Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,884
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: ESPN has blessed the Wichita State to American move
(04-04-2017 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (04-03-2017 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-03-2017 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (04-03-2017 09:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-03-2017 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote: You missed Frank's main point, which was to reiterate that the Homer-like criticisms of the Big East are of course ridiculous.
But concerning the issues you did raise: You think that in 2012/2013 the Big East was in a great bargaining position? The Big East was just as new and uncertain as was the AAC. They had both experienced the same ruptures, defections, etc. Plus, the Big East had the handicap of no football, FOX was signing a purely basketball league, all eggs in one basket.
So Big East "uncertainty" and bargaining "weakness" was no different than AAC. Big East just had much better negotiators.
The rest of your post is just about what you think will happen in the future, and we can all have rosy thoughts about the future. But until those visions materialize they mean little.
Trust me, I've been a supporter of a Big East - turned - AAC school a lot longer. I've seen lots of rosy future scenarios for our conference be envisioned, and precious few have materialized.
lol...The C7 defection is EXACTLY what CAUSED the "weakness" in the AAC....
Now, with an established track record of solid ratings and with a track record of solid on the field performance in both football and basketball---the AAC looks like a very attractive media property that can be had for less than half the cost of any P5 property. The AAC will get a big bump---given the total eyeball they attract with respect to the Big East, they wiil likely surpass the current BE deal by a significant margin.
1) You have cause and effect reversed, understandable because as a Cougars fan you had no stake in the Big East before 2012. But what caused the C7 to leave was the massive instability that occurred as a result of the 2011-2012 raids that decimated the conference and ensured it would not be a "Power" league once the BCS ended.
2) Once the C7 split, the C7 was no more 'stable' than the remaining AAC schools, nor was it in any kind of powerful negotiating position. Heck, the AAC had the alleged ace in the hole - genius TV ace Aresco, whereas the C7 had no organizational infrastructure. It didn't even get a commissioner until late June, 2013.
There's a tendency by AAC apologists to rationalize AAC failures and Big East success by claiming some huge Big East head start/advantage at their origins. In social life generally, this is a common argument conjured up by losers/failures to feel better about themselves. "Well of course we lost, we were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs!" and the like. But in this case at least, it's not true. The AAC started in the same place as the C7.
It's just that the C7, which from December 2012 to June 2013 was basically run by a committee, made excellent decisions related to membership, TV, and in separating from the AAC (IIRC, you've admitted that in selling the Big East name, Aresco made a major bonehead move, the C7 outsmarted him there), whereas the AAC, led by Aresco, signed a peanuts TV deal.
As for the future, who knows what deals each will sign. But one thing to consider about a future AAC deal is, do you really think ESPN is going to credit the AAC for the ratings boost it gets for being on ESPN? AAC supporters often say that it is good to be on ESPN because as the biggest sports brand, ESPN draws lots of casual viewers and has channel-familiarity that FOX and NBC don't. Well, that's a characteristic of ESPN, not the AAC, so if, e.g., the Big East draws a "1" rating on FOX and the AAC a "3" rating on ESPN (these are just made up numbers, btw), and the difference is because of the ESPN boost, it's unlikely that ESPN will pay the AAC for a "3" rating if 2 of those points come purely from being on ESPN to begin with. Expect them to say "don't tell us about your 3 rating, we both know if you were on NBCSN it would be a 1" or somesuch.
We'll see.
Some of what you say is true---some not so much. For starters---your point #1 and your point #2 are unlikely to both be true. Schools do not as a rule willingly move from an unstable situation to another unstable situation. The fact is, the C7 stated on multiple occasions that FBS football was largely responsible for the most of the realignment damage suffered by the Big East and that the C7 believed moving away from the FBS side of the conference would make them much more stable (which I agree with).
I do agree, and have said on numerous occasions that the AAC made errors from 2011-2012. Selling the BE name and poor execution of the western wing strategy are two Ive harped on.
That said, while some wounds were self inflicted--more were not. There is no doubt that an unusual set of circumstances occurred that very much worked to the detriment of the AAC contract negotiations. This time around, I don't think most of those unusual adverse circumstances will be swirling around the league.
Of course, the AAC has certainly exhibited the ability to shoot itself in the foot---despite that, I still think they will do better this time around. Heck, even you have admitted to believing they will likely get a nice raise (lol...in fact, despite our differing opinions, we are both in the same ball park on our estimates).
First, I agree that schools usually don't willingly move from a more stable to less stable situation. But stability wasn't the only issue in play. The C7 schools saw (or feared) that the defections and raids had created a situation where picking up the pieces would mean that the power balance was tilting inexorably in the direction of football. There was the sense that they were becoming strangers in their own land, so to speak. So it wasn't that the new situation, breaking away, was initially more stable, it provided more control, a chance to retain their cultural identity, even though it was, at least initially, less stable, then remaining would have been. The C7 were willing to trade off some stability for control. Of course, in the long run, everyone hopes to build greater stability out of an unstable situation, whether they are the C7, AAC, or whoever.
Yes, ultimately I do think the AAC will get a nice raise in its next deal and that belief is there whether WSU joins or not. I have to admit that a lot of my arguments point against that conclusion, so there is analytical inconsistency there. It's more a gut feeling than anything else.
I don't think anyone really believes the C7 left and then began negotiating a contract with FOX. They wouldn't leave without already knowing what FOX was going to pay them--which meant that FOX had been discussing this idea with them long before they annouced their exit in late 2012. I know I was hearing they were leaving as far back as summer 2012. Its hard to say that didn't have an adverse affect on Aresco's attempt to negotiate a deal for the AAC. While this was going on, its also true that Boise was engaged in a backdoor effort to get a value as a independent from multiple networks. This, along with all the exits, SEVERELY undermined Aresco's negotiating position. That's simply not arguable.
Without all that mess going on---I think Aresco will do much better this time around. FWIW--"Adcorbitt", who claims to have direct access from someone who was actually in the room, says that the AAC original offer from ESPN was around 40 million (but with much less exposure than we got from NBC). That number matches the number I have heard rumors about (its also at the low end of Dodd's articles citing estimates from media experts at the time). Given the AAC ratings performance has been much better than expected and the loss of 50% of ESPN's B1G inventory to FOX, I figure 40 million is the new floor.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2017 12:38 PM by Attackcoog.)
|
|