(06-21-2018 11:32 AM)HHOOTter Wrote:  If u considered,
When the P5 TV contracts R renegotiated
W/ TV ratings and Ad revenue all up,
that will probably translate to @ least an estimate
20-30% rate increase for most of the P5 conferences.

So by that logic, the AAC would B very “fortunate”
If it received a TV contract anywhere near
double digit figures per team per year.

Even @ a 50% increase
that still puts the AAC on the outside bubble
of obtaining double digit figures per team per year

The one “hope’ that I believe Aresco is counting on
was that the AAC was “extremely” undervalued
during the last round of TV contract negotiations

& fortunately,
He has some TV ratings #’s
& strong data to help make his case
as well as several Top 10/20 TV markets
where many AAC teams are located
that will also B considered.

It’s all about the Ad $$$$$
If a TV network feels like they can
sell & have profitable advertising $$$$’s
the AAC might B handsomely rewarded

What is going on here? Is that a sonnet or something? Only thing I'm sure of is that the author loves R&B.

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seems the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seems the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

I will, however, say that ESPN has not done the best job of drumming up eyeballs for us as a tv partner, at least on the internet. I know we've gotten good exposure of our games, but just for instance:

-It's difficult to find our CFB Nation page. When you do find it, it doesn't even have a logo, and half the stories aren't AAC-related (they'll still throw SEC stuff on our feed).

-The individual team pages aren't updated regularly. For some of our pages, the most recent story is months old. They could at least link to the schools' athletic department twitter accounts or something. Have a cheap intern put together a ranking projection or something, jeez.

Just seems like they should be treating it as an investment that they are trying to increase the value of. I know the internet companies are starting to get into the mix. Rather than having to fend them off, ESPN could potentially lock in a $6m-ish deal with us for a few years, try to actively up our demand as a partner, then maybe make some loot selling off a more of our games. Just a thought. I understand why, right before negotiations, they don't want to hype us up right now. After we sign a new deal, however, we should have a few Arescos over at ESPN talking us up.

(06-22-2018 08:41 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seems the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seems the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:41 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seemts the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seems the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

Since I've heard these "on par with P6 money" I'm really confused as what it means. No one is saying P5 money so for me it's hard to use that as a comparison. IMO, I think it's a separation from the G5 leagues to put the AAC in a true "tweener" status. What that number will be is the question. I think the league will have a lower amount in mind and call it a win if they get it. Us fans have a higher amount in mind.

I think CougarRed and others might be right with the $4-$8 mill range.

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:41 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that they wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them? Whatever network feels our additional inventory will generate the most additional viewers to their current lineup... thats who will pay us the most. But b/c we're 2nd in line to the networks that already have P5 inventory, we wont get the full value that the P5 conferences got.

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:41 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:41 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC was signed for a song---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to plut less attractive games in the ld AAC slots meaning fewer veiwers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their ESPN+ inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

I agree with this

(06-22-2018 08:28 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:56 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:17 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  Based on your analysis, it seems the AAC should command about 60% of the PAC media deal.

I have the numbers from 2015 and 2016. If you add the ratings from all our conference football games, they are about 1/4 of the ratings from all the Pac 12 conference games.

Now - the per conference game numbers are better for us - because the Pac 12 had more conference games televised. But per game numbers don't mean much. It's about the value of the entire inventory. It's about how many attractive games you can offer. So the sum of all the games is more important than the per game average. And conference games are an apples to apples comparison.

We were about 1/6th of the Big 12's total conference game numbers.

When viewed in that light, $12M per AAC school is crazy talk.

apples to apples you'd have to show ratings on similar networks in similar timeslots. EPSNU at noon is going to draw peanuts, doesn't matter who is on it. Similar to 3:30 or 7pm on ESPN will draw huge, really doesn't matter too much who is on it.

Most of the AAC is on ESPNU or ESPN News whereas p5 are mostly on ESPN or ESPN2 (not counting broadcast channels fox, abc, cbs) so to me you'd have to stratify the data a little more to get accurate portrayal of tv draw.

Carryover from a separate reply - 2017 numbers for intraconference are 30% of BigXII and PAC.

From our rated games in 2017 (from sportsmediawatch.com), our AAC intra conference games:
2 on ABC
6 on ESPN
6 on ESPN2
13 on ESPNU

Doesn't include ESPNNews as that is no longer rated, but also doesn't include the not-rated CBSSN, which in terms of carriage is closer to ESPN2 than ESPNU.

MORE on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 than on the U.

Add in the rated OOC games which were conference controlled (a small number of games but 4.8 million viewers)
3 on ABC
7 on ESPN
6 on ESPN2
14 on ESPNU

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 08:41 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  Yes, but the point is, is that ESPN already typically has better inventory for those timeslots. So, it doesn't matter what value we'd be worth in a vacuum in those timeslots... b/c ESPN wont get that value b/c they dont have room for it. They'll only have room for our inventory on the secondary channels... so the question is what value we are capable of creating in those slots. That's what we'll be worth...

(06-22-2018 08:54 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Kind of, but it has to reflect reality. ESPN and ESPN2 are still going to get the P5 games. They are not dropping the bigger conferences when they sign us. So their valuation of our conference is how well we can do on those secondary channels.

both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

Right... so then you see them intentionally taking games off of linear TV that they would normally put on linear... and ONLY putting them on ESPN+ in order to create more value for that product.... which in then turn creates more open linear broadcast slots?

I'm still not convinced that they don't have enough inventory to backfill out of their current inventory, unless they are just intending to put a lot of their current inventory only on ESPN+, creating a much larger demand on their part for content to put on linear?

As far as week night games... yes, this is where we can create more value b/c the better P5's that generate good viewership aren't playing on weeknights... so among the G5, we have a significant advantage over our competition for those slots (CUSA, etc).

But... again, we'll have to play a lot of week night games to generate that value.... which many on here wont like.

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

Since people have already ripped apart your incorrect narrative on diminishing returns and game locations I'll just tidy up the last messy stuff.

All media trends indicate at least 4x. The ratings for cusa and the Sunbelt remained flat and the premier league ratings have been fairly consitant as have the WWE live events. All saw a multiple increase. The AAC ratings have grown year by year and we're heavily under valued to start. Even given that a 4x increase would put us at 8 million a piece. But would also require us to add in the value of the increased inventory of football (Navy and their cbssports deal) the extra value of Notre Dame, us selling the conference championship game seperately, and the added games from Wichita. Making 8-10 million the most likely number.

Add in we have multiple bidders and the actual value of the inventory as established by viewers and 10-12 million is certainly possible meaning 8-12 million is reasonable. I think third tier rights may be some of the strongest of the P6 with our Olympic sports all being high level. Baseball in particular provides a ton of filler games most involving strong programs.

When Aresco talks P6 money I am sure he is being a little over exuberent. But since this bidding will be like a silent auction I don't mind him priming the pump and he has the CBS sports Navy deal to use as support.

20 million is the bottom end of media rights for the A5. When he says p6 money I think 15 million or so. Can we get that much? I don't know. 12 seems workable with some aggressive bidding maybe higher.

Anything over 12 and solid third tier rights returned to the schools will let programs like UConn, Cincy, Memphis or the Florida twins sell the third tier and approach p6 money.

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:48 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  both of these are saying the same thing and are good points I didn't consider.

Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

ESPN+ isn't going to have any broadcast shows. Its going to be 100% unique content to ESPN+.

(06-22-2018 01:52 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

Right... so then you see them intentionally taking games off of linear TV that they would normally put on linear... and ONLY putting them on ESPN+ in order to create more value for that product.... which in then turn creates more open linear broadcast slots?

I'm still not convinced that they don't have enough inventory to backfill out of their current inventory, unless they are just intending to put a lot of their current inventory only on ESPN+, creating a much larger demand on their part for content to put on linear?

As far as week night games... yes, this is where we can create more value b/c the better P5's that generate good viewership aren't playing on weeknights... so among the G5, we have a significant advantage over our competition for those slots (CUSA, etc).

But... again, we'll have to play a lot of week night games to generate that value.... which many on here wont like.

ESPN will bidding with two other companies maybe more. ESPN currently has us on one night a week. They put our games on Saturdays on ESPN and abc and we get great ratings. CBS sports just paid to get Navy and keep them on Saturday.

The ESPN has signed the deals for Sunbelt and cusa as ESPN+ content. Most likely they will build their ESPN+ line up on niche subscribers who will pay 5$ a month to watch their team or sport.

Currently we fill spots on linear tv that if we left would need to be filled. To do that ESPN would most likely fill in with it's new Sunbelt and cusa inventory. Those games would have substantially worse ratings than the current AAC games do. This would also take out some of the exclusive value the ESPN+ would have with the exclusive rights to Sunbelt and cusa. Both negatives for ESPN.

I believe we will see the majority of our rights going to; CBS who likes our basketball nationally and already buys games from espn's inventory and NBC who seems to be making room for us, originally offered us OTA time slots before we were a proven commodity, and values a 7th ND game every other year. I could see ESPN trying to keep a week night game in the fold and collecting a lot of Olympic sports (like baseball and softball at which we have historically solid programs) for ESPN+.

(06-22-2018 03:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

Since people have already ripped apart your incorrect narrative on diminishing returns and game locations I'll just tidy up the last messy stuff.

All media trends indicate at least 4x. The ratings for cusa and the Sunbelt remained flat and the premier league ratings have been fairly consitant as have the WWE live events. All saw a multiple increase. The AAC ratings have grown year by year and we're heavily under valued to start. Even given that a 4x increase would put us at 8 million a piece. But would also require us to add in the value of the increased inventory of football (Navy and their cbssports deal) the extra value of Notre Dame, us selling the conference championship game seperately, and the added games from Wichita. Making 8-10 million the most likely number.

Add in we have multiple bidders and the actual value of the inventory as established by viewers and 10-12 million is certainly possible meaning 8-12 million is reasonable. I think third tier rights may be some of the strongest of the P6 with our Olympic sports all being high level. Baseball in particular provides a ton of filler games most involving strong programs.

When Aresco talks P6 money I am sure he is being a little over exuberent. But since this bidding will be like a silent auction I don't mind him priming the pump and he has the CBS sports Navy deal to use as support.

20 million is the bottom end of media rights for the A5. When he says p6 money I think 15 million or so. Can we get that much? I don't know. 12 seems workable with some aggressive bidding maybe higher.

Anything over 12 and solid third tier rights returned to the schools will let programs like UConn, Cincy, Memphis or the Florida twins sell the third tier and approach p6 money.

Ripped apart? Mess? lol. You're very aggressive and defensive over this when its simply just a couple fans talking about what they expect to see.

Lets be clear... I'd LOVE to get $12mil. And I'm not someone who's stubborn and would rather be right than get $12mil and be wrong, lol. I'll take being wrong all day on that, lol.

I just don't think everything scales linearly like that, and I think there is more supply than demand when talking about how much a network would be willing to pay vs. how much we could generate for a network that didn't already have P5 inventory. (sidenote, I dont know what network has what. Are there any major networks that don't have P5 inventory already? I'm not aware of one but if there is one that wants to start playing in the college football space, that would be great news)

I'm all in favor of Aresco and crew throwing out huge numbers trying to get some hype around the blind bidding process you're talking about. I encourage it...

I'm just keeping my expectations in that $6-$8mil range for the many reasons I stated. That's what I'm expecting. And I'll streak naked if I'm wrong, lol...

(06-22-2018 03:16 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:52 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

Right... so then you see them intentionally taking games off of linear TV that they would normally put on linear... and ONLY putting them on ESPN+ in order to create more value for that product.... which in then turn creates more open linear broadcast slots?

I'm still not convinced that they don't have enough inventory to backfill out of their current inventory, unless they are just intending to put a lot of their current inventory only on ESPN+, creating a much larger demand on their part for content to put on linear?

As far as week night games... yes, this is where we can create more value b/c the better P5's that generate good viewership aren't playing on weeknights... so among the G5, we have a significant advantage over our competition for those slots (CUSA, etc).

But... again, we'll have to play a lot of week night games to generate that value.... which many on here wont like.

ESPN will bidding with two other companies maybe more. ESPN currently has us on one night a week. They put our games on Saturdays on ESPN and abc and we get great ratings. CBS sports just paid to get Navy and keep them on Saturday.

The ESPN has signed the deals for Sunbelt and cusa as ESPN+ content. Most likely they will build their ESPN+ line up on niche subscribers who will pay 5$ a month to watch their team or sport.

Currently we fill spots on linear tv that if we left would need to be filled. To do that ESPN would most likely fill in with it's new Sunbelt and cusa inventory. Those games would have substantially worse ratings than the current AAC games do. This would also take out some of the exclusive value the ESPN+ would have with the exclusive rights to Sunbelt and cusa. Both negatives for ESPN.

I believe we will see the majority of our rights going to; CBS who likes our basketball nationally and already buys games from espn's inventory and NBC who seems to be making room for us, originally offered us OTA time slots before we were a proven commodity, and values a 7th ND game every other year. I could see ESPN trying to keep a week night game in the fold and collecting a lot of Olympic sports (like baseball and softball at which we have historically solid programs) for ESPN+.

Question on the bolded. Help me out, ignorant here. Specifically, what P5 inventory does ESPN currently have? They don't have P5 inventory left over that they are currently benching in favor of AAC stuff? I have to believe their remaining P5 inventory is worth more than the CUSA stuff?