CSNbbs

Even if NBCSN wants AAC Football, would they want AAC Men's Basketball when NBCSN has the A10?

Honest question, what happens if you don;t get a big number? Let's say it is $5m not $8M.

Would you lose a property like UConn? They stand to make a lot more TV money getting back into the BE for hoops and stepping back to MAC or as an Indy in football? Not sure if any other schools could fall into that category too?

(11-20-2018 12:27 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Honest question, what happens if you don;t get a big number? Let's say it is $5m not $8M.

Would you lose a property like UConn? They stand to make a lot more TV money getting back into the BE for hoops and stepping back to MAC or as an Indy in football? Not sure if any other schools could fall into that category too?

How do they make more money in the Big East? The Big East has a 4 million dollar media deal. If the AAC gets 5 million (plus CFP and bowl money), the Big East isnt going to pay more (especially since UConn wont get to keep Womens Basketball money in the Big East). My feeling is that as long as the AAC new deal is close to or exceeds 4 million--UConn cant really rationalize spending 10 million dollars to leave the AAC for the same or less money (not to mention putting their football in indy purgatory).

I dont think its going to be an issue as I really believe the AAC will get something between 6-8 million.

(11-19-2018 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]A 16 team coast to coast set up is not completely out of the question. Add 4 top rate Mountain/Pacific time zone schools and you have content you can place in 4 different timeslots not to mention a Friday night feature.

It's all about getting the right schools and BYU, Boise, and AFA could make that happen. At that point you are no longer a G5 conference, you're a P6 conference that has an annual NY6 berth except for years when your champ isn't that good (3+ losses) and a G4 goes undefeated.

I'd love to see NBC get the tier 1 piece of the package and air AAC games at noon and in prime time (and 3:30 when ND has an away game).

You sell the rest to ESPN for filler content, some Friday night games, and Tier 3 games that can go on ESPN+

The AAC has some great content and even at $8-10 million a school is still a bargain compared to paying $35M+ to schools like Oregon St, Wake, and Rutgers.

I agree with BillyBobby that BYU is likely a no-go for this media contract cycle...at least as a full football member. It was still a possibility about 12-18 months ago, but BYU has since added games against Tennessee, NC State, Arkansas, as well as ECU, Houston, UNLV, and Hawaii during the next media contract period. So, now we have mostly-full schedules from 2020 to 2023. There's no room for a conference schedule without incurring steep-priced buyouts.

Boise and SDSU would be key to make the money work for western AAC expansion. From 2020-2025, Boise hosts Florida St., Oklahoma St., Michigan St., Oregon, Oregon St. and BYU (x2+). In that same 6-year span, SDSU hosts UCLA (x2), Utah, Arizona, and Washington St.

Those are the types of games that can bring media money to a conference.

Colorado St., Hawaii, and UNLV are the only other candidates that consistently have decent OOC home games on upcoming schedules - that would be part of the expanded AAC's next media contract.

Colorado St.

• 2020 - Colorado
• 2021 - Vanderbilt
• 2023 - Washington St.
• 2024 - Colorado
• 2025 - Texas Tech
  

UNLV

• 2020 - Cal, Arizona St.
• 2021 - Iowa St.
• 2023 - Vanderbilt
• 2024 - BYU
• 2025 - UCLA
  

Hawaii

• 2020 - UCLA
• 2022 - Vanderbilt
• 2024 - Wisconsin, Oregon
• 2025 - Arizona, BYU
  

(11-20-2018 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 12:27 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Honest question, what happens if you don;t get a big number? Let's say it is $5m not $8M.

Would you lose a property like UConn? They stand to make a lot more TV money getting back into the BE for hoops and stepping back to MAC or as an Indy in football? Not sure if any other schools could fall into that category too?

How do they make more money in the Big East? The Big East has a 4 million dollar media deal. If the AAC gets 5 million (plus CFP and bowl money), the Big East isnt going to pay more (especially since UConn wont get to keep Womens Basketball money in the Big East). My feeling is that as long as the AAC new deal is close to or exceeds 4 million--UConn cant really rationalize spending 10 million dollars to leave the AAC for the same or less money (not to mention putting their football in indy purgatory).

I dont think its going to be an issue as I really believe the AAC will get something between 6-8 million.

I tend to agree with you, AttackCoug. But, would UConn's attendance and basketball ticket sales, donor and sponsorship revenue, and fan interest and support increase if they moved from the AAC to the Big East? If a significant increase, that could easily justify the move - regardless of the slightly better AAC media money. A $2-4M difference could easily be erased with increased ticket sales and donor & sponsorship revenue.

UConn would likely get *something* for its home football inventory as an independent to help bridge the gap between $4M and $6-8M.

(11-20-2018 01:23 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 12:27 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Honest question, what happens if you don;t get a big number? Let's say it is $5m not $8M.

Would you lose a property like UConn? They stand to make a lot more TV money getting back into the BE for hoops and stepping back to MAC or as an Indy in football? Not sure if any other schools could fall into that category too?

How do they make more money in the Big East? The Big East has a 4 million dollar media deal. If the AAC gets 5 million (plus CFP and bowl money), the Big East isnt going to pay more (especially since UConn wont get to keep Womens Basketball money in the Big East). My feeling is that as long as the AAC new deal is close to or exceeds 4 million--UConn cant really rationalize spending 10 million dollars to leave the AAC for the same or less money (not to mention putting their football in indy purgatory).

I dont think its going to be an issue as I really believe the AAC will get something between 6-8 million.

I tend to agree with you, AttackCoug. But, would UConn's attendance and basketball ticket sales, donor and sponsorship revenue, and fan interest and support increase if they moved from the AAC to the Big East? If a significant increase, that could easily justify the move - regardless of the slightly better AAC media money. A $2-4M difference could easily be erased with increased ticket sales and donor & sponsorship revenue.

UConn would likely get *something* for its home football inventory as an independent to help bridge the gap between $4M and $6-8M.

I suspect the vast majority of negative difference between current ticket sales and past ticket sales is because UConn has not fielded the kind of basketball teams they were fielding in the Big East. If UConn was winning---there probably is little difference in ticket sales (though customer satisfaction would almost certainly be higher with a BE schedule). Look, I doubt there would be much difference one way or another in revenue if the AAC gets 4 million dollar per team tv deal. Given that--Its hard to see UConn spending 10 million to do that (not to mention throwing football under the bus by going indy).

That said--I think Frank The Tank is right that the calculus might change if the mid-2020's come and go without UConn getting any serious looks as a P5 expansion candidate. At that point, they might decide to concentrate on basketball---where the Big East would clearly be the best premier basketball home available to the Huskies.

(11-19-2018 04:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2018 04:26 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2018 01:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]When is the negotiating period?

I believe ESPN's exclusive window ends sometime in February 2019. After that, the American can go to open market.

Unlike last time, ESPN has no right to match any open market offers. So ESPN should be motivated to make its best offer by February.

Important part.

Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing. It's not like being a restricted Free agent in the NBA, where if your current team matches the contract you sign, you are forced to sign back with them. It is a last ditch effort to allow ESPN to match the terms the American (or any other conference) gets on the open market - which may be more than what ESPN originally offered - and allows the American to rescind the offer signed, to take the ESPN offer. Like they did with the NBC offer years back. Remember NCS didn't just offer the American: they SIGNED with NBC. Without the right to match in the old contract, the American could NOT have signed with ESPN.

Remember NBC gave the American essentially time slot guarantees, thinking they made it unlikely ESPN would match: meaning the American likely got a better deal then had the right the to match not existed. But the AAC did NOT have to take the ESPN offer: they choose to because with ESPN matching the terms, it made it more plyable. Remember they sat on ESPN's matching offer for a couple of days before deciding to take it.

(11-19-2018 06:16 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2018 11:52 AM)Chris02m1 Wrote: [ -> ]with the accn starting up next august someone will get more games on espn 2, u and abc

Actually no, those games are being taken from the Fox Regional and Raycom OTA. Not ESPN.

Correct. Last year (using the last full year of games), there were 14 games on the ACC Syndicated network (OTA), 17 that were on the ACC Syndicated network (RSN), and 15 games that were on ACC Extra (ESPN 3 exclusive for a lack of a better term). That is 46 games. There were exactly 46 football games on the SEC Network last year, both teams with 14 teams. Now you may see a case where 3-4 games that were on ESPN 2 this year and 1-2 games that were on ESPN are on the ACC Network, replaced by 4-6 games that were syndicated this year, being swapped out, to help sell the network.

(11-18-2018 11:59 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]Originally, I had projected a deal worth $5-8M per team per year. I think it will probably end up closer to $8M than $5M.

Here's a question, that I don't know the answer to, that can change the equation. Will the Navy games vs. ND and Army be part of the ACC contract, or still separate? Because that one game per year (one vs. each every other year) is worth a fortune, in addition to their other games.

(11-19-2018 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2018 06:18 PM)otown Wrote: [ -> ]Still $30-40 million cheaper than paying for the entire AAC as it stands.

And for 80 million--you'll net roughly 10 extra games of inventory once you subtract the third tier inventory ESPN has no right to. Oh, and dont forget---if its the Big10, Pac-12, SEC, or Big12---ESPN only owns half those rights---so ESPN just paid 80 million for 5 games. For that price--perhaps slghtly more or slighty less---you could end up with the entire AAC invetory (about 65 games of football and about 200 basketball games). The decision is a no brainer.

The more prudent play instead of initialing a conference to expand, would be to simply host a couple of neutral site games betweeen an AAC school and a big name school (or sweeten the pot so they will play a home and home or otherwise entice them), which would only cost like $6-8 million a pop for a neutral site game, and make the AAC team the home team so ESPN retains the rights (it would cost far less for home and homes). Then they could more or less get the matchups they want with said teams, at a fraction of the price and without ruing other conferences.

No to Army, yes to ND plus first pick of one Non AF home game a year.

(11-20-2018 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]We should start a thread where everyone has until like day X to make their official prediction about the contract - single package to one network or split among multiple networks, and total value of package per school.

I say $6m per team per year.

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

I suspect that Aresco lobbied ESPN hard to get them to allow the contract to be broken up, but there was no "meeting of the minds" on what ESPN would get first dibs on for what price (price in terms of money, in terms of exposure window guarantees, and in terms of how much Big Monday/Big East Tournament dessert ESPN would get for each serving of Big East football spinach). And then Big Ten expansion and ACC backfilling knocked over the entire half-built house of cards.

Without the right-to-match, Aresco can do something like (as an example) separately auction
Package A football picks 1, 3, 5....29
Package B football picks 2, 4, 6.....30
Package C football picks 31+
Package D all basketball

I'm not saying this is the ideal setup, I'm saying that right-to-match was a set of handcuffs that stopped Aresco from trying this in 2012.

(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

That is not really true though. they could have offered multiple packages: they simply didn't have enough bidders to make it worthwhile to over multiple packages. Their best bet was to put everything together, and since NBC promised them national TV for all games essentially, that is how they got Aresco to agree. Note ESPN had a right to match with the Big ten, and they still split up their packages, but I believe Fox's offer was higher than the right to match threshold. .

There is a reason people agree to the right to match. They don't have to allow that in the deal (it's considered a mutually beneficial clause). It often gets you a slightly better deal, when the new suitor knows the original network can match, and allow them out of the contract signed. Sometimes they are unilateral, sometimes there are caps on when the right to match kicks in - one reason Fox got WWE Smackdown from USA, was USA's right to match was capped at $200 million per year: so Fox offered $205 million per year, so NBC Universal had no chance to match the offer.

If I had to guess, I don't see a scenario in which the AAC offers more than one package, unless it is a situation where football and basketball are broken up. Just my opinion. They could, and essentially try to seperate the national TV package vs., what is sublicensed, but I think in order to get maximum money, they will have to let the the network reap those benefits in exhange for a premium on the marquee games. Just my guess though.

I'm more intrigued to see who the poison pill teams are listed in this contract. I believe there were 4 or 5 teams in the previous contract that would cause a renegotiation down if they left. I want to say it was the BEAST holdovers and Houston.

(11-20-2018 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

That is not really true though. they could have offered multiple packages: they simply didn't have enough bidders to make it worthwhile to over multiple packages. Their best bet was to put everything together, and since NBC promised them national TV for all games essentially, that is how they got Aresco to agree. Note ESPN had a right to match with the Big ten, and they still split up their packages, but I believe Fox's offer was higher than the right to match threshold. .

There is a reason people agree to the right to match. They don't have to allow that in the deal (it's considered a mutually beneficial clause). It often gets you a slightly better deal, when the new suitor knows the original network can match, and allow them out of the contract signed. Sometimes they are unilateral, sometimes there are caps on when the right to match kicks in - one reason Fox got WWE Smackdown from USA, was USA's right to match was capped at $200 million per year: so Fox offered $205 million per year, so NBC Universal had no chance to match the offer.

If I had to guess, I don't see a scenario in which the AAC offers more than one package, unless it is a situation where football and basketball are broken up. Just my opinion. They could, and essentially try to seperate the national TV package vs., what is sublicensed, but I think in order to get maximum money, they will have to let the the network reap those benefits in exhange for a premium on the marquee games. Just my guess though.

Do we all assume that ESPN is earning huge profits from AAC football? How much? We seem to assume that the value of this content depends solely on the quality of the games on the field. Not so. ESPN uses this content to sell TV ads. Maybe they are making zillions of dollars from those ad sales, maybe not.

Whatever ESPN bids to renew this contract will be based on how much profit they expect to make, not how thrilling the action is. If there is no other serious suitor for the AAC games, ESPN may offer little or no increase. Even if the current deal returns a fat profit, they would not make a deal that diminishes the status quo. Without a second, or multiple, bidders the impetus for a pay raise would only be that ESPN can't fill their airtime without the AAC, or defensively, they fear this content would benefit a competitor who could get it for peanuts. Perhaps the airtime could be filled with ACC games or with something other than college football. Possible?

The AAC is guaranteed nothing. Competing bidders is the only way that the AAC should expect a big payday. So far we have only speculation for that case.

(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

I suspect that Aresco lobbied ESPN hard to get them to allow the contract to be broken up, but there was no "meeting of the minds" on what ESPN would get first dibs on for what price (price in terms of money, in terms of exposure window guarantees, and in terms of how much Big Monday/Big East Tournament dessert ESPN would get for each serving of Big East football spinach). And then Big Ten expansion and ACC backfilling knocked over the entire half-built house of cards.

Without the right-to-match, Aresco can do something like (as an example) separately auction
Package A football picks 1, 3, 5....29
Package B football picks 2, 4, 6.....30
Package C football picks 31+
Package D all basketball

I'm not saying this is the ideal setup, I'm saying that right-to-match was a set of handcuffs that stopped Aresco from trying this in 2012.

And, the AAC can sell off the CCG separately, or as part of Package A...and sell the AAC basketball tournament separately - or just the tournament semifinals and championship game - or split Package D into multiple tiers.

(11-20-2018 05:38 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

That is not really true though. they could have offered multiple packages: they simply didn't have enough bidders to make it worthwhile to over multiple packages. Their best bet was to put everything together, and since NBC promised them national TV for all games essentially, that is how they got Aresco to agree. Note ESPN had a right to match with the Big ten, and they still split up their packages, but I believe Fox's offer was higher than the right to match threshold. .

There is a reason people agree to the right to match. They don't have to allow that in the deal (it's considered a mutually beneficial clause). It often gets you a slightly better deal, when the new suitor knows the original network can match, and allow them out of the contract signed. Sometimes they are unilateral, sometimes there are caps on when the right to match kicks in - one reason Fox got WWE Smackdown from USA, was USA's right to match was capped at $200 million per year: so Fox offered $205 million per year, so NBC Universal had no chance to match the offer.

If I had to guess, I don't see a scenario in which the AAC offers more than one package, unless it is a situation where football and basketball are broken up. Just my opinion. They could, and essentially try to seperate the national TV package vs., what is sublicensed, but I think in order to get maximum money, they will have to let the the network reap those benefits in exhange for a premium on the marquee games. Just my guess though.

Do we all assume that ESPN is earning huge profits from AAC football? How much? We seem to assume that the value of this content depends solely on the quality of the games on the field. Not so. ESPN uses this content to sell TV ads. Maybe they are making zillions of dollars from those ad sales, maybe not.

Whatever ESPN bids to renew this contract will be based on how much profit they expect to make, not how thrilling the action is. If there is no other serious suitor for the AAC games, ESPN may offer little or no increase. Even if the current deal returns a fat profit, they would not make a deal that diminishes the status quo. Without a second, or multiple, bidders the impetus for a pay raise would only be that ESPN can't fill their airtime without the AAC, or defensively, they fear this content would benefit a competitor who could get it for peanuts. Perhaps the airtime could be filled with ACC games or with something other than college football. Possible?

The AAC is guaranteed nothing. Competing bidders is the only way that the AAC should expect a big payday. So far we have only speculation for that case.

Just saw the news that Amazon has bid to buy the 22 Fox Regional Sports channels. Cheer up AAC, you may have gotten the break you needed.
Let's hde and watch how hard they go after it.

[/quote]

Correct. Last year (using the last full year of games), there were 14 games on the ACC Syndicated network (OTA), 17 that were on the ACC Syndicated network (RSN), and 15 games that were on ACC Extra (ESPN 3 exclusive for a lack of a better term). That is 46 games. There were exactly 46 football games on the SEC Network last year, both teams with 14 teams. Now you may see a case where 3-4 games that were on ESPN 2 this year and 1-2 games that were on ESPN are on the ACC Network, replaced by 4-6 games that were syndicated this year, being swapped out, to help sell the network.
[/quote]

Also, look for ACC Network to use ACC home games against ND on the ACC network as well.
Next three years of ACC home games against ND
2019 @Louisville @Duke
2020 @Pitt and @Ga Tech
2021 @FSU @VT @UVA

(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

I suspect that Aresco lobbied ESPN hard to get them to allow the contract to be broken up, but there was no "meeting of the minds" on what ESPN would get first dibs on for what price (price in terms of money, in terms of exposure window guarantees, and in terms of how much Big Monday/Big East Tournament dessert ESPN would get for each serving of Big East football spinach). And then Big Ten expansion and ACC backfilling knocked over the entire half-built house of cards.

Without the right-to-match, Aresco can do something like (as an example) separately auction
Package A football picks 1, 3, 5....29
Package B football picks 2, 4, 6.....30
Package C football picks 31+
Package D all basketball

I'm not saying this is the ideal setup, I'm saying that right-to-match was a set of handcuffs that stopped Aresco from trying this in 2012.

Thats not accurate. The conference gets to decide what they are selling. So, splitting thier rights into smaller packages was fine. You would simply have to give ESPN the right to match whatever offer they got on each package. The problem with slicing and dicing the package in 2013 was NBC wanted it all because they wanted the AAC to be an exclusively NBC property. They pushed that idea and sold the AAC on their willingness to aggressively promote the league.

From what I understood at the time, the AAC did not have to accept the ESPN matching offer---they merely had to give ESPN the chance to match the offer before signing with another network. In this case, NBC declined to counter offer once ESPN matched---so the original NBC offer and ESPN match were basically the 2 best deals on the table. ESPN was the better sports platform for a new conference--so the AAC went with ESPN. That said, Ive seen reporting that claims the AAC was legally bound to accept the ESPN match (I believe McMurphy said as much)---so I really cant say for sure. So, while I admittedly dont know for sure---I DO think its is very unlikely that any contract with a "right to match" clause that denied the "right to reject" would be found to be enforceable on the question of specific performance of sports teams. Such a provision would amount to a never ending contract if ESPN always matched. When you're dealing with people rather than things, courts generally tend to limit that type of clause tying one to an employer forever and generally find clauses like that unenforceable (sort of like an excessive non-compete clause). So, I seriously doubt that the AAC had no right to reject the ESPN match. I think the AAC could reject it----but they accepted it----not because they had to, but because it was the better deal.

Hopefully it should be known in the next 7 months or less. Wonder which will come first, the AAC TV deal or the 2020-2025 bowl tie-ins announcements?

(11-20-2018 05:38 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

That is not really true though. they could have offered multiple packages: they simply didn't have enough bidders to make it worthwhile to over multiple packages. Their best bet was to put everything together, and since NBC promised them national TV for all games essentially, that is how they got Aresco to agree. Note ESPN had a right to match with the Big ten, and they still split up their packages, but I believe Fox's offer was higher than the right to match threshold. .

There is a reason people agree to the right to match. They don't have to allow that in the deal (it's considered a mutually beneficial clause). It often gets you a slightly better deal, when the new suitor knows the original network can match, and allow them out of the contract signed. Sometimes they are unilateral, sometimes there are caps on when the right to match kicks in - one reason Fox got WWE Smackdown from USA, was USA's right to match was capped at $200 million per year: so Fox offered $205 million per year, so NBC Universal had no chance to match the offer.

If I had to guess, I don't see a scenario in which the AAC offers more than one package, unless it is a situation where football and basketball are broken up. Just my opinion. They could, and essentially try to seperate the national TV package vs., what is sublicensed, but I think in order to get maximum money, they will have to let the the network reap those benefits in exhange for a premium on the marquee games. Just my guess though.

Do we all assume that ESPN is earning huge profits from AAC football? How much? We seem to assume that the value of this content depends solely on the quality of the games on the field. Not so. ESPN uses this content to sell TV ads. Maybe they are making zillions of dollars from those ad sales, maybe not.

Whatever ESPN bids to renew this contract will be based on how much profit they expect to make, not how thrilling the action is. If there is no other serious suitor for the AAC games, ESPN may offer little or no increase. Even if the current deal returns a fat profit, they would not make a deal that diminishes the status quo. Without a second, or multiple, bidders the impetus for a pay raise would only be that ESPN can't fill their airtime without the AAC, or defensively, they fear this content would benefit a competitor who could get it for peanuts. Perhaps the airtime could be filled with ACC games or with something other than college football. Possible?

The AAC is guaranteed nothing. Competing bidders is the only way that the AAC should expect a big payday. So far we have only speculation for that case.

All true. However, here is the thing. In 2013, the AAC was an unknown entity and nobody expected it generate the kind of ratings it has. It has now demonstrated the ability to draw a large audience for 5 years---and its audience actually grew over that period where many sports properties declined. The best thing is that its very undervalued for the audience it produces. Other properties that command a generally similar audience have gone for anywhere from 75 million a year (MLS Soccer) to 300 million a year (UFC and WWF). The bottom of that range reflects about 6 million a team. Networks exist to draw audiences--so reasonably priced content with an established typical is typically in demand. Hard to imagine there will be no bidders for the AAC this time around.

Yes---NBC bidding is pure conjecture---but when you turn on NBC on Saturday afternoon and they are showing car auctions, college hockey, and reruns of 2 year old Datelines---and you consider the fact they chose not to renew their Ivy League football deal this year---its not hard to envision them getting set up to bid on the AAC. CBS-Sports already buys AAC games. ESPN uses 32 games a year in the fall. There will be multiple bidders.