Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Analysis of American TV Contract
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,171
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 832
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-17-2017 11:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Just a note. AAC fans are convinced that their TV rights were undervalued because of the instability of the conference in 2012-13.

"We didn't even have a NAME! We were a completely unknown product!"
When Aresco signed with NBC and then ESPN, you were still known as "the Big East". And many "Aresco League" posters were convinced that you would stay "the Big East".

"Our roster of schools was unstable!"
When Aresco signed with NBC and then ESPN, Louisville and Rutgers were already gone, the C7 was gone, Boise STate was gone. There was still the risk of losing teams to an expanding P5 conference, but that risk is still there today and will still be there at the end of the current deal in 2020. Posters on CSNBBS from the incoming schools were irate at the division of the "Realignment Reserve Fund", but the administrations seemed pretty calm about it. I thought the new schools would kick hard enough to get their entry fees waived (which would have been totally fair, given that they "bought into" a BCS conference, and ended up in a G5 conference without the C7), but that didn't even happen. Yes, there were some wild media rumors about forming an entirely new conference, but you won't get an autobid for 8 years by NCAA rules. Nobody was going back to CUSA.

"Our schools hadn't been on real TV in 10 years."
This is true, and a better poinyt than the others, but most of the AAC keystones were keystones of a CUSA that got a TV contract much bigger than the MAC or WAC and right around what the Mountain West was getting. Which is right where you are now.

The big change in stability for the American was a direct result of the ACC signing a GOR (April 2013). Unfortunately for the AAC, the ACC GOR occurred well AFTER the AAC had already struck a deal with NBC (Feb 2013). The ACC GOR is what stopped the realignment merry go round.

Sure every AAC team would leave today for a P5---but with the current GOR's and the outcome of the 2016 Big12 expansion sweepstakes---we know there isnt going to be any P5's expanding or poaching until the current GOR's expire around 2024-25. We have stability.

The biggest difference for the AAC between 2013 and today---outside of stability---is the AAC now has a track record. Its ability to attract an audience, its TV ratings, and its performance on the field are no longer unknown quantities. Those factors are known by all potential bidders. That might be the biggest single significant difference between 2013 and today when it comes to the AAC's potential value.
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2017 08:44 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-17-2017 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatlawjd2 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 934
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 28
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-17-2017 07:53 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is something to be said for the AAC being the 6th best football conference.

If you take the P5 and the best 4 programs that is only 20 programs not a lot to show on TV. The AAC has some product, not game of the week level product but enough to have serious interest in it.

The top 50% of the AAC is as valuable in FB from a TV standpoint as the bottom 50% of the ACC. Therefore the AAC should be worth at least a quarter of the ACC (5 million per school).

I still expect the American to land somewhere in the 5 million to 8 million range in the next deal. Best case scenario would be to break up the deal.

Tier 1 football NBC over the air Saturday
Tier 2 football ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU weeknight games.
Tier 3 football some combination of CBSSN, NBC Sports, ESPNU/ESPNews/ESPN3

Tier 1 Basketball CBS/NBC weekend games
Tier 2 Basketball ESPN family of Networks/CBSSN sub license agreement for everything else.
10-18-2017 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,634
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #73
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-17-2017 11:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Just a note. AAC fans are convinced that their TV rights were undervalued because of the instability of the conference in 2012-13.

Yes… you’re correct, but there are many reasons why we believe this—which you intentionally failed to mention. As a Moderator whom I’ve interacted with in the past, I’m very surprised at this twisted post you’ve presented because I know that you have full knowledge of most—if not all—the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances that “The American” encountered.

"We didn't even have a NAME! We were a completely unknown product!"

UC, UCONN, and USF sold the name to the C7; thus, our rebuilding conference didn't have one. Consequently, “We were a completely unknown product!"

When Aresco signed with NBC and then ESPN, you were still known as "the Big East". And many "Aresco League" posters were convinced that you would stay "the Big East".

How the H#LL can two conferences (the C7/Big East and the Big East/the nameless ones/The American) sign TV contracts with two different networks using the same name?

"Our roster of schools was unstable!"

Aresco unconscionably admitted during Tulsa's invite interview that at one point, he didn’t think the conference would make it. This also explains why "Mr. TV Expert Commissioner" allowed our schools (which were in an unnamed conference at the time) to be placed into two groups by NBC (if I’m not mistaken) and ESPN matched the TV contract—but you already know this….

When Aresco signed with NBC and then ESPN, Louisville and Rutgers were already gone, the C7 was gone, Boise STate was gone. There was still the risk of losing teams to an expanding P5 conference, but that risk is still there today and will still be there at the end of the current deal in 2020. Posters on CSNBBS from the incoming schools were irate at the division of the "Realignment Reserve Fund", but the administrations seemed pretty calm about it. I thought the new schools would kick hard enough to get their entry fees waived (which would have been totally fair, given that they "bought into" a BCS conference, and ended up in a G5 conference without the C7), but that didn't even happen. Yes, there were some wild media rumors about forming an entirely new conference, but you won't get an autobid for 8 years by NCAA rules. Nobody was going back to CUSA.

It was more than a rumor:

“UConn, Cincy looking to form a Transcontinental Conference”

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/14...conference

However, I admit that this was caused by panic—which further emphasizes how dire the situation was.


"Our schools hadn't been on real TV in 10 years."

This is true, and a better poinyt than the others, but most of the AAC keystones were keystones of a CUSA that got a TV contract much bigger than the MAC or WAC and right around what the Mountain West was getting. Which is right where you are now.

Do you think FOX would have paid a nameless C7 BBall conference approximately $5 mil per school? NO! That’s why the C7 left behind MILLION$ to UC, UCONN, and USF for the “Big East” name... but you already know this....

My comments ^ are in bold….
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 11:04 AM by Underdog.)
10-18-2017 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,459
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 271
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-18-2017 09:41 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 11:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Just a note. AAC fans are convinced that their TV rights were undervalued because of the instability of the conference in 2012-13.

Yes… you’re correct, but there are many reasons why we believe this—which you intentionally failed to mention.

I thought I'd covered the main points. I still don't see any new ones in your post, just the same ones we've been arguing over.

Quote:As a Moderator whom I’ve interacted with in the past, I’m very surprised at this twisted post you’ve presented because I know that you have full knowledge of most—if not all—the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances that “The American” encountered.

"We didn't even have a NAME! We were a completely unknown product!"

UC, UCONN, and USF sold the name to the C7; thus, our rebuilding conference didn't have one. Consequently, “We were a completely unknown product!"

When Aresco signed with NBC and then ESPN, you were still known as "the Big East". And many "Aresco League" posters were convinced that you would stay "the Big East".
[/quote]

I repeat: The sale of the name took place AFTER Aresco signed the TV contracts with NBC and ESPN. The sale of the name was by no means a certainty when those deals were being negotiated.

Thread title: It's official, BE signs with ESPN (Feb 23)

I'm done googling. We'll have to settle for this thread from MArch 2, where the sale of the name is still up in the air. http://mac.csnbbs.com/thread-621559.htmlc7 board thread from MArch 2, 2013

Quote:How the H#LL can two conferences (the C7/Big East and the Big East/the nameless ones/The American) sign TV contracts with two different networks using the same name?

That's why they get paid the big bucks, because they're not brain-damaged enough to sign a deal to buy SMU football from the guys selling Georgetown basketball or vice versa.

Quote:"Our roster of schools was unstable!"

Aresco unconscionably admitted during Tulsa's invite interview that at one point, he didn’t think the conference would make it.

At that point, the danger had passed--there was a TV deal in place.

Quote:This also explains why "Mr. TV Expert Commissioner" allowed our schools (which were in an unnamed conference at the time) to be placed into two groups by NBC (if I’m not mistaken) and ESPN matched the TV contract—but you already know this….

It was more than a rumor:

“UConn, Cincy looking to form a Transcontinental Conference”

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/14...conference

Thanks. I could NOT find that link yesterday. The "Transcontinental Conference" was never a real prospect, though, more a "harebrained scheme" that evaporates when you take it seriously, like UConn putting football in the MAC. (Or it might just have been a harebrained scheme to panic the ACC into inviting UConn and Cincy.)

Quote:However, I admit that this was caused by panic—which further emphasizes how dire the situation was.

"Our schools hadn't been on real TV in 10 years."

This is true, and a better poinyt than the others, but most of the AAC keystones were keystones of a CUSA that got a TV contract much bigger than the MAC or WAC and right around what the Mountain West was getting. Which is right where you are now.

Do you think FOX would have paid a nameless C7 BBall conference approximately $5 mil per school? NO! That’s why the C7 left behind MILLION$ to UC, UCONN, and USF for the “Big East” name... but you already know this....

Probably not $4M a year, but probably $2.5-$3M for the "Eastern Athletic Association" or whatever. And I don't think the Aresco-led "Big East Conference" was going to be getting $3-4M per school per year either. Which is why, on your end, it made sense to sell the name. Georgetown-St Johns has more value as a "Big East game". MEmphis-Temple, not so much.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 11:46 AM by johnbragg.)
10-18-2017 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,634
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #75
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-18-2017 11:44 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 09:41 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 11:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Just a note. AAC fans are convinced that their TV rights were undervalued because of the instability of the conference in 2012-13.

Yes… you’re correct, but there are many reasons why we believe this—which you intentionally failed to mention.

I thought I'd covered the main points. I still don't see any new ones in your post, just the same ones we've been arguing over.

Quote:As a Moderator whom I’ve interacted with in the past, I’m very surprised at this twisted post you’ve presented because I know that you have full knowledge of most—if not all—the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances that “The American” encountered.

"We didn't even have a NAME! We were a completely unknown product!"

UC, UCONN, and USF sold the name to the C7; thus, our rebuilding conference didn't have one. Consequently, “We were a completely unknown product!"

When Aresco signed with NBC and then ESPN, you were still known as "the Big East". And many "Aresco League" posters were convinced that you would stay "the Big East".

I repeat: The sale of the name took place AFTER Aresco signed the TV contracts with NBC and ESPN. The sale of the name was by no means a certainty when those deals were being negotiated.


Thread title: It's official, BE signs with ESPN (Feb 23)

I'm done googling. We'll have to settle for this thread from MArch 2, where the sale of the name is still up in the air. http://mac.csnbbs.com/thread-621559.htmlc7 board thread from MArch 2, 2013

Quote:How the H#LL can two conferences (the C7/Big East and the Big East/the nameless ones/The American) sign TV contracts with two different networks using the same name?

That's why they get paid the big bucks, because they're not brain-damaged enough to sign a deal to buy SMU football from the guys selling Georgetown basketball or vice versa.

Quote:"Our roster of schools was unstable!"

Aresco unconscionably admitted during Tulsa's invite interview that at one point, he didn’t think the conference would make it.

At that point, the danger had passed--there was a TV deal in place.

Quote:This also explains why "Mr. TV Expert Commissioner" allowed our schools (which were in an unnamed conference at the time) to be placed into two groups by NBC (if I’m not mistaken) and ESPN matched the TV contract—but you already know this….

It was more than a rumor:

“UConn, Cincy looking to form a Transcontinental Conference”

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/14...conference

Thanks. I could NOT find that link yesterday. The "Transcontinental Conference" was never a real prospect, though, more a "harebrained scheme" that evaporates when you take it seriously, like UConn putting football in the MAC. (Or it might just have been a harebrained scheme to panic the ACC into inviting UConn and Cincy.)

Quote:However, I admit that this was caused by panic—which further emphasizes how dire the situation was.

"Our schools hadn't been on real TV in 10 years."

This is true, and a better poinyt than the others, but most of the AAC keystones were keystones of a CUSA that got a TV contract much bigger than the MAC or WAC and right around what the Mountain West was getting. Which is right where you are now.

Do you think FOX would have paid a nameless C7 BBall conference approximately $5 mil per school? NO! That’s why the C7 left behind MILLION$ to UC, UCONN, and USF for the “Big East” name... but you already know this....

Probably not $4M a year, but probably $2.5-$3M for the "Eastern Athletic Association" or whatever. And I don't think the Aresco-led "Big East Conference" was going to be getting $3-4M per school per year either. Which is why, on your end, it made sense to sell the name. Georgetown-St Johns has more value as a "Big East game". MEmphis-Temple, not so much.
[/quote]

Selling the “Big East” name subsequent to signing a TV contract would have voided it, but please prove me wrong by providing a link… and I’ll rep you +6 for the effort, correct information, and link….

Btw... I'll continue to untwist the rest of your twisted post later....
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 12:08 PM by Underdog.)
10-18-2017 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,459
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 271
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-18-2017 12:06 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Selling the “Big East” name subsequent to signing a TV contract would have voided it, but please prove me wrong by providing a link… and I’ll rep you +6 for the effort, correct information, and link….

Btw... I'll continue to untwist the rest of your twisted post later....

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I can't produce a link to what Fox would have paid the C7 without the Big East name--I don't have access to that. I'd argue that Fox and the C7 could not be sure that they would get the rights to the name, so I'd expect that part of the deal was a contingency if the C7 ended up not being the Big East, or not being able to start for the 2013-14 Fox Sports 1 debut. What that contingency was (or even that there was one) has never been made public. Maybe the contingency was "void the deal", I don't know.

I produced links to discussions of the TV deal the Aresco League signed as the "Big East", that was not voided when they sold the name.
10-18-2017 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,913
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
Please Dear God, let Aresco get this contract done ASAP just to kill this speculation topic!
10-18-2017 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,634
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #78
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
@johnbragg

Here’s a link to a thread when selling the “Big East” name was discussed:

http://www.ncaanetwork.net/thread-607884...pid8715906

I’m also trying to uncover when the “American” board was renamed because I can’t remember. Moreover, the link that you provided in your post does support what you claim. Nevertheless, I would prefer a more creditable source than this message board—but what I’ve uncovered does weigh heavily in your favor. My point: I will still rep you +6 if I can’t prove what you posted is not correct….
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 01:12 PM by Underdog.)
10-18-2017 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,459
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 271
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
Andy Katz reports the "Big East"-ESPN deal is done on February 23, 2013.
https://twitter.com/TheAndyKatz/status/3...5793745921

The deal to sell the name (and the MSG Tournament) was official on MArch 20, 2013. Big East History (official Big East site). The deal seems to have been in place by MArch 1 (Sources tell Brett McMurphy), but the deal was not completed and the Fox Sports 1 announcement was delayed until March 20.

As for using csnbbs links, I don't think anybody was following developments more closely than this board, and the links to csnbbs threads aren't going to end in 404 errors, even if a lot of the articles we linked to are 404'd by now.

There were plenty of threads about the sale of the name being discussed. That discussion started as soon as the rumblings of a split started. But discussion and happening are two very different things.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 01:46 PM by johnbragg.)
10-18-2017 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,634
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #80
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-18-2017 01:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Andy Katz reports the "Big East"-ESPN deal is done on February 23, 2013.
https://twitter.com/TheAndyKatz/status/3...5793745921

The deal to sell the name (and the MSG Tournament) was official on MArch 20, 2013. Big East History (official Big East site). The deal seems to have been in place by MArch 1 (Sources tell Brett McMurphy), but the deal was not completed and the Fox Sports 1 announcement was delayed until March 20.

As for using csnbbs links, I don't think anybody was following developments more closely than this board, and the links to csnbbs threads aren't going to end in 404 errors, even if a lot of the articles we linked to are 404'd by now.

There were plenty of threads about the sale of the name being discussed. That discussion started as soon as the rumblings of a split started. But discussion and happening are two very different things.

Well done sir… +6…. 04-cheers My memory had faded with age… lol….
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 02:04 PM by Underdog.)
10-18-2017 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: bearcatlawjd2, 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.