(03-24-2019 08:16 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ]The production costs are the main driver behind ESPN+, thats why the Sunbelt, CUSA, MAC deals are not good either.
Add in the AAC paying for production of ESPN+ content and you can see how this was not a good deal for schools like Cincy, USF, especially in 2030
Lets say production of all this ESPN+ content costs 1-2 million per year per school (AAC signed exclusive contract with ESPN). With rising costs of production and the contract pay out staying the same over 12 years, you can see ESPN really comes out ahead
Where was it posted that we are paying production costs or you making that up? Also doesn't count Navy's TV revenue. The final numbers might be over $8 million each. Plus access bowl revenue and NCAA credits will be a big revenue driver.
Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
(03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
(03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
You are correct. But I can tell you the production handle in house are beyond terrible. Case in point, Tech vs USA this year, it was bad production with some terrible commentary. The next game Tech had ESPN + game in Ruston with a hired crew, Professional and 1000% better than USA production
I just dont see many AAC schools stooping to that USA/Sunbelt level and putting out a subpar nonprofessional product
(03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
clt agrees that appy has a banging tv department:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pVENWl8uBeg
(03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
Lol, Yes It is the Jayhawk Network streaming on ESPN+, so yes Kansas is paying for it. Did you even read the article?
(03-24-2019 08:55 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
You are correct. But I can tell you the production handle in house are beyond terrible. Case in point, Tech vs USA this year, it was bad production with some terrible commentary. The next game Tech had ESPN + game in Ruston with a hired crew, Professional and 1000% better than USA production
I just dont see many AAC schools stooping to that USA/Sunbelt level and putting out a subpar nonprofessional product
I don't know what you're talking about with this "subpar" nonsense. The first thing all schools did in the Belt were get the right equipment and the correct announcers. All but one of the games I watch were as good as any ever on ESPN3 that were produced by ESPNEvents
(03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
I mean Yeh, guess we'll wait and see. But it is that way with every conference contract they've made.
(03-24-2019 09:00 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:55 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
You are correct. But I can tell you the production handle in house are beyond terrible. Case in point, Tech vs USA this year, it was bad production with some terrible commentary. The next game Tech had ESPN + game in Ruston with a hired crew, Professional and 1000% better than USA production
I just dont see many AAC schools stooping to that USA/Sunbelt level and putting out a subpar nonprofessional product
I don't know what you're talking about with this "subpar" nonsense. The first thing all schools did in the Belt were get the right equipment and the correct announcers. All but one of the games I watch were as good as any ever on ESPN3 that were produced by ESPNEvents
You obviously didnt watch any South Alabama games, the only Sunbelt game I watch this year and it was bad really bad. Produce in house
The Tech games were 180 from South Alabama with a professional hired crew.
I just dont see AAC schools stooping to that level to save a few bucks and putting out an inferior product
(03-24-2019 09:02 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
I mean Yeh, guess we'll wait and see. But it is that way with every conference contract they've made.
Kansas is paying for the production through the Jayhawk Network, now ESPN might have paid them something for the rights to stream it on ESPN+
(03-24-2019 08:59 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
Lol, Yes It is the Jayhawk Network streaming on ESPN+, so yes Kansas is paying for it. Did you even read the article?
update, you are wrong.....
there are interview on the web where kansas AD says espn will absorb the production costs ..
he says there will be costs to kansas but that it is for the extra things kansas wants to do, like an pregame and a post game show for all sporting events , coaches shows etc...
(03-24-2019 08:59 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote: [ -> ]clt agrees that appy has a banging tv department: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pVENWl8uBeg
maclid doesn’t even need to click this hot link to have a hot guess what the hot content might be...
(03-24-2019 09:29 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:59 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
Lol, Yes It is the Jayhawk Network streaming on ESPN+, so yes Kansas is paying for it. Did you even read the article?
update, you are wrong.....
there are interview on the web where kansas AD says espn will absorb the production costs ..
he says there will be costs to kansas but that it is for the extra things kansas wants to do, like an pregame and a post game show for all sporting events , coaches shows etc...
update it is not even remotely similar to AAC. UFC and Kansas Basketball
All conferences that have signed with ESPN+ have absorb the production costs.
(03-24-2019 10:55 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 09:29 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:59 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
Lol, Yes It is the Jayhawk Network streaming on ESPN+, so yes Kansas is paying for it. Did you even read the article?
update, you are wrong.....
there are interview on the web where kansas AD says espn will absorb the production costs ..
he says there will be costs to kansas but that it is for the extra things kansas wants to do, like an pregame and a post game show for all sporting events , coaches shows etc...
update it is not even remotely similar to AAC. UFC and Kansas Basketball
All conferences that have signed with ESPN+ have absorb the production costs.
you literally have no evidence...
you dont see how much of a hater this makes you look, you are adamant about this because it makes the deal less attractive to make yourself feel better...
the aac is the biggest conference on there so far, why are you usng the sunbelt as our barometer?? we offered up uconn womens bball, and the weaker games of our top teams to be on espn+
suny (the northeast channel) was paying uconn 2million a year for mostly uconn womens basketball and did all the production themselves 5 years ago..but you think the aac offered it up for nothing....
we purposefully passed up on cbsspn, just to pay for our games??? it is confirmed the nbc wanted us....but we decided to take no money for our content???
do you think the aac administration and the presidents of numerous top 100 universities are stupid???
dont get me wrong im sure they'll be cost, according to the person who broke the story, he said the aac has the ability to put their own content on espn+...so im pretty sure non-game content, and non-revenue sports that each school decides to put on their will come out of their own dime
(03-24-2019 09:37 AM)CoachMaclid Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:59 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote: [ -> ]clt agrees that appy has a banging tv department: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pVENWl8uBeg
maclid doesn’t even need to click this hot link to have a hot guess what the hot content might be...
clt says it was too easy.
(03-24-2019 08:34 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 10:49 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 10:09 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 08:59 AM)2bumsabroad Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 06:57 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ]12 years of production costs is not a good deal for the AAC and guarantee a lot their games will be sent to + because of their terrible ratings, ECU Tulsa, Tulane
You keep mention production cost but no where have i seen any inkling about the schools footing production cost. Under the old contract we didn't have to foot production cost, so why would we now? Even if youre right you have no credibility because you keep regurgitating that statement as fact when you have no idea if it's true or not.
Our terrible ratings still got us a call up and not LA tech. What does that tell you?
Not to defend his argument, which he's on the wrong side of, but ESPN3 production costs were covered by ESPN. But for all the conferences that have had games moved from ESPN3 to ESPN+ have taken control of production and the costs of. In the Sun Belt's case, production is being handled be the schools which I think ESPN is providing guidance and equipment for lease/sale.
Yes, those who think there will be no production costs are in for a rude awakening I'm afraid. Based on Memphis AD and assoc. AD comments, some are expected...exact figures I haven't heard yet.
Yes you are correct, it has already been mention by people in the know, not slhNavy, attackCoog or pesik on internet message board.
That why I said last year AAC would get a raise to cover production costs, but I didnt think it would be an exclusive 12 year contract. I thought the AAC would piece out 2nd and 3rd tier rights for extra money plus sign a 4-6 year ESPN deal not a 12 year deal. As you can see my prediction was amost spot on.
“I think the AAC will get an increase like the Sunbelt to cover ESPN+ costs. Aresco will spin it as an increase but really it will be a win for ESPN to help establish their streaming service for little to nothing in production costs”
“The Tulane Board has already discuss this in meeting as the expected outcome. 4-5 million would be great for the AAC and win for then. Over $10 million has no basis in reality
The Sunbelt got 300K extra per school to cover their production cost in your comparison (thats assuming everything they got went entirely to production cost and ESPN gave absolutely nothing for the entire year of Sunbelt content rights). That would equate to 3.6 million for a 12 team AAC---meaning your expected outcome would be a $23.6 million per year deal. The deal is for much more than that.
Given that there were other options for at least a significant portion of the 60% non-linear AAC content (in the new deal) where the AAC would receive cash for those rights without footing production costs---its unlikely they would opt for a deal that barely covered (or didnt even cover) production costs as you are contending.
My guess is there is no production costs for football or mens basketball other than upgrading on campus production systems to ESPN3/ESPN+ capabilities. However, I do think we are likely on the hook for all non-revenue productions costs (baseball, womens basketball, soccer, softball, etc).
Those costs will vary from school to school based in the number of events produced. However, at most schools I doubt those costs are going to be all that significant. For instance, at UH we have "UH All-access" where you can get streams of non-revenue sports (baseball, softball, etc.). These streams may get equipment upgrades to comply with ESPN+ requirements, but the schools are already bearing the cost of generating a streaming production for a number of non-revenue sports. ESPN+ is just giving them a better platform for the finished product. Also, its worth noting that any venue with a modern video scoreboard already requires a production crew and cameras to create a feed for the scoreboard and/or an outgoing live stream. So, a lot of the expenses involved with producing many of the non-revenue sports are already in the current budget. Also, there is a small revenue stream from ESPN+ to help defray production costs. I dont think its much----probably just a couple hundred dollars per event and a small percentage of ad revenue (or perhaps some of the ad slots for the school to sell). But for non-revenue sports which are very low cost productions---that will probably help cover a decent portion of the cost.
That said, Im sure we will find more out about the production costs allocation over the next few months. Even if the required production costs borne by AAC are more robust that I think they will be, I still think they wont be all that significant as other conferences have handled these costs under contracts that deliver far less revenue. Almost all the conferences have also received an initial sum to help defray some of the upgrade costs. CUSA had between 1/3-to-1/2 of its football games on ESPN3/ESPN+ in 2018 and I havent heard any significant concerns from any CUSA athletic department regarding these costs. There's been way more griping about the location of the basketball tournament than concern over ESPN+ production costs. That tells me they probably arent really all that onerous.
Yeah they lost. But the kind of game that ucf just gave Duke is a great reason why the Aack is growing and CUSA is standing still.
(03-24-2019 10:55 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 09:29 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:59 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:46 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ]Every ESPN+ production is covered by the school. CUSA, SBC, MAC, etc. I'm sure it'll be the same as the AAC. But for schools that have broadcast departments it offers amazing opportunities for students to get ESPN on their resume. App has a banging Radio/TV department. The students now get to add camera, production board, editing of live sports to their skill sets. The production has cost less than originally thought by the university and the results have been seamless on the viewer end.
So nothing says that we are paying production costs. I doubt UFC Fighting pays production costs either. Or Kansas paying production costs.
Kansas Basketball ESPN+
Lol, Yes It is the Jayhawk Network streaming on ESPN+, so yes Kansas is paying for it. Did you even read the article?
update, you are wrong.....
there are interview on the web where kansas AD says espn will absorb the production costs ..
he says there will be costs to kansas but that it is for the extra things kansas wants to do, like an pregame and a post game show for all sporting events , coaches shows etc...
update it is not even remotely similar to AAC. UFC and Kansas Basketball
All conferences that have signed with ESPN+ have absorb the production costs.
Not a problem for ECU as we have that department already on campus and local tv that has experience broadcasting ECU games from our C-USA days. And all of our facilities are already wired for fiber optics and HD broadcasting and built in a state of the art control room in the football stadium that can run the broadcasts for not only football, but all other sports, basketball, baseball, soccer, softball, etc. we already produce and broadcast all our none televised games anyway and it’s better than the AAC digital network. While I’m at it the AAC already has a digital network that broadcasts others games and can easily be expanded to broadcast FB and MBB games.
(03-24-2019 04:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2019 08:34 AM)Dawgxas Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 10:49 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 10:09 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2019 08:59 AM)2bumsabroad Wrote: [ -> ]You keep mention production cost but no where have i seen any inkling about the schools footing production cost. Under the old contract we didn't have to foot production cost, so why would we now? Even if youre right you have no credibility because you keep regurgitating that statement as fact when you have no idea if it's true or not.
Our terrible ratings still got us a call up and not LA tech. What does that tell you?
Not to defend his argument, which he's on the wrong side of, but ESPN3 production costs were covered by ESPN. But for all the conferences that have had games moved from ESPN3 to ESPN+ have taken control of production and the costs of. In the Sun Belt's case, production is being handled be the schools which I think ESPN is providing guidance and equipment for lease/sale.
Yes, those who think there will be no production costs are in for a rude awakening I'm afraid. Based on Memphis AD and assoc. AD comments, some are expected...exact figures I haven't heard yet.
Yes you are correct, it has already been mention by people in the know, not slhNavy, attackCoog or pesik on internet message board.
That why I said last year AAC would get a raise to cover production costs, but I didnt think it would be an exclusive 12 year contract. I thought the AAC would piece out 2nd and 3rd tier rights for extra money plus sign a 4-6 year ESPN deal not a 12 year deal. As you can see my prediction was amost spot on.
“I think the AAC will get an increase like the Sunbelt to cover ESPN+ costs. Aresco will spin it as an increase but really it will be a win for ESPN to help establish their streaming service for little to nothing in production costs”
“The Tulane Board has already discuss this in meeting as the expected outcome. 4-5 million would be great for the AAC and win for then. Over $10 million has no basis in reality
The Sunbelt got 300K extra per school to cover their production cost in your comparison (thats assuming everything they got went entirely to production cost and ESPN gave absolutely nothing for the entire year of Sunbelt content rights). That would equate to 3.6 million for a 12 team AAC---meaning your expected outcome would be a $23.6 million per year deal. The deal is for much more than that.
Given that there were other options for at least a significant portion of the 60% non-linear AAC content (in the new deal) where the AAC would receive cash for those rights without footing production costs---its unlikely they would opt for a deal that barely covered (or didnt even cover) production costs as you are contending.
My guess is there is no production costs for football or mens basketball other than upgrading on campus production systems to ESPN3/ESPN+ capabilities. However, I do think we are likely on the hook for all non-revenue productions costs (baseball, womens basketball, soccer, softball, etc).
Those costs will vary from school to school based in the number of events produced. However, at most schools I doubt those costs are going to be all that significant. For instance, at UH we have "UH All-access" where you can get streams of non-revenue sports (baseball, softball, etc.). These streams may get equipment upgrades to comply with ESPN+ requirements, but the schools are already bearing the cost of generating a streaming production for a number of non-revenue sports. ESPN+ is just giving them a better platform for the finished product. Also, its worth noting that any venue with a modern video scoreboard already requires a production crew and cameras to create a feed for the scoreboard and/or an outgoing live stream. So, a lot of the expenses involved with producing many of the non-revenue sports are already in the current budget. Also, there is a small revenue stream from ESPN+ to help defray production costs. I dont think its much----probably just a couple hundred dollars per event and a small percentage of ad revenue (or perhaps some of the ad slots for the school to sell). But for non-revenue sports which are very low cost productions---that will probably help cover a decent portion of the cost.
That said, Im sure we will find more out about the production costs allocation over the next few months. Even if the required production costs borne by AAC are more robust that I think they will be, I still think they wont be all that significant as other conferences have handled these costs under contracts that deliver far less revenue. Almost all the conferences have also received an initial sum to help defray some of the upgrade costs. CUSA had between 1/3-to-1/2 of its football games on ESPN3/ESPN+ in 2018 and I havent heard any significant concerns from any CUSA athletic department regarding these costs. There's been way more griping about the location of the basketball tournament than concern over ESPN+ production costs. That tells me they probably arent really all that onerous.
It costs at min 40-50k a football game to bring in a professional crew. (this I know from Tech)
Go read the guy who posted in this thread who works in this business.
The AAC has an exclusive contract across all sports with ESPN and ESPN+
The costs will be significantly more than CUSA who also has CBS Sports, Stadium, BEIN
(03-22-2019 10:38 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2019 10:09 AM)EagNBran Wrote: [ -> ]People keep spouting production costs. I get that there are some, but they aren't some exorbitant amount that some of you seem to be implying. Yeah, you'll have to pay for a good camera and setup the streaming system, but let's say that, high end, that costs you $500,000 when all is said and done to cover all sports. A one time payment of $500,000 when you're getting $7 million a year is nothing.
I work on the logistics side of live event production. $500,000 is conservative for all sports. That’s more in line with a multi camera, multi microphone setup for a season of football. An NFL style setup can use twelve cameras plus backups, camera and microphone operators, two or three production vans plus production team, satellite truck, plus miles of cable and acres of gaff tape and can reach $350,000 before you account for on air talent. The trucks to haul the gear can cost $90,000 per event by themselves.
A single HD camera setup with radio audio for streaming is probably $500 per event. More if you use instant replay, graphics, or stream ads separate from the radio stream.
Thanks for your in-depth knowledge. The costs are significant especially for a football game