(03-15-2018 03:33 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: (03-15-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (03-15-2018 01:17 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote: (03-14-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (03-14-2018 04:07 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: This is what I've been saying since day one when everyone keeps throwing out these ridiculous numbers. The financial fall from grace of the media hogs along with the lack of competitive bids is not a landscape that will net us 8-figure per team contracts...it just isn't.
They just gave a conference with basically zero ratings a raise. How that supports the view the AAC is getting almost nothing is beyond me. This article claims CUSA DOUBLED their payout.
https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...fcc22.html
I think some non AAC fans (not those quoted above) just want it to happen so badly that no amount of reasoning will resonate. It was speculated that since CUSA was the first to renegotiate, all nonpower conferences were doomed. (Even though it was proven false as the contracts were initially cut when teams left for the AAC, and the MAC re-upped for more money beforehand.) Now, it seems to be due to economic pressures even though that hasn't seemed to hinder rights growth with other conferences.
I don't think the AAC is going to make huge money and some will be disappointed, but there isn't anything in the macro environment screaming that it'll be a decrease either. Honestly, it'd be more of a concern if ESPN and CBSSN were locking up large volumes of content at cheaper prices elsewhere. As it stands, there's still plenty of slots available, and they both have shown a preference in the past for airing AAC games over other available content. Right fees will come down to ratings, and those have been better than expected compared to when the contract was first signed.
Rights values actually come down to how much money a network can make off the property. The ratings are sort of a proxy for that. Here's what I see---the AAC currently offers 50-75% of P5 ratings for less than 10% of the current going price for a P5 conference. Thats still a screaming bargain at 20% or 30% of the cost of a P5. At 40% of the cost, its still a good deal--but not a screaming bargain. At 50% of P5 cost---its arguably in the lower range of fully priced.
So, back of the napkin calculations---
If a P5 was available today---value probably would be about 25-30 million a school
20% of 25 million is 5 million
30% of 25 million 7.5 million
20% of 30 million is 6 million
30% of 30 million is 9 million
I think that's the range we are going to be looking at. The same range fits with the values that we have seen for MLS Soccer (which has lower ratings than the AAC and gets 75 million a year) and the US rights to Premier Soccer (which have ratings that are fairly similar to the AAC, but gets 160 million a year). The final indicator is other G5 contracts. The MAC scored a 10 fold increase on a 6 year old deal. The Sunbelt got 2.5 times their old value on a 6 year old deal. CUSA doubled their value from 2 years ago.
2 mil x 2.5 =5 million per team
2 mil x 6 =12 million per team (bassed on the CUSA rate of a double every 2 years)
2 mil x 10=20 mil per team
The MAC's an outlier indication, but the Sunbelt and CUSA contract seem to fall generally in the same range as the other indications I noted. Only time will tell---but I think we are going to score a nice raise on the next deal.
Are you sure about the math on that? If you take all of our games over a weekend, and all (PAC12 as an example) games over the same weekend, our games are drawing 50-75%??
Or are you using some weird logic like two of our highest rated teams (or even one of our teams vs. a P5) during one particular timeslot vs. something like Oregon State - Cal in the same timeslot?
Shorter version, top to bottom are we really drawing 50-75%?
Bottom line up front: AAC draws 30-40% of PAC12 viewers is safer ground.
In earlier discussions, numbers from 2016 regular season ratings for all games involving the conferences, AAC averaged 1.4 million viewers per rated game and PAC12 1.7 million viewers per rated game.
2017 numbers we weren't as good as that.
In an earlier post, I compared the 2017 data for AAC and the G4s, looking at viewers for all games, conference controlled games, and intra-conference games
AAC 40.7 Million (992K per game), 21.9M (728K), 17M(631K)
PAC12 95.3M (1.763M), 85.9M (1.789M), 61.1M (1.65M)
Percentages are 42.7% (56.3%), 25.4% (40%), 27.9% (38.2%)
So you could still say 56% for per game average for all games - but that includes away games that are someone else's and unique events like Army-Navy. Nay sayers will always claim that the appeal is the OTHER team. Comparing ONLY intraconference games, total viewers or per rated game gives you 30-40% of PAC12.
That's the full dataset for each - so not any picking of top two etc. I like the average per rated game as an additional datapoint to total viewers. Some here don't like it ("If you only have 10-15 games worth showing, they'll average better than a P5 conference with a comprehensive deal and a larger slate of games.") but we're talking about 27conference games vs 37 conference games - in BOTH cases you get the OTA down to the ESPNU.
I would expect that trying to compare games in the same week, network, and timeslot would give you too small a data set, even using multiple years.