Navy game. If it were a revenue boost or if it were being shared, Aresco would have said something to that effect (as his track record has been to promote any positive development for the conference).
05-21-2017 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.