CSNbbs

Thanks to Bearhawkeye on the UC board. Mike DeCourcey is a senior writer for the sporting news.


[quote='Bearhawkeye' pid='8376822' dateline='1350039748']
Pulled from a brief Q&A:

4. Speaking of Midnight Madness, what are you most looking forward to seeing Friday night?

It’s probably risky for me to be totally honest here, but what I’m looking forward to most is the United States soccer team’s World Cup qualifier against Antigua.

It’s this simple: I love college basketball. And it’s because I love college basketball that I loathe Midnight Madness. It’s like going to the movies and seeing two hours worth of trailers.

No, I take that back. Trailers are much more like the movies than Madness is like basketball. I’ve seen it at Pitt, Memphis, Cincinnati and Kentucky, and I’ve seen it on TV, and I always leave feeling like I ordered a filet and was served a dish of Skittles. There are speeches, there are cheers, sometimes there are skits or dunk contests, but there’s no real basketball involved.

I don’t wish to spoil anyone’s fun, and I understand the value of Madness as a stand-in for college basketball’s lack of a true opening day. I’m just more eager to see some actual practices over the next few weeks and then the real games in November.

5. Big East commissioner Mike Aresco says negotiations with ESPN are going nowhere and he will seek bids from other networks once ESPN’s exclusive window expires. What are we to make of this? Is ESPN finally out of money?

From the moment the Big East declined ESPN’s offer of a contract extension in spring 2011, it was obvious the league was going to take its TV business into the open market and see what it would command. ESPN has the right to negotiate exclusively for a 60-day period that ends in a few weeks, and don’t worry, the network still has the bucks to fulfill the Big East’s dream of a huge rights windfall that would stop the process on a dime. But that won’t happen.

It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

(10-12-2012 07:42 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

Still might end up with ESPN though. Doesn't ESPN also own rights to match any bid, even after the 60 day window?

(10-12-2012 07:52 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 07:42 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

Still might end up with ESPN though. Doesn't ESPN also own rights to match any bid, even after the 60 day window?

No.

(10-12-2012 08:03 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 07:52 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 07:42 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

Still might end up with ESPN though. Doesn't ESPN also own rights to match any bid, even after the 60 day window?

No.

Does anyone have a link on this? I think they do have the rights, but can't find any official verbage to support that at the moment.

(10-12-2012 07:42 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

Unless ESPN has brought in Fox to bid jointly with Fox taking Tier 1 football and Tier 2 basketball and ESPN taking Tier 1 basketball and Tier 2 football.

If the money is right, this is the best of all worlds as it achieves the money goals and the exposure goals. And it would leave Tier 3 available for a Big East network and/or digital options and/or open bidding.

Even if they have the right to match the terms of the contract, there are ways around it via "poison pills".

(10-12-2012 08:14 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 07:42 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

Unless ESPN has brought in Fox to bid jointly with Fox taking Tier 1 football and Tier 2 basketball and ESPN taking Tier 1 basketball and Tier 2 football.

If the money is right, this is the best of all worlds as it achieves the money goals and the exposure goals. And it would leave Tier 3 available for a Big East network and/or digital options and/or open bidding.

Actually, I think a Big East Network is a near certainty. Aresco has mentioned it as a possibility--but given Aresco's background as a TV executive, it would seem to be a pretty natural fit. More importantly, it's an income stream that will become a much bigger factor in the future earnings profile of several major conferences. It's important not to fall behind the curve.

By the way, I don't think I've ever seen Aresco say that the ESPN negotiations are "going nowhere". Seems like that question is based on a statement that has never been made.

Hope Aresco doesn't just go with the highest bidder. We need perception to change more than anything and that means being on national tv on channels everyone gets and watches. Getting stuck on ESPNU midweek or ESPN3 would be a nightmare. Same with being on CBS Sports, which CUSA currently is.

(10-12-2012 09:18 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: [ -> ]Hope Aresco doesn't just go with the highest bidder. We need perception to change more than anything and that means being on national tv on channels everyone gets and watches. Getting stuck on ESPNU midweek or ESPN3 would be a nightmare. Same with being on CBS Sports, which CUSA currently is.

He and others involved already said the biggest $$$ won't guarantee a signed contract...as other variables/deliverables will be WRITTEN in the contract this time around that weren't the last time around (i.e. Saturday Games, time slots, network/station guarantees, plus PR/Exposure promos for the "new" conf, etc...)

(10-12-2012 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 08:14 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 07:42 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't matter how much money ESPN has at this point. Aresco would be a fool to end the process now, instead of waiting to bring in more bidders.

Unless ESPN has brought in Fox to bid jointly with Fox taking Tier 1 football and Tier 2 basketball and ESPN taking Tier 1 basketball and Tier 2 football.

If the money is right, this is the best of all worlds as it achieves the money goals and the exposure goals. And it would leave Tier 3 available for a Big East network and/or digital options and/or open bidding.

Actually, I think a Big East Network is a near certainty. Aresco has mentioned it as a possibility--but given Aresco's background as a TV executive, it would seem to be a pretty natural fit. More importantly, it's an income stream that will become a much bigger factor in the future earnings profile of several major conferences. It's important not to fall behind the curve.

By the way, I don't think I've ever seen Aresco say that the ESPN negotiations are "going nowhere". Seems like that question is based on a statement that has never been made.

What Aresco was quoted as saying is that the BE was nowhere near completing a deal with ESPN.

(10-12-2012 08:12 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have a link on this? I think they do have the rights, but can't find any official verbage to support that at the moment.

You don't need a link. Standard contract procedures. The Big East is, for a lack of a better term, and unresticted free agent at the end of the contract. Once the exclusive negotiation period ends, while the Big East is still under contract for another season, they are free to sign a new contract with anyone they wish.

(10-12-2012 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I think a Big East Network is a near certainty. Aresco has mentioned it as a possibility--but given Aresco's background as a TV executive, it would seem to be a pretty natural fit. More importantly, it's an income stream that will become a much bigger factor in the future earnings profile of several major conferences. It's important not to fall behind the curve.

A Big East Network is a distatster waiting to happen. There is very little guarantee it would provide a "big" income stream, and I would make th ecase the BE is better off getting as much product nationally distrubuted as possible (which leaves little "valuable" content for a woudl be struggling network).

Big East syndicated games currently draw horrid ratings as it is compared to their counterparts. Consider that the best of the syndicated games would likely be nationally broadcast in a new contract (the side effect of the horrible exposure on ESPN is a better crop of third tier games than you would normally have) and you are talking about a slate of games too weak to carry a network. They'd be much better off working out a deal to sell the leftover games to another network, like CBS Sports, to fill time, and get national carriage, then trying to create a network.

DeCourcey Wrote:I always leave feeling like I ordered a filet and was served a dish of Skittles.

I like Skittles

Hey me too. But if I ordered a big juicy steak, and someone brought me a bowl of Skittles.... I'd eat them... But as soon as the waiter left, I'd give him a piece of my mind...

(10-12-2012 09:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 08:12 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have a link on this? I think they do have the rights, but can't find any official verbage to support that at the moment.

You don't need a link. Standard contract procedures. The Big East is, for a lack of a better term, and unresticted free agent at the end of the contract. Once the exclusive negotiation period ends, while the Big East is still under contract for another season, they are free to sign a new contract with anyone they wish.

(10-12-2012 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I think a Big East Network is a near certainty. Aresco has mentioned it as a possibility--but given Aresco's background as a TV executive, it would seem to be a pretty natural fit. More importantly, it's an income stream that will become a much bigger factor in the future earnings profile of several major conferences. It's important not to fall behind the curve.

A Big East Network is a distatster waiting to happen. There is very little guarantee it would provide a "big" income stream, and I would make th ecase the BE is better off getting as much product nationally distrubuted as possible (which leaves little "valuable" content for a woudl be struggling network).

Big East syndicated games currently draw horrid ratings as it is compared to their counterparts. Consider that the best of the syndicated games would likely be nationally broadcast in a new contract (the side effect of the horrible exposure on ESPN is a better crop of third tier games than you would normally have) and you are talking about a slate of games too weak to carry a network. They'd be much better off working out a deal to sell the leftover games to another network, like CBS Sports, to fill time, and get national carriage, then trying to create a network.

The key on a Big East Network is probably partnering with a cable company as a 20% partner. This guarantees carriage on a major cable network. The Big East is made up of primarily of metro schools located major cities across the nation. The big money from a network comes in carriage fees. The cable providers pay for a network based on the number of subscribers. The Big Easts calling card is the huge number of TV's in its markets, nearly 3 times the number of TV's of our nearest competitor. So even at a quarter per subscriber, the money is pretty good. This also is an outlet for programming that wouldn't be televised at all otherwise and would tend to raise the profile of the conference. Additionally, it's possible for the network to use national programming to save cost while pushing more regional games to different parts of the country to increase interest--which would increase ratings and local interest in the area schools.

(10-12-2012 09:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-12-2012 08:12 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have a link on this? I think they do have the rights, but can't find any official verbage to support that at the moment.

You don't need a link. Standard contract procedures. The Big East is, for a lack of a better term, and unresticted free agent at the end of the contract. Once the exclusive negotiation period ends, while the Big East is still under contract for another season, they are free to sign a new contract with anyone they wish.

(10-12-2012 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I think a Big East Network is a near certainty. Aresco has mentioned it as a possibility--but given Aresco's background as a TV executive, it would seem to be a pretty natural fit. More importantly, it's an income stream that will become a much bigger factor in the future earnings profile of several major conferences. It's important not to fall behind the curve.

A Big East Network is a distatster waiting to happen. There is very little guarantee it would provide a "big" income stream, and I would make th ecase the BE is better off getting as much product nationally distrubuted as possible (which leaves little "valuable" content for a woudl be struggling network).

Big East syndicated games currently draw horrid ratings as it is compared to their counterparts. Consider that the best of the syndicated games would likely be nationally broadcast in a new contract (the side effect of the horrible exposure on ESPN is a better crop of third tier games than you would normally have) and you are talking about a slate of games too weak to carry a network. They'd be much better off working out a deal to sell the leftover games to another network, like CBS Sports, to fill time, and get national carriage, then trying to create a network.

First right of refusal I think is what it's called.

If we agree to ESPN for tier 1 basketball and tier 2 football rights, you think we can write in the contract something about the halt of blatant bashing of the conference, especially for next years lame duck season with them in football?

(10-12-2012 10:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]The key on a Big East Network is probably partnering with a cable company as a 20% partner. This guarantees carriage on a major cable network. The Big East is made up of primarily of metro schools located major cities across the nation. The big money from a network comes in carriage fees. The cable providers pay for a network based on the number of subscribers. The Big Easts calling card is the huge number of TV's in its markets, nearly 3 times the number of TV's of our nearest competitor. So even at a quarter per subscriber, the money is pretty good. This also is an outlet for programming that wouldn't be televised at all otherwise and would tend to raise the profile of the conference. Additionally, it's possible for the network to use national programming to save cost while pushing more regional games to different parts of the country to increase interest--which would increase ratings and local interest in the area schools.

I know how they work. But cable companies don't just give that money away. And even then, they are rarely on basic cable. You are making a very faulty assumption that if the BE throws a network out there, every cable company in a BE market is going to jump on it and add it. They didn’t even do that with the Big Ten. The problem is, the BE, especially when you are talking about the third tier games, is not strong enough or concentrated enough to carry wide distribution. And when you say 20% that is a very low number. The Big Ten Network, to date the only conference network that is actually successful, is owned 49% by Fox. And even then, it primarily got off the ground because Fox owned DirecTV at the time, and put it on their basic package, and created a situation where Big Ten fans were switching to DirecTV in droves (only after they started missing basketball games, a fact that people always gloss over BTW). 20 ownership by one Cable Company would not be enough. Even MLB Network and NBA TV, with much larger appeal, had to sell 49% equity to various cable companies to get them off the ground. The NFL Network is the only network of its type to be wholly owned by the content provider that is successful.

What I am saying is that the BE games that would be on the network, already get poor ratings when syndicated, and those are usually on over the air local networks, meaning they are available to just about everyone in Big East markets. Now you would be taking away the better matchups that were syndicated (assuming a better TV deal means more national TV games), making it even worse. Then, even if you were able to, your business model is broken. You said something about $0.25 a subscriber. Okay well let’s say the Big East markets include about 35 -40 million households. Only 85% have cable. Of that number, only 75% of those have extended basic cable, the highest tier you can hope for. That is 22-25 million potential subscribers. You generate $0.25 per month, which is $75 million per year. But since you only own half of the network, you get half of that. That is $37.5 million annually in revenue for subscriber fees, or roughly $1.35 million per football school, $2.4 million per all sport school (I am making gross assumptions that ad revenue will pay the costs of running the network and producing the shows).

For the amount of risk and work involved, it may not be worth the trouble. And that is a best case scenario at this point. A Big East Network would be a bad business model, and one that likely would not work. The only way it would work, is if an existing channel were converted to a BE Network. And I don't really see that happening. . Instead of you pool the rights, and sell them to an existing fledging network for filler programming within your contract, you can likely make the same or more money, and get more exposure.

(10-12-2012 10:15 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: [ -> ]If we agree to ESPN for tier 1 basketball and tier 2 football rights, you think we can write in the contract something about the halt of blatant bashing of the conference, especially for next years lame duck season with them in football?

Don't think ESPN would ever agree to a contract which forced them to tell their broadcasters what to say, or not say. They were able to bash the NFL during Monday Night Football regarding the refs. If the NFL can't get them to STFU, then no college conference could.

(10-12-2012 10:09 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote: [ -> ]First right of refusal I think is what it's called.

They exist. But that would be in a situation where someone has an opt out clause that is being exercised. Then you have a first right of refusal in some cases. For example NBA restircted free agents. But not when a contract is outright expiring. Can't have such a clause when the contract is no longer valid. Ok, I will not say "can't," but very, very rarely would you have such a thing.

Now in this case, that actually "could" have been a good thing. It would mean if someone wanted to buy the BE rights, they would have to bid so high, that ESPN would not bother trying to match (see Houston Rockets and GJeremy Lin). On the other hand though, it could cause potential suitors to back off. So it's an interesting dynamic.