(07-02-2018 10:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:57 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Attack I think you over-value what the ratings mean for the future of the AAC deal.
What matters is what the bidders want to do with the content.

From watching the moves of the potential players here is my estimation.

There are online platforms interested (at a minimum Stadium, probably at least one of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter). None are likely to throw notable money.
Fox won't be a serious bidder. They've increased their P5 content and they didn't even bid $1 for CUSA.
Comcast/NBC is a bunch of cheapskates except for BIG content.
CBS for some reason only wants to buy pieces.

So scratch Fox and NBC unless ESPN throws a lowball. CBS will not bid what ESPN bids on the front end plus a dollar unless there is some sort of bundle with other players and none of non-linear folks will make up the difference.

ESPN has a product that needs selling, ESPN+.

My prediction.
ESPN will try to put it to bed early. They will promise an increase in ESPN family linear appearances with some minimum number of reverse mirror games ie. Houston-UCF is on ABC in Texas and Florida and some neigboring markets and ESPN2 rest of the country. They will not sublicense content to CBSSN with the possible exception that they might do so in basketball and sports that aren't football. The total linear content may drop with the refusal to let CBSSN have football but for sure a bump in ESPN family linear. All AAC football, men's and women's basketball and eventually baseball and maybe most volleyball will be on either an ESPN family linear channel or ESPN+

ESPN will lay down an offer of no less than $60 million per year, no higher than $96 million per year.

AAC will sign during the ESPN exclusive window in order to get 2019-20 reworked and start the improved cash flow because waiting to see if anyone beats the offer will mean waiting to 2020-21 to get the better cash flow no matter how it turns out.

Lol. Not sure why you think I’m over valuing the AAC rating. I’ve said numerous times I think we will end up between 6 and 8 million per team. Your 60 to 96 million estimate translates to 5-8 million. I think we are on the same page except I think the vast majority of what we currently see on ESPN linear networks and CBS-Sports will end up split between NBC and ESPN. The current ESPN3 content will be for CBS-Sports and ESPN+ to fight over. That’s how I see us ending up in the 6-8 million a team. Some predict more—and I’d be euphoric to reach the 10 million or more per team some talk about—but I have zero expectations of those kind of numbers.

I think you over-estimate what the ratings mean for AAC. I agree with you on the number. I disagree on how ESPN reaches that number.

I also don't believe ESPN is going to split the deal.

Aresco already said we will not sell it all in one piece, that we will split to guarantee exposure. This is why CBS Sports vs Espn+ for the lesser content is always brought up. Whether it be first pick, 2nd pick, 3rd pick each week or Tier1, Tier 2, Tier 3 to different distributors our content will be split up into multiple deals. He said this is the reason that Navy deal was also sold separately, no one is getting a bulk buy savings on our content.

Splitting to guarantee exposure probably isn't going to produce as much money.

Right now the outlet needing desired content the most is ESPN+
ESPN was willing to give Sun Belt a nice raise and more linear games in order to increase the number of digital games available on ESPN+

ESPN wasn't involved at all in CUSA's linear package but did come in and grab a big part of their digital content for ESPN+

The mouse wants content for ESPN+

I agree .... I expect the next AAC deal to be entirely with ESPN, just like the current one is. ESPN will have the right to sub-let content to others, like CBSSN, just as they do now, but the whole package will in the first instance be owned by ESPN.

Not that I think it matters much, but that's just what I expect, and yes, ESPN+ has reinforced that expectation.

(07-02-2018 12:46 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  ESPN already splits the deal. They also sell to CBS sports with a nice little add on price.

CBS sports only wants pieces? Where is that from? Overall every school has been on CBS sports for both basketball and football with the current deal meaning CBS sports wants them all as they can pick and choose which teams to pay for individually now.

Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

At this point there is no reason to not take this to open market. The best a rewritten contract could do is improve one year since it would cover 2019 after February. One year is not enough to kill any AAC program especially considering that the ESPN offer will be the lowest we can get.

To maximise money separate deals are almost guaranteed and the Navy-CBS sports deal is strong evidence that we plan on doing so since it goes through 2028-2029.

Big difference between golf viewers and most sports viewers is that golf viewers are much wealthier, and advertisers are anxious to be seen by them. By contrast, WWE/F for years had ad revenue that belied their cable-leading TV ratings because the perception by advertisers were that wrestling fans didn't have much money to spend and what they did they blew on junk food and Axe body spray.

Premier League gives you viewers that you wouldn't normally get. Early Saturday mornings on sports channels are where you see evergreen content, maybe an early-starting golf tournament or NASCAR qualifying, and infomercials. EPL gives them an larger and engaged audience.

It's not just ratings, it's the demographics and context of ratings.

(07-02-2018 11:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:46 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  ESPN already splits the deal. They also sell to CBS sports with a nice little add on price.

CBS sports only wants pieces? Where is that from? Overall every school has been on CBS sports for both basketball and football with the current deal meaning CBS sports wants them all as they can pick and choose which teams to pay for individually now.

Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

At this point there is no reason to not take this to open market. The best a rewritten contract could do is improve one year since it would cover 2019 after February. One year is not enough to kill any AAC program especially considering that the ESPN offer will be the lowest we can get.

To maximise money separate deals are almost guaranteed and the Navy-CBS sports deal is strong evidence that we plan on doing so since it goes through 2028-2029.

Big difference between golf viewers and most sports viewers is that golf viewers are much wealthier, and advertisers are anxious to be seen by them. By contrast, WWE/F for years had ad revenue that belied their cable-leading TV ratings because the perception by advertisers were that wrestling fans didn't have much money to spend and what they did they blew on junk food and Axe body spray.

Premier League gives you viewers that you wouldn't normally get. Early Saturday mornings on sports channels are where you see evergreen content, maybe an early-starting golf tournament or NASCAR qualifying, and infomercials. EPL gives them an larger and engaged audience.

It's not just ratings, it's the demographics and context of ratings.

College football is actually a largely college educated affluent demographic.

(07-02-2018 11:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:57 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. Not sure why you think I’m over valuing the AAC rating. I’ve said numerous times I think we will end up between 6 and 8 million per team. Your 60 to 96 million estimate translates to 5-8 million. I think we are on the same page except I think the vast majority of what we currently see on ESPN linear networks and CBS-Sports will end up split between NBC and ESPN. The current ESPN3 content will be for CBS-Sports and ESPN+ to fight over. That’s how I see us ending up in the 6-8 million a team. Some predict more—and I’d be euphoric to reach the 10 million or more per team some talk about—but I have zero expectations of those kind of numbers.

I think you over-estimate what the ratings mean for AAC. I agree with you on the number. I disagree on how ESPN reaches that number.

I also don't believe ESPN is going to split the deal.

Aresco already said we will not sell it all in one piece, that we will split to guarantee exposure. This is why CBS Sports vs Espn+ for the lesser content is always brought up. Whether it be first pick, 2nd pick, 3rd pick each week or Tier1, Tier 2, Tier 3 to different distributors our content will be split up into multiple deals. He said this is the reason that Navy deal was also sold separately, no one is getting a bulk buy savings on our content.

Splitting to guarantee exposure probably isn't going to produce as much money.

Right now the outlet needing desired content the most is ESPN+
ESPN was willing to give Sun Belt a nice raise and more linear games in order to increase the number of digital games available on ESPN+

ESPN wasn't involved at all in CUSA's linear package but did come in and grab a big part of their digital content for ESPN+

The mouse wants content for ESPN+

I agree .... I expect the next AAC deal to be entirely with ESPN, just like the current one is. ESPN will have the right to sub-let content to others, like CBSSN, just as they do now, but the whole package will in the first instance be owned by ESPN.

Not that I think it matters much, but that's just what I expect, and yes, ESPN+ has reinforced that expectation.

It really doesnt make sense for ESPN to buy the whole thing nor does it make sense for the AAC to sell it all to ESPN. ESPN needs about 25 linear slots filled and it would love to get some significant AAC content for the newly launched ESPN Plus. ESPN is probably the only network that would want all of the AAC. Who's going to bid against ESPN for ALL the AAC? Not many bidders out there for the enitre 65 game football deal.

If you break it into two 20-25 game packages and a small third tier package---now you have bite sized packages that far more likely to fit the needs of far more network buyers---not to mention the cost is far more affordable---meaning less risk and more networks that are capable/willing financially to get in on the bidding.

If you split into 3 packages---essentially ESPN must win 3 separate bidding wars to aggregate all the AAC content. Furthermore---the way the bidding is structured---the AAC cannot accept an outside bid that is LOWER than the opening ESPN bid.

So, if ESPN wants it all---their only leverage point is to set the opening bid quite high. Splitting the package to make it more affordable for other networks means ESPN has to aggressively bid each of three more affordable packages high enough to prevent any bidder for swooping in and outbidding them on any single package. The ESPN low ball strategy wont work this time around. My guess is ESPN will bid hard on one 25 game package and the third tier deal. NBC and CBS-Sports (perhaps and on line groups may also be involved---Amazon would be the most likley) will fight over the other 25 game deal and CBS-Sports/ESPN-Plus/Amazon? will fight over the Third Tier deal.

I don't know where people get the idea that ESPN has the first right to the AAC. All they have is an exclusive negociations period of 30 days. After those 30 days are up, the AAC can do as they like.

(07-02-2018 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:57 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think you over-estimate what the ratings mean for AAC. I agree with you on the number. I disagree on how ESPN reaches that number.

I also don't believe ESPN is going to split the deal.

Aresco already said we will not sell it all in one piece, that we will split to guarantee exposure. This is why CBS Sports vs Espn+ for the lesser content is always brought up. Whether it be first pick, 2nd pick, 3rd pick each week or Tier1, Tier 2, Tier 3 to different distributors our content will be split up into multiple deals. He said this is the reason that Navy deal was also sold separately, no one is getting a bulk buy savings on our content.

Splitting to guarantee exposure probably isn't going to produce as much money.

Right now the outlet needing desired content the most is ESPN+
ESPN was willing to give Sun Belt a nice raise and more linear games in order to increase the number of digital games available on ESPN+

ESPN wasn't involved at all in CUSA's linear package but did come in and grab a big part of their digital content for ESPN+

The mouse wants content for ESPN+

I agree .... I expect the next AAC deal to be entirely with ESPN, just like the current one is. ESPN will have the right to sub-let content to others, like CBSSN, just as they do now, but the whole package will in the first instance be owned by ESPN.

Not that I think it matters much, but that's just what I expect, and yes, ESPN+ has reinforced that expectation.

It really doesnt make sense for ESPN to buy the whole thing nor does it make sense for the AAC to sell it all to ESPN. ESPN needs about 25 linear slots filled and it would love to get some significant AAC content for the newly launched ESPN Plus. ESPN is probably the only network that would want all of the AAC. Who's going to bid against ESPN for ALL the AAC? Not many bidders out there for the enitre 65 game football deal.

If you break it into two 20-25 game packages and a small third tier package---now you have bite sized packages that far more likely to fit the needs of far more network buyers---not to mention the cost is far more affordable---meaning less risk and more networks that are capable/willing financiall to get in on the bidding.

If you split into 3 packages---essentially ESPN must win 3 separate bidding wars to aggregate all the AAC content. Furthermore---the way the bidding is structured---the AAC cannot accept an outside bid that is LOWER than the opening ESPN bid.

So, if ESPN wants it all---their only leverage point is to set the opening bid quite high. Splitting the package to make it more affordable for other networks means ESPN has to aggressively bid each of three more affordable packages high enough to prevent any bidder for swooping in and outbidding them on any single package. The ESPN low ball strategy wont work this time around. My guess is ESPN will bid hard on one 25 game package and the third tier deal. NBC and CBS-Sports (perhaps and on line groups may also be involved---Amazon would be the most likley) will fight over the other 25 game deal and CBS-Sports/ESPN-Plus/Amazon? will fight over the Third Tier deal.

You make good point here. Nevertheless, my gut tells me it's going to be an all-ESPN deal.

Good thing about this debate is that we actually will get an answer soon, probably within the coming 9 months.

ESPN can low ball and probably will.

AAC Basketball has Marshall and Cronin, and otherwise not much of great interest. You have some small Basketball fan bases in half the league. Again nothing to compare to the SEC, ACC, B1G, and B12 whom you are competing for airtime. These already provide far more games than can be covered.

#1-6 in the OP are simply facts, #7 is wishful thinking by AAC fans. The hard reality is they fall well short of a compelling package to generate anything more than an overflow content contract, where the networks can pick the 5 Basketball (3 involving Wichita State) and 5 football games a year (2 being Navy) of sufficient interest to justify ESPN2 coverage. Never on CBS or ABC. Aresco is hoping ESPN bids against itself for AAC content. But that is not going to happen. The other suggestion by fans is that there is a threat to lose those 5 somewhat compelling Football and 5 Basketball games anyone cares about. Well that is not make or break content, gasp, they may have to run the Georgia-Mississippi or Wake Forest-North Carolina or Purdue-Michigan game instead.

And even if by some miracle the contract comes in at $3-4m per school instead of $2m+ today, that is not a game changer where schools are growing their budgets $3m per year and the power conferences are looking to top $40m and $50m in distributions, and while AAC schools are dipping over $20m in institutional funding to keep appearances up. The red ink is going to pile up just as fast.

But I think logic here is competing against a religion, or at least a religious movement of "power of 6." By magic and sheer will equality with Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Clemson and Oklahoma is within the grasp of Temple, ECU, Houston and Tulsa. (Magic is wonderful)

(07-02-2018 12:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ESPN can low ball and probably will.

ESPN has more bargaining power. The AAC needs ESPN more than ESPN needs the AAC. Nevertheless, the AAC does have good value to ESPN so i expect them to make a competitive offer.

BTW, we can now say "college football starts next month!".

We've had a million and one of these "How much will the AAC get paid" threads. There was one the other day where a fan of a P5 commented that the AAC posters act as if they are going to personally receive some money from the networks. The trend I see in all of these threads is exactly the opposite-- I see a lot of fans of other schools acting as if they are the ones who will be negotiating the deal for the conference. The guys west of the Mississippi most notably are the ones who appear the most bothered by the fact the AAC will receive a new media deal soon-- predicting little to no increase in the next term.

What will the AAC gather? I don't know..

(07-02-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:46 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  ESPN already splits the deal. They also sell to CBS sports with a nice little add on price.

CBS sports only wants pieces? Where is that from? Overall every school has been on CBS sports for both basketball and football with the current deal meaning CBS sports wants them all as they can pick and choose which teams to pay for individually now.

Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

At this point there is no reason to not take this to open market. The best a rewritten contract could do is improve one year since it would cover 2019 after February. One year is not enough to kill any AAC program especially considering that the ESPN offer will be the lowest we can get.

To maximise money separate deals are almost guaranteed and the Navy-CBS sports deal is strong evidence that we plan on doing so since it goes through 2028-2029.

Big difference between golf viewers and most sports viewers is that golf viewers are much wealthier, and advertisers are anxious to be seen by them. By contrast, WWE/F for years had ad revenue that belied their cable-leading TV ratings because the perception by advertisers were that wrestling fans didn't have much money to spend and what they did they blew on junk food and Axe body spray.

Premier League gives you viewers that you wouldn't normally get. Early Saturday mornings on sports channels are where you see evergreen content, maybe an early-starting golf tournament or NASCAR qualifying, and infomercials. EPL gives them an larger and engaged audience.

It's not just ratings, it's the demographics and context of ratings.

College football is actually a largely college educated affluent demographic.

Definitely college-educated but probably nowhere near as affluent as golf, whose median viewer is old and rich as ****. Luxury-item producers get a lot of bang for their buck trotting out their cars and watches on a random Senior PGA stop than they would for almost anything else, my guess would be.

(07-02-2018 12:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ESPN can low ball and probably will.

AAC Basketball has Marshall and Cronin, and otherwise not much of great interest. You have some small Basketball fan bases in half the league. Again nothing to compare to the SEC, ACC, B1G, and B12 whom you are competing for airtime. These already provide far more games than can be covered.

#1-6 in the OP are simply facts, #7 is wishful thinking by AAC fans. The hard reality is they fall well short of a compelling package to generate anything more than an overflow content contract, where the networks can pick the 5 Basketball (3 involving Wichita State) and 5 football games a year (2 being Navy) of sufficient interest to justify ESPN2 coverage. Never on CBS or ABC. Aresco is hoping ESPN bids against itself for AAC content. But that is not going to happen. The other suggestion by fans is that there is a threat to lose those 5 somewhat compelling Football and 5 Basketball games anyone cares about. Well that is not make or break content, gasp, they may have to run the Georgia-Mississippi or Wake Forest-North Carolina or Purdue-Michigan game instead.

And even if by some miracle the contract comes in at $3-4m per school instead of $2m+ today, that is not a game changer where schools are growing their budgets $3m per year and the power conferences are looking to top $40m and $50m in distributions, and while AAC schools are dipping over $20m in institutional funding to keep appearances up. The red ink is going to pile up just as fast.

But I think logic here is competing against a religion, or at least a religious movement of "power of 6." By magic and sheer will equality with Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Clemson and Oklahoma is within the grasp of Temple, ECU, Houston and Tulsa. (Magic is wonderful)

lol...where are you getting your facts from? Where exactly is this massive hidden secret treasure trove of unaired P5 games that ESPN can just grab and put on the air? To the best of my knowledge pretty much every P5 game is already spoken for through about 2024. All those games are already being aired. There isnt alot of P5 content on ESPN3. The massive growth in confernece networks has pretty much eaten up all the third tier inventory lying around. Dont forget---the AAC Network hits the airwaves in 2019--so that inventory is gonzo (ESPN didnt have it anyway---it was largely owned by Raycom). The Big12 is the only P5 conference that has no conference network at this point (so theoretically its 3rd tier inventory could be obtained by ESPN)---but the rights to all that B12 third tier inventory has all already been sold through 2024 by the individual schools to different broadcasters. Not to mention---the Big12 only has 10 teams. Even if ESPN was able to get it all immediately (which they cant), the entire B12 third tier football inventory amounts to just 10 games (1 per school per season). The reality is ESPN would need to pay a huge premium to buy up that B12 inventory---which would have them paying much more than the AAC deal would cost--and delivering similar ratings.

ESPN would be forced to largely fill those AAC slots with CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt content---which canabalizes the ESPN-Plus inventory---degrading the FBS value of the new ESPN-Plus platform isnt really what ESPN is shooting for here.

(07-02-2018 01:14 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:46 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  ESPN already splits the deal. They also sell to CBS sports with a nice little add on price.

CBS sports only wants pieces? Where is that from? Overall every school has been on CBS sports for both basketball and football with the current deal meaning CBS sports wants them all as they can pick and choose which teams to pay for individually now.

Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

At this point there is no reason to not take this to open market. The best a rewritten contract could do is improve one year since it would cover 2019 after February. One year is not enough to kill any AAC program especially considering that the ESPN offer will be the lowest we can get.

To maximise money separate deals are almost guaranteed and the Navy-CBS sports deal is strong evidence that we plan on doing so since it goes through 2028-2029.

Big difference between golf viewers and most sports viewers is that golf viewers are much wealthier, and advertisers are anxious to be seen by them. By contrast, WWE/F for years had ad revenue that belied their cable-leading TV ratings because the perception by advertisers were that wrestling fans didn't have much money to spend and what they did they blew on junk food and Axe body spray.

Premier League gives you viewers that you wouldn't normally get. Early Saturday mornings on sports channels are where you see evergreen content, maybe an early-starting golf tournament or NASCAR qualifying, and infomercials. EPL gives them an larger and engaged audience.

It's not just ratings, it's the demographics and context of ratings.

College football is actually a largely college educated affluent demographic.

Definitely college-educated but probably nowhere near as affluent as golf, whose median viewer is old and rich as ****. Luxury-item producers get a lot of bang for their buck trotting out their cars and watches on a random Senior PGA stop than they would for almost anything else, my guess would be.

The college football audience skews older as well if Im not mistaken....and its much larger. Point being---its a very nice demo (maybe not quite as good as golf---but very close and much larger).

(07-02-2018 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ESPN would be forced to largely fill those AAC slots with CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt content---which canabalizes the ESPN-Plus inventory---degrading the FBS value of the new ESPN-Plus platform isnt really what ESPN is shooting for here.

ESPN is contracted to air 3 AAC games on ABC and last year aired a dozen or so on ESPN or ESPN2. Others were on ESPNU, ESPNNEWS, or ESPN3. ESPN isn't going to care what they have to use for ESPNU or ESPNNEWS airtime, doesn't even have to be live sports, obviously. That leaves about one "window" per week of the season to fill; ESPN will control all ACC football games plus all SEC football games other than the one a week CBS gets. Just among all that content they wouldn't have any problem moving one of many games in a week from a conference network to ESPN or ESPN2.

And it's not just the AAC. The AAC might well get more money than they get now, but none of this content is so necessary to ESPN that they'll feel forced to bid high for it. They let the lion's share of the Big Ten games go to Fox. ESPN decided it can comfortably live with not ever having Ohio State-Michigan during the life of that deal. Pretty sure that means they regard any other particular college content as "nice to have" rather than "must have".

(07-02-2018 01:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 01:14 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:46 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  ESPN already splits the deal. They also sell to CBS sports with a nice little add on price.

CBS sports only wants pieces? Where is that from? Overall every school has been on CBS sports for both basketball and football with the current deal meaning CBS sports wants them all as they can pick and choose which teams to pay for individually now.

Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

At this point there is no reason to not take this to open market. The best a rewritten contract could do is improve one year since it would cover 2019 after February. One year is not enough to kill any AAC program especially considering that the ESPN offer will be the lowest we can get.

To maximise money separate deals are almost guaranteed and the Navy-CBS sports deal is strong evidence that we plan on doing so since it goes through 2028-2029.

Big difference between golf viewers and most sports viewers is that golf viewers are much wealthier, and advertisers are anxious to be seen by them. By contrast, WWE/F for years had ad revenue that belied their cable-leading TV ratings because the perception by advertisers were that wrestling fans didn't have much money to spend and what they did they blew on junk food and Axe body spray.

Premier League gives you viewers that you wouldn't normally get. Early Saturday mornings on sports channels are where you see evergreen content, maybe an early-starting golf tournament or NASCAR qualifying, and infomercials. EPL gives them an larger and engaged audience.

It's not just ratings, it's the demographics and context of ratings.

College football is actually a largely college educated affluent demographic.

Definitely college-educated but probably nowhere near as affluent as golf, whose median viewer is old and rich as ****. Luxury-item producers get a lot of bang for their buck trotting out their cars and watches on a random Senior PGA stop than they would for almost anything else, my guess would be.

The college football audience skews older as well if Im not mistaken....and its much larger. Point being---its a very nice demo (maybe not quite as good as golf---but very close and much larger).

So advertisors are not looking for the 24-54 year old male market? Oh wait that's exactly who they look for. Just to put an end to that terrible line of logic.

Beyond that it seems odd to me that the per viewer average is roughly the same across all those different sports. That actually indicates that the live viewer has a set value. Thus whether that viewer enjoys body slams or birdies is irrelevant, they as a live viewer are worth x dollars.

Also everyone seems to think ESPN just does what ever it wants. This is not the 1990s where ESPN was an exclusive sports channels. The number of competitors for viewers is up. Thus ESPN didn't give anything to fox anymore than they let NBC sign Notre Dame. They were out bid for them.

ESPN can not just fill in the AAC spots with the sec or acc. Those conferences are contracted to show a certain number of games on their channel which is why cable providers picked them up and made the network valuable. That content is not available.

(07-02-2018 02:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ESPN would be forced to largely fill those AAC slots with CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt content---which canabalizes the ESPN-Plus inventory---degrading the FBS value of the new ESPN-Plus platform isnt really what ESPN is shooting for here.

ESPN is contracted to air 3 AAC games on ABC and last year aired a dozen or so on ESPN or ESPN2. Others were on ESPNU, ESPNNEWS, or ESPN3. ESPN isn't going to care what they have to use for ESPNU or ESPNNEWS airtime, doesn't even have to be live sports, obviously. That leaves about one "window" per week of the season to fill; ESPN will control all ACC football games plus all SEC football games other than the one a week CBS gets. Just among all that content they wouldn't have any problem moving one of many games in a week from a conference network to ESPN or ESPN2.

And it's not just the AAC. The AAC might well get more money than they get now, but none of this content is so necessary to ESPN that they'll feel forced to bid high for it. They let the lion's share of the Big Ten games go to Fox. ESPN decided it can comfortably live with not ever having Ohio State-Michigan during the life of that deal. Pretty sure that means they regard any other particular college content as "nice to have" rather than "must have".

Exactly. They let half the Big10 inventory go. Thats why a solid raise for the AAC isnt really a big deal. Its just the back end of a choice they made 2 years ago that the AAC could be a serviceable fill in for mid/lower tier Big10 games. Memphis vs UH is a decent fill in for Indiana-Purdue (which also isnt really ABC material either) at 20-25% of the cost. ESPN would have had to bid over 250 million to get those Big10 games. They can easily get a 25 game package of AAC games for 50 million.

Thats why I think ESPN will end up splitting the first/second tier rights with NBC. Then ESPN will just outbid the nominal sum CBS-Sports or Amazon (or whoever) bids for the AAC 3rd tier to add to ESPN-Plus. Thats all ESPN really needs. They dont need all the AAC content and they dont need to spend more than 40-60 million to get what they need. NBC will pay for 40-60 for what they need. The AAC walks away with a decent paycheck and no network has to pay a lot for stuff they dont really need.

(07-01-2018 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What matters is what the bidders want to do with the content.

From watching the moves of the potential players here is my estimation.

Comcast/NBC is a bunch of cheapskates except for BIG content.

So scratch Fox and NBC unless ESPN throws a lowball.

NBC was the high bidder in 2013 when the conference was in a disastrous unstable state and ESPN only managed to keep it, because of a matching clause.

I'd imagine, since, NBC bid highest on an unproven AAC, they will bid again, now that the conference has proven a property that people will watch, delivering ratings far above their pay scale and many more highly valued NBC products.

(07-02-2018 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:57 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think you over-estimate what the ratings mean for AAC. I agree with you on the number. I disagree on how ESPN reaches that number.

I also don't believe ESPN is going to split the deal.

Aresco already said we will not sell it all in one piece, that we will split to guarantee exposure. This is why CBS Sports vs Espn+ for the lesser content is always brought up. Whether it be first pick, 2nd pick, 3rd pick each week or Tier1, Tier 2, Tier 3 to different distributors our content will be split up into multiple deals. He said this is the reason that Navy deal was also sold separately, no one is getting a bulk buy savings on our content.

Splitting to guarantee exposure probably isn't going to produce as much money.

Right now the outlet needing desired content the most is ESPN+
ESPN was willing to give Sun Belt a nice raise and more linear games in order to increase the number of digital games available on ESPN+

ESPN wasn't involved at all in CUSA's linear package but did come in and grab a big part of their digital content for ESPN+

The mouse wants content for ESPN+

I agree .... I expect the next AAC deal to be entirely with ESPN, just like the current one is. ESPN will have the right to sub-let content to others, like CBSSN, just as they do now, but the whole package will in the first instance be owned by ESPN.

Not that I think it matters much, but that's just what I expect, and yes, ESPN+ has reinforced that expectation.

It really doesnt make sense for ESPN to buy the whole thing nor does it make sense for the AAC to sell it all to ESPN. ESPN needs about 25 linear slots filled and it would love to get some significant AAC content for the newly launched ESPN Plus. ESPN is probably the only network that would want all of the AAC. Who's going to bid against ESPN for ALL the AAC? Not many bidders out there for the enitre 65 game football deal.

If you break it into two 20-25 game packages and a small third tier package---now you have bite sized packages that far more likely to fit the needs of far more network buyers---not to mention the cost is far more affordable---meaning less risk and more networks that are capable/willing financially to get in on the bidding.

If you split into 3 packages---essentially ESPN must win 3 separate bidding wars to aggregate all the AAC content. Furthermore---the way the bidding is structured---the AAC cannot accept an outside bid that is LOWER than the opening ESPN bid.

So, if ESPN wants it all---their only leverage point is to set the opening bid quite high. Splitting the package to make it more affordable for other networks means ESPN has to aggressively bid each of three more affordable packages high enough to prevent any bidder for swooping in and outbidding them on any single package. The ESPN low ball strategy wont work this time around. My guess is ESPN will bid hard on one 25 game package and the third tier deal. NBC and CBS-Sports (perhaps and on line groups may also be involved---Amazon would be the most likley) will fight over the other 25 game deal and CBS-Sports/ESPN-Plus/Amazon? will fight over the Third Tier deal.

Makes perfect sense to buy the whole banana just as they did with ACC, MAC, and Sun Belt and would have done with SEC but for the SEC's affinity for afternoon coast-to-coast OTA broadcasts.

Remember one of the points I made before CUSA got their haircut. ESPN had the whole banana from AAC and MAC and was assigning its inventory cost across the spectrum of content. They were/are subbing that content to CBSSN for less than CBSSN was paying per game for CUSA. ESPN was showing a profitable sale on its books while putting deflationary pressure on CUSA as a side effect.

(07-02-2018 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:46 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Attack I think you over-value what the ratings mean for the future of the AAC deal.
What matters is what the bidders want to do with the content.

From watching the moves of the potential players here is my estimation.

There are online platforms interested (at a minimum Stadium, probably at least one of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter). None are likely to throw notable money.
Fox won't be a serious bidder. They've increased their P5 content and they didn't even bid $1 for CUSA.
Comcast/NBC is a bunch of cheapskates except for BIG content.
CBS for some reason only wants to buy pieces.

So scratch Fox and NBC unless ESPN throws a lowball. CBS will not bid what ESPN bids on the front end plus a dollar unless there is some sort of bundle with other players and none of non-linear folks will make up the difference.

ESPN has a product that needs selling, ESPN+.

My prediction.
ESPN will try to put it to bed early. They will promise an increase in ESPN family linear appearances with some minimum number of reverse mirror games ie. Houston-UCF is on ABC in Texas and Florida and some neigboring markets and ESPN2 rest of the country. They will not sublicense content to CBSSN with the possible exception that they might do so in basketball and sports that aren't football. The total linear content may drop with the refusal to let CBSSN have football but for sure a bump in ESPN family linear. All AAC football, men's and women's basketball and eventually baseball and maybe most volleyball will be on either an ESPN family linear channel or ESPN+

ESPN will lay down an offer of no less than $60 million per year, no higher than $96 million per year.

AAC will sign during the ESPN exclusive window in order to get 2019-20 reworked and start the improved cash flow because waiting to see if anyone beats the offer will mean waiting to 2020-21 to get the better cash flow no matter how it turns out.

Lol. Not sure why you think I’m over valuing the AAC rating. I’ve said numerous times I think we will end up between 6 and 8 million per team. Your 60 to 96 million estimate translates to 5-8 million. I think we are on the same page except I think the vast majority of what we currently see on ESPN linear networks and CBS-Sports will end up split between NBC and ESPN. The current ESPN3 content will be for CBS-Sports and ESPN+ to fight over. That’s how I see us ending up in the 6-8 million a team. Some predict more—and I’d be euphoric to reach the 10 million or more per team some talk about—but I have zero expectations of those kind of numbers.

I think you over-estimate what the ratings mean for AAC. I agree with you on the number. I disagree on how ESPN reaches that number.

I also don't believe ESPN is going to split the deal.

ESPN already splits the deal. They also sell to CBS sports with a nice little add on price.

CBS sports only wants pieces? Where is that from? Overall every school has been on CBS sports for both basketball and football with the current deal meaning CBS sports wants them all as they can pick and choose which teams to pay for individually now.

Ratings are what matters. It's amusing to me that people think otherwise. This is premium live content with 94 games over a million people. Discovery just dropped a truck load of money for golf with the expectance that it will have lower ratings. MLS, Priemer, UFC all get paid roughly the same amount per viewer as the "power" leagues do. Yet somehow that won't matter for the AAC? Ratings are all that matter to tv excecutives, especially live viewers who sit through commercials.

At this point there is no reason to not take this to open market. The best a rewritten contract could do is improve one year since it would cover 2019 after February. One year is not enough to kill any AAC program especially considering that the ESPN offer will be the lowest we can get.

To maximise money separate deals are almost guaranteed and the Navy-CBS sports deal is strong evidence that we plan on doing so since it goes through 2028-2029.

No ESPN does not "split" the current deal. Splitting the deal is what you have with Big XII where Fox and ESPN each OWN a part of the bundle of sticks.

CBSSN doesn't OWN any part of the AAC deal. ESPN owns the entire bundle of sticks and choses to lease part of it to CBSSN.

There is a HUGE difference there.

CUSA's deal is broken up across three media outlets (four if BeIN renews) after going to market and is producing basically the same dollars per school as what Sun Belt got by renewing early while ESPN still held exclusive and Sun Belt gained linear coverage while CUSA lost linear coverage.

You are presuming ESPN is going to screw the league over if AAC goes to market. My recollection is AAC ended up with fewer dollars and more linear coverage when the league went to market last time as ESPN simply matched what NBC offered which was less per team than ESPN had offered.

There is an excellent reason to not take it to market. If AAC is looking to do eight years, cutting a deal in the exclusive window could effectively make it a 9 year deal by getting AAC enhanced money in the final year of the existing deal. Going to market means that AAC has to wait a year to get an improved revenue stream.

Let's say ESPN offers $72 million per year over eight years but dangles as a carrot to sign, $48 million for the final year of the contract in place. It would be a very large crap shoot to turn down the added $2 million per for the final year in the hopes of getting that back plus some growth over the course of eight years.

Do you enjoy being wrong?

If there was any value in those games for ESPN they would keep them. Instead they package them and sell them to CBS. This is exactly what the AAC will do and already has done with Navy till 2028. ESPN doesn't own the AAC, it's leasing the content and then sub leasing at a mark up. We don't need ESPN to do that. We can do it on our own and take the extra money CBS sports pays to ESPN.

The original ESPN deal was the same amount of money as NBC, the difference was in exposure. No money was left on the table. ESPN had the right to match the deal. Why would they match a deal they already offered more on?

The deals for both the Sunbelt and cusa aren't about comparing to each other, it's in relationship to where their past deal was. Both increased money and exposure.

More importantly that offer is 50% of the value going off of current media deals. We already left money on the table for exposure. We will not be doing that again.

ESPN is not a dictator, they don't say it and it happens. I doubt they will in the end be a major player for the deal. They will scoop up plenty of low cost inventory and stick it on ESPN+. They will probably pick up a game a week. NBC and CBS will be the leaders and price setters.

We will be going to open market

(07-02-2018 02:47 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What matters is what the bidders want to do with the content.

From watching the moves of the potential players here is my estimation.

Comcast/NBC is a bunch of cheapskates except for BIG content.

So scratch Fox and NBC unless ESPN throws a lowball.

NBC was the high bidder in 2013 when the conference was in a disastrous unstable state and ESPN only managed to keep it, because of a matching clause.

I'd imagine, since, NBC bid highest on an unproven AAC, they will bid again, now that the conference has proven a property that people will watch, delivering ratings far above their pay scale and many more highly valued NBC products.

Someone who has been paying attention, finally lol.

This fact alone means their will be competition.

CBS taking basketball games for it's OTA and football for it's sports channels means their will be competition.

The fact that ABC/ESPN have exceeded their minimum OTA broadcasts for the contract means ESPN values the content.

Aresco also stated that in head to head comparisons the AAC has had better than big xii numbers.

All of this points to a competitive bidding process maximizing exposure and financial return.

The value seems to be some where between 8-12 million per team a year, using other media deals as guard rails.

(07-02-2018 02:47 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What matters is what the bidders want to do with the content.

From watching the moves of the potential players here is my estimation.

Comcast/NBC is a bunch of cheapskates except for BIG content.

So scratch Fox and NBC unless ESPN throws a lowball.

NBC was the high bidder in 2013 when the conference was in a disastrous unstable state and ESPN only managed to keep it, because of a matching clause.

I'd imagine, since, NBC bid highest on an unproven AAC, they will bid again, now that the conference has proven a property that people will watch, delivering ratings far above their pay scale and many more highly valued NBC products.

There were no unknown quantities involved. There was ample data on what sort of interest each team had delivered in the way of viewers. CUSA had picked up a nice non-AQ deal largely on the strength of teams that had moved to BE/AAC and the existing BE/AAC schools were a known quantity.

Fox, ESPN, CBS, NBC all had a crack at the deal and NBC had an incentive to bid their top to try to keep ESPN from matching, actually no different a situation for AAC than the current deal where a network can take the ESPN figure and add $1 to it and not have to do anything else.

First deal NBC had to bid and hope ESPN couldn't / wouldn't match.
This deal, ESPN has to place a bid and if one network is interested they can add a dollar to the offer and win.
Under the normal provisions of contract law, if no one is willing to bid that dollar, ESPN can consider it a rejection of the offer and then lowball AAC. Maybe it is written so that ESPN has to stay on the hook, not having seen the contract, I don't know the answer.

I would be surprised if ESPN is OBLIGATED to honor their bid if AAC goes to market, rather ESPN only retains the right to assume the contract if AAC isn't offered more.