(01-12-2016 04:37 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

The AAC's deal is so out of proportion with the autonomy conferences, any savings by lowering the contract wouldn't even be noticed by ESPN. This is a non-issue for the AAC because we have no fat on our deal to begin with.

Why is a Louisiana Tech guy on the AAC board talking about our ESPN deal anyway?

Probably bc its a thread talking about the CUSA TV deal on the AAC board.

Just a guess though.

CUSA needs to find an audience. This is the wrong place to do that.

(01-12-2016 04:19 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

ESPN had 70% of all of Disney profits. They still are fine. Don't cry for them.

The AAC will get a raise. Just a matter of how much. Navy wasn't in the current deal. Our content is better suited for TV. Bigger stadiums, more fans, more hoops content, etc. Remember cbs quit mostly airing c-Usa hoops games and turned around and bought our games from espn.

Actually, Navy announced they would be joining the big east in 2012. Any TV negotiations for the American most certainly included Navy being a part of the conference.

(01-12-2016 04:41 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:37 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

The AAC's deal is so out of proportion with the autonomy conferences, any savings by lowering the contract wouldn't even be noticed by ESPN. This is a non-issue for the AAC because we have no fat on our deal to begin with.

Why is a Louisiana Tech guy on the AAC board talking about our ESPN deal anyway?

Probably bc its a thread talking about the CUSA TV deal on the AAC board.

Just a guess though.

CUSA needs to find an audience. This is the wrong place to do that.

Wrong place. The thread title says CUSA TV deal dumba**

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Conf USA already struggles to pay football coaches a competitive salary. ECU picked up a coach from MTSU and FIU this year alone. Gap will only get bigger now. AAC clearly becomes a step above for CUSA coaches now and within the coaching world. CUSA will eventually be less than the MAC. IMO, this is a big blow to CUSA and its reputation.

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Negotiated before the season started. So no Fiesta Bowl, SMU becoming a basketball power, etc...a lot of instability and unknown if the big 12 was going to gut us.

I mentioned this on the C-USA board, but I don't like this for one big reason:

A lot of the schools that you currently call "hot new properties" were nurtured and developed in C-USA.

Houston, TCU, Cincy, Louisville, Marquette, and USF all come to mind. Who are going to be next group of schools to stand out and cause havoc? It's hard to build a program when you have no fricking money to do it in today's jacked-up environment.

(01-12-2016 04:44 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:19 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

ESPN had 70% of all of Disney profits. They still are fine. Don't cry for them.

The AAC will get a raise. Just a matter of how much. Navy wasn't in the current deal. Our content is better suited for TV. Bigger stadiums, more fans, more hoops content, etc. Remember cbs quit mostly airing c-Usa hoops games and turned around and bought our games from espn.

Actually, Navy announced they would be joining the big east in 2012. Any TV negotiations for the American most certainly included Navy being a part of the conference.

Good luck with your future endeavors.

As a CUSA fan, you should be thanking some of the teams here for giving you a free ride on the later part of your last contract.

The gravy train has reached the station.

(01-12-2016 04:41 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:37 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

The AAC's deal is so out of proportion with the autonomy conferences, any savings by lowering the contract wouldn't even be noticed by ESPN. This is a non-issue for the AAC because we have no fat on our deal to begin with.

Why is a Louisiana Tech guy on the AAC board talking about our ESPN deal anyway?

Probably bc its a thread talking about the CUSA TV deal on the AAC board.

Just a guess though.

CUSA needs to find an audience. This is the wrong place to do that.

Well someone started the thread on this board.

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Well---most accountants (as well as the IRS) would disagree with you. You are losing money when expenses exceeds revenue. Your are making money when revenue exceeds expenses (we call that net revenue profit). Make no mistake, ESPN is still making an obnoxious amount of profit. The issue is stock price. The current stock price of Disney is predicated on a certain expected future revenue GROWTH rate. That expected revenue growth rate is built into the current price of the stock. When that revenue growth projection is lower than expected--the stock price drops. That's why ESPN is cutting expenses. It's all about maintaining share holders stock value by maintaining a certain profit growth rate. It's not because ESPN is losing money.

(01-12-2016 04:44 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:19 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

If that's the case why are they firing hundreds of employees? ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers and 700 million in revenue over the last couple years. On top of that ESPN is already guaranteed $6 billion to teams it is obligated to pay. Good chance ESPN is going to offer the AAC a substantial lower contract next go around.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ars-112515

ESPN had 70% of all of Disney profits. They still are fine. Don't cry for them.

The AAC will get a raise. Just a matter of how much. Navy wasn't in the current deal. Our content is better suited for TV. Bigger stadiums, more fans, more hoops content, etc. Remember cbs quit mostly airing c-Usa hoops games and turned around and bought our games from espn.

Actually, Navy announced they would be joining the big east in 2012. Any TV negotiations for the American most certainly included Navy being a part of the conference.

They have a deal with cbs thru 2019. They don't get aac tv revenue and we don't get navy's tv revenue so split 11 ways now. They will be part of the 2019 deal though.

You can't cry wolf without gathering the sheep.

Less money also means less chance for growth and development. There is a direct correlation between money spent by a school and success. CUSA has all but lost their ability to develop their programs into a better league.

(01-12-2016 04:54 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  You can't cry wolf without gathering the sheep.

(01-12-2016 03:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  MWC teams control their markets, they aren't 2nd or 3rd fiddle to other teams. This was pretty much proven when the AAC added teams like Tulane hoping to get a better deal and in fact getting much less than expected

The American didn't add teams like Tulane expecting to get a better deal... they added Tulane to replace departing members and to hold up its numbers at the request of networks they were negotiating with.

Let's recap...
2010 (November 30th) TCU accepts invite to the Big East
2011 (May 26th) Big East turns down ESPN television deal ($11-mil/member/year)
2011 (September 19th) Syracuse & Pitt announce move from the Big East to ACC
2011 (October 10th) TCU skips Big East accepts invite to the Big 12
2011 (October 28th) West Virginia accepts invite to the Big 12
2011 (December 6th) BSU, UCF, UH, SMU, SDSU accept Big East invites for 2013
2012 (January 24th) Navy accepts Big East football only invite for 2015
2012 (February 8th) Memphis accepts Big East invite for 2013
2012 (March 7th) Temple accepts Big East invite for 2012 football & 2013 all-sports
2012 (June 30th) West Virginia exits
2012 (August 5th) NBC suggests $10 million for Big East all-sports
2012 (August 13th) Big East hires Michael Aresco as commissioner
2012 (September 12th) Notre Dame accepts olympic sport invite to ACC
2012 (October 1st) Talks with ESPN during exclusive negotiating window begin
2012 (November 2nd) ESPN - Big East extend exclusive negotiation
2012 (November 18th) ESPN exclusive negotiation ends
2012 (November 20th) Rutgers accepts Big Ten invite (joining ACC's Maryland)
2012 (November 27th) Louisville accepts ACC invite for 2014
2012 (November 28th) Tulane accepts Big East invite for 2014
2012 (November 28th) East Carolina accepts Big East football only invite for 2014
2012 (December 15th) Catholic 7 announce intent to split from Big East
2012 (December 31st) Boise State decides to stay with MWC
2013 (January 16th) San Diego State decides to stay with MWC
2013 (February 19th) NBC pitches Big East (future American) contract
2013 (February 24th) ESPN matches NBC contract offer
2013 (March 13th) Big East / Catholic 7 settle on split terms
2013 (March 19th) Big East (future American) sign $900 million ESPN deal
2013 (March 27th) East Carolina accepts all-sport invite to Big East
2013 (April 1st) Tulsa accepts invite to Big East
2013 (June 30th) Catholic 7 and Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, and West Virginia exit
2013 (July 1st) Big East becomes American
2013 (July 1st) UCF, UH, SMU, and Temple join
2014 (June 30th) Louisville and Rutgers exit
2014 (July 1st) East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa join
2015 (July 1st) Navy joins

(01-12-2016 04:45 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Negotiated before the season started. So no Fiesta Bowl, SMU becoming a basketball power, etc...a lot of instability and unknown if the big 12 was going to gut us.

Fine, no Fiesta bowl. But still had Cincy and UConn fresh off BCS bowl appearances. And SMU becoming a basketball power is countered by Memphis fallen from the power ranks. And is there really stability now??? Big12 still may expanded and Houston, Memphis, Cincy, and UConn want out ASAP.

This thread should never have been started here. CUSA's contract has as much to do with the American's contract as the American's contract has to do with the B1G's. Which is absolutely nothing.

AAC teams get more money now than C-USA teams. Nothing to argue about there. But, the future is fragile for all of us. ESPN's revenue model is built on cable providers sending them boatloads of money to carry their channels. In 2014 cable providers gave ESPN $6.04 for every subscriber they had. Fox Sports was $0.68. In these days of sinking cable subscription rates due to the economy and people cutting the cord because they can stream HD content for less money and more convenience, ESPN is losing revenue. With the push to unbundle cable channels ESPN could find themselves having to sell to only specific sports fans, and the monthly charge could quickly escalate to $30-40 per home. At that rate, many people would go to bars to watch games, or skip them altogether, further driving down ESPN's revenue.

At this moment their costs are very high, and largely fixed, while their revenues may have apexed. There is a reason they are cutting costs, and letting go talent. ESPN's model is precarious, and there is no doubt they are building a streaming infrastructure because they know it. Today you need a cable subscription to get their online content, tomorrow it may not be that way. It will not be free. or cheap, because the little old lady next door that only watches TV evangelists and the Hallmark channel will no longer be subsidizing sports fans. Think nothing this big could ever happen, and certainly not overnight? Run down to the Blockbuster store and pick up a movie. Or Virgin Records. Technology is a great disrupter, and companies like Google and Apple may become the source of most of our TV content soon, and we know they like the ala carte model.

I think that the bottom line is do not count on any contract we sign being fulfilled. That is what banruptcy reorganization is all about. Void those contracts and move on. Then it will be athletic departments that have fixed costs and falling revenues. We are all going to get screwed in this, and ironically it may be the SunBelt and other conferences that do not live off media money that fair the best.

Or maybe I am wrong.

(01-12-2016 04:56 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:45 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:32 PM)MasMack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good Lord folks. So much misinformation here.

1) This contract means nothing to us. It didn't "go down". The truth is this is the first baseline market negotiated contract for the current CUSA membership. Given that the majority of CUSA is former Sunbelt (who earn about $20k a yr for media), WAC members (who earn much less than MAC schools), or FCS move ups (who earn nothing in media dollars), then the value is not surprising and represents a significant raise for most members compared to thier earnings in thier previous conference homes. Our deal is based on our current membership. No reason to expect a drop when we have actually proven to be a better product than was expected.

2) ESPN isn't losing money. Not even close. Thier earnings are just not hitting the Disney targets.

3). This deal has nothing to do with ESPN. It's a Fox/CBS deal.

My opinion, you're right and you're wrong.

1) Agree with most of this. But not for all schools. And remember, the AAC negotiated their new TV contract fresh off the UCF upset of Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl, and with basketball seen as a much better product. So, have you actually proven a better product? 2015 has proven better then 2014, no doubt. But was it better then 2013, when the deal was made?

2) If your not hitting budgeted targets, your losing money. If you have projections and you build your budget off those projections, and you don't reach them, that's trouble. No other way to spin it.

3) Correct, has nothing to do with ESPN. But the AAC needs legit competitors to ESPN to drive their deal up.

Negotiated before the season started. So no Fiesta Bowl, SMU becoming a basketball power, etc...a lot of instability and unknown if the big 12 was going to gut us.

Fine, no Fiesta bowl. But still had Cincy and UConn fresh off BCS bowl appearances. And SMU becoming a basketball power is countered by Memphis fallen from the power ranks. And is there really stability now??? Big12 still may expanded and Houston, Memphis, Cincy, and UConn want out ASAP.

Well if the current group makes it to 2019 that is 7-8 years of stability. Uconn winning national title after the deal in both sports. Fiesta Bowl win, Peach Bowl win, games on ABC, etc. 4 ranked teams in 1 week of football. You get ranked teams and people tend to watch.

Espn had to agree to shell out money and essentially broadcast every football and basketball game.

(01-12-2016 04:59 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  AAC teams get more money now than C-USA teams. Nothing to argue about there. But, the future is fragile for all of us. ESPN's revenue model is built on cable providers sending them boatloads of money to carry their channels. In 2014 cable providers gave ESPN $6.04 for every subscriber they had. Fox Sports was $0.68. In these days of sinking cable subscription rates due to the economy and people cutting the cord because they can stream HD content for less money and more convenience, ESPN is losing revenue. With the push to unbundle cable channels ESPN could find themselves having to sell to only specific sports fans, and the monthly charge could quickly escalate to $30-40 per home. At that rate, many people would go to bars to watch games, or skip them altogether, further driving down ESPN's revenue.

At this moment their costs are very high, and largely fixed, while their revenues may have apexed. There is a reason they are cutting costs, and letting go talent. ESPN's model is precarious, and there is no doubt they are building a streaming infrastructure because they know it. Today you need a cable subscription to get their online content, tomorrow it may not be that way. It will not be free. or cheap, because the little old lady next door that only watches TV evangelists and the Hallmark channel will no longer be subsidizing sports fans. Think nothing this big could ever happen, and certainly not overnight? Run down to the Blockbuster store and pick up a movie. Or Virgin Records. Technology is a great disrupter, and companies like Google and Apple may become the source of most of our TV content soon, and we know they like the ala carte model.

I think that the bottom line is do not count on any contract we sign being fulfilled. That is what banruptcy reorganization is all about. Void those contracts and move on. Then it will be athletic departments that have fixed costs and falling revenues. We are all going to get screwed in this, and ironically it may be the SunBelt and other conferences that do not live off media money that fair the best.

Or maybe I am wrong.

Your wrong. I mean, you're correct in that the way we pay for cable content may change. The thing I see is the basic model is unchanged. Cable, rent by mail, streaming---they are all changes in delivery and billing methods. The basic model is the same---consumer want entertainment content and will pay for it. All that's changing is the delivery/billing method. The original content provider is still getting paid one way or another. As the cable model vanishes, the streaming free lunch will vanish as well. My guess is your costs will be more easily controlled by having more control over what you buy (no more bundling). The down side is what consumers do buy will likely cost more per channel than it does now. Your total cable bill may be less, but you will pay more per channel. The savings will come from simply buying fewer channels.

Some real creative thinking in this thread and. I thought yall were all dumb dumbs

Silly me