In light of this discussion, it should be possible to approximate the broadcast windows on a typical week (not counting the Tuesday/Wednesday windows that sometimes get used). For all intents and purposes, the following windows exist:

Thursdays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Fridays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Saturdays - 4 windows (noon, 3:30, 7 ish, 10:30) with the exceptions for CBS' SEC games and NBC's Notre Dame games

That realistically means on a given week, the broadcast capacity is as follows:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 1
Fox - 3
ABC - 3
ESPN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS1 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)

So, at capacity, there are 88 games that could be broadcast on these networks in any given week. There are some obvious limitations - the Pac-12 Network would rarely if ever use that noon slot on a Saturday, and most conferences east of the Rockies would be unlikely to use those late night slots, but the capacity is there.

Once the conference part of the schedule kicks in (typically the last 2/3 of the season with a few exceptions), the following tend to be the limits for each conference:

SEC - 7 games
ACC - 7 games
B1G - 7 games
Big XII - 5 games
Pac-12 6 games

That accounts for 32 of the 88 slots, so there's clearly a pretty big need for additional inventory. Not all of it has to be football, but through a variety of reasons, we know that football draws more eyeballs than many of the other options. So the fact that the AAC games are drawing better ratings than most of the other G5 teams would certainly suggest that there's value there.

USFFan

ESPN/2/U do not show 24 college football games each week. Also, SEC and PAC Networks do not broadcast 16 games each week. Lots of replays. And, NBC only shows Notre Dame home games (about one every other week) and FOX rarely broadcasts 3 games on a Saturday.

So, there is some overstatement of the inventory slots. Probably more like this:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 0 or 1
Fox - 1 or 2
ABC - 2 or 3
ESPN - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
FS1 - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
B1G Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)

So, that means in a given week, there are likely to be about 40-65 broadcast timeslots. So, in some weeks, there might only be 8-10 timeslots available outside of the 32 provided by the P5. Even in a great week where there might be 30-35 timeslots available, half of those are for ESPNNews, CBSSN, and FS2 and the bulk of the ESPN/2/U or FS1 availability is likely Thursday and Friday.

For sure, the AAC brings good ratings and a nice value proposition...but, you're looking at a handful of timeslots on ESPN/2/U or FS1 each week...if you're lucky.

EDIT: Added B1G Network, so a couple more potential timeslots for college football....but mostly replays.

(02-07-2019 04:24 PM)YNot Wrote:  ESPN/2/U do not show 24 college football games each week. Also, SEC and PAC Networks do not broadcast 16 games each week. Lots of replays. And, NBC only shows Notre Dame home games (about one every other week) and FOX rarely broadcasts 3 games on a Saturday.

So, there is some overstatement of the inventory slots. Probably more like this:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 0 or 1
Fox - 1 or 2
ABC - 2 or 3
ESPN - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
FS1 - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 5-8 (1 or 2 on Thursday, 1 or 2 on Friday, 3-4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 2-5 (0 or 1 on Thursday, 0 or 1 on Friday, 2-3 on Saturday)

So, that means in a given week, there are likely to be about 40-65 broadcast timeslots. So, in some weeks, there might only be 8-10 timeslots available outside of the 32 provided by the P5. Even in a great week where there might be 30-35 timeslots available, half of those are for ESPNNews, CBSSN, and FS2.

For sure, the AAC brings good ratings and a nice value proposition...but, you're looking at a handful of timeslots on ESPN/2/U or FS1 each week...if you're lucky.

To be sure, I just showed capacity, not what is currently occupied. But the point remains, there's not some "surplus" of P5 games out there, and there is a market for the AAC games.

And, of course, it doesn't rule out the prospects of somebody else getting into the game, like a Turner, or NBC deciding to get in at a bigger level. I don't expect either to break the bank for the AAC this round, I would expect them to keep their powder dry to make a run at the SEC or B1G. But it could open the door to additional capacity.

I just think some of the efforts in this thread to downplay the AAC rights are unrealistic.

USFFan

(02-07-2019 04:29 PM)usffan Wrote:  I just think some of the efforts in this thread to downplay the AAC rights are unrealistic.

USFFan

I think the AAC rights do have decent value, that's one reason I think ESPN and the AAC are likely to close a deal within this 30 day window, at least for a part of the rights. If not, then as I said, that makes me more pessimistic.

At the end of the day, I'm still predicting around $8m per school when you add it all up.

Whether that will make the members happy, I just don't know.

(02-07-2019 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 04:29 PM)usffan Wrote:  I just think some of the efforts in this thread to downplay the AAC rights are unrealistic.

USFFan

I think the AAC rights do have decent value, that's one reason I think ESPN and the AAC are likely to close a deal within this 30 day window, at least for a part of the rights. If not, then as I said, that makes me more pessimistic.

At the end of the day, I'm still predicting around $8m per school when you add it all up.

Whether that will make the members happy, I just don't know.

I think, if we're being honest, there's no realistic number that will make all of the members happy.

USFFan

(02-07-2019 06:41 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 04:29 PM)usffan Wrote:  I just think some of the efforts in this thread to downplay the AAC rights are unrealistic.

USFFan

I think the AAC rights do have decent value, that's one reason I think ESPN and the AAC are likely to close a deal within this 30 day window, at least for a part of the rights. If not, then as I said, that makes me more pessimistic.

At the end of the day, I'm still predicting around $8m per school when you add it all up.

Whether that will make the members happy, I just don't know.

I think, if we're being honest, there's no realistic number that will make all of the members happy.

USFFan

Yeah, that's true. As a Bulls supporter, I am hoping for a raise that at least covers what we had been getting from the Big East legacy money, plus a nice bump on top of that. No harm in hoping ...

(02-06-2019 10:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 09:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:55 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 04:52 PM)usffan Wrote:  There are way too many moving parts for this to be as simple as people are making it out to be. Remember, the AAC has a deal with CBS as well that allows some of their live events (including, but not exclusive to, football and basketball). Plus, I'm sure there are discussions about numbers of games required to be carried on the air instead of on ESPN+ (and the compensation that goes with that, since ESPN is trying to build that platform). Furthermore, there's the sublicensing issue - what compensation could/should the conference expect if/when ESPN looks to sublicense rights to certain games to other outlets?

In 2012, there was a thought that NBC was trying to become a player in what was perceived to be the value of airing live sports. We now know that NBC really never got into that game, and Fox has only entered it in a limited capacity, since FS1 never really became a true ESPN competitor. Nobody really expects that to be the case in 2019.

USFFan

Never? Well they aren't done and no one expected them to be at ESPNs level by now. I think they are doing quite well seeing all the content they have gathered. They have taken the step as becoming a place people look for live sports.

But it's now pretty clear they're never going to be able to do what ESPN was able to do, charge 100M subscribers $6-7-8 a month. That was the end goal, that was the reason that Murdoch was willing to see Fox lay out big money for sports properties, whether or not they were profitable propositions on their own.

So now the calculus for Fox buying sports rights is very different. (And Comcast's dreams of doing the same thing with NBC-SN are equally shot)

But the goal wasn't to be what ESPN was because thats unrealistic since they have had a 30+ year head start and a monopoly.

The goal was to be a "baby ESPN", pulling in $2, 3, 5 a month for FS1. That's the goal that's now out of reach, with cord-cutting eating into ESPN's revenues.

Quote:They can and are making money which is the goal and are growing every year. You think they are going to give up because they can never be the behemoth ESPN once was?

Umm, yeah?

The business strategy was to possibly lose money in the short or medium term, in order to build a multibillion dollar business in the long term. That's what they did with the Fox network and the NFC package. Fox didn't make money on the NFC package--but the NFC package made them a "real live boy" network, not a fly-by-night operation like UPN or the WB or CW.

(I'm not saying that Fox will dump FS1, but they're not going to sink hundreds of millions into sports rights to build up FS1. Fox Sports contracts will have to be justified by ad revenues on Fox OTA and FS1, not by hoping to increase FS1 per month subscriber fees)

Quote:They can be very successful being the Pepsi to ESPN's Coke.

But truth be told, Coca-Cola has won the cola war. Coke controls 42% of the total carbonated soft drink market, compared with Pepsi's 30%, according to Beverage Digest.

Coke Has Won -- But Does It Matter For Investors?
Despite Coke's clear victory, I expect this will have little relevance going forward for investors.

Due to changing tastes and a healthier consumer, both cola brands have been in decline. Research firm IbisWorld has forecast that per-capita soda consumption's downward trend will continue with no end in sight. No matter how much money is spent on clever marketing, the overwhelming secular trend against sugary, calorie-filled carbonated beverages cannot be reversed.https://www.nasdaq.com/article/coke-vs-p...s-cm337909

After reading that, would you sign off on a business plan to lose billions of dollars over 10 years to BECOME Pepsi?

They already have sunk millions into TV rights on major properties. You took an analogy literally and tried to sound smart in the process. The execs at Pepsico are doing just fine in second place. FS1 will do the same. Just like ESPN Coke had a huge head start and no one will ever overtake them. That doesn't mean others can't make money in the same field and Fox has been doing just fine with FS1. They are a legit alternative channel to watch sports. This isn't NBCsports, CBSsports or early days of ESPN airing whatever they can get their hands on. MLB, B1G, Big XII, Big East, World Cup and WWE. Oh and they are still in the short term. It's year 5, in the TV world thats short term.

To be honest, I think $10 million per school is realistic, but I think it has to be the right network under the right package. I don't think the AAC is worth that in a vacuum, however, so the question any network will ask is what can you do for me?

In my estimation, the prime value a league like the AAC would have to ESPN would be in games available for Thursday and Friday nights. By and large, Power leagues don't like to play on those nights. Several years ago, the equation was a little different, but it appears NFL football on Thursday nights is not going away. ESPN will still want to show a game or two on that night, but don't bet on FOX being willing to spend for a product to compete with their TNF package.

On Friday nights, you're a little more likely to get a Power school to show up, but most of those schools are still in a position of strength and so they concern themselves a little more with alumni and the fan experience of playing on Saturdays even if it means they don't always get prime billing on ESPN. This is where the "association factor" that some were discussing earlier comes in.

ESPN also has the most slots to fill on a Saturday. Their numerous channels need a reasonable amount of content each week. Actually, they'll have even more this season with the ACC Network coming on line. Throw in a need for ESPN+ subscribers at that. So in a roundabout way, ESPN does need AAC content. They just don't need it as much as Power content.

If I was the AAC then I would steer clear of CBS. CBS Sports Network is almost invisible. They have no real heavy hitters to draw viewers to the platform so it's not a great option. I don't see NBC caring enough to make a serious offer. They've made no real commitment to college sports outside of Notre Dame and that's a unique product. All in all, they seem to have dedicated themselves to niche sports most of which are based internationally.

With FOX, you might have opportunities for Saturday games in decent time slots even though the viewership numbers would be down compared to ESPN. I just don't see a lot of upside to a FOX deal though unless they happen to be willing to pony up.

The only wildcard I see is Turner. It's a decent platform and they have plenty of time slots to dedicate. Their foray into Champions League makes me think they want to expand their portfolio. Recently, they've been beefing up their B/R Live platform and that's interesting, but it's probably better to be on ESPN+ if one is concerned with digital distribution.

All in all, I don't think being exclusive with ESPN in the current environment is a bad idea. For one, I don't think anyone is going to commit to a long term contract because major realignment could be happening in as little as 5 years.

Going exclusive would mean some games on ESPN+, but right now the AAC needs the money. The ability to choose whatever game they want for whatever time slot they want would be worth a good bit to ESPN. So splitting the rights could actually be a detriment to the contract value because a network like ESPN can't count on a large number of organic and dedicated viewers to buoy the ratings. What they need is the ability to go with the hot hand, so to speak. That and to utilize time slots that others don't.

If the AAC is willing to be flexible on their time slots, play weeknights, and move a game or two to ESPN+ then ESPN would provide the most use out of the content and that's especially true for basketball season.

I hope the AAC gets 10-12 million.

I think ESPN will set it up with an all or nothing deal and I think the AAC will accept it because it will give them a few games on ABC. ESPN is pushing their + platform and needs as many captive conferences it can get.
I see an increase to 5-7 million from ESPN with a long term deal of 10 years. If the AAC rejects ESPN then I see the AAC getting 3-5 million/school with various networks.
I think the homework is already done by Aresco and knows the ballpark value from other networks...it’s just a matter of a few issues to clear up and signing

(02-08-2019 08:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think ESPN will set it up with an all or nothing deal and I think the AAC will accept it because it will give them a few games on ABC. ESPN is pushing their + platform and needs as many captive conferences it can get.
I see an increase to 5-7 million from ESPN with a long term deal of 10 years. If the AAC rejects ESPN then I see the AAC getting 3-5 million/school with various networks.
I think the homework is already done by Aresco and knows the ballpark value from other networks...it’s just a matter of a few issues to clear up and signing

Yes, I think the biggest sticking point might be ESPN's desire to put more AAC games on the "plus" format, which Aresco will resist.

(02-08-2019 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 08:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think ESPN will set it up with an all or nothing deal and I think the AAC will accept it because it will give them a few games on ABC. ESPN is pushing their + platform and needs as many captive conferences it can get.
I see an increase to 5-7 million from ESPN with a long term deal of 10 years. If the AAC rejects ESPN then I see the AAC getting 3-5 million/school with various networks.
I think the homework is already done by Aresco and knows the ballpark value from other networks...it’s just a matter of a few issues to clear up and signing

Yes, I think the biggest sticking point might be ESPN's desire to put more AAC games on the "plus" format, which Aresco will resist.

What's the difference between ESPN3 and ESPN+?

(02-08-2019 09:38 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 08:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think ESPN will set it up with an all or nothing deal and I think the AAC will accept it because it will give them a few games on ABC. ESPN is pushing their + platform and needs as many captive conferences it can get.
I see an increase to 5-7 million from ESPN with a long term deal of 10 years. If the AAC rejects ESPN then I see the AAC getting 3-5 million/school with various networks.
I think the homework is already done by Aresco and knows the ballpark value from other networks...it’s just a matter of a few issues to clear up and signing

Yes, I think the biggest sticking point might be ESPN's desire to put more AAC games on the "plus" format, which Aresco will resist.

What's the difference between ESPN3 and ESPN+?

You have to pay extra for ESPN+

(02-08-2019 09:38 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 08:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I think ESPN will set it up with an all or nothing deal and I think the AAC will accept it because it will give them a few games on ABC. ESPN is pushing their + platform and needs as many captive conferences it can get.
I see an increase to 5-7 million from ESPN with a long term deal of 10 years. If the AAC rejects ESPN then I see the AAC getting 3-5 million/school with various networks.
I think the homework is already done by Aresco and knows the ballpark value from other networks...it’s just a matter of a few issues to clear up and signing

Yes, I think the biggest sticking point might be ESPN's desire to put more AAC games on the "plus" format, which Aresco will resist.

What's the difference between ESPN3 and ESPN+?

Basically what Clifton said, but to be a little more specific - ESPN3/WATCH is something you pay for through your internet provider, if they have an agreement to do so with ESPN (many do, some don't). You can also get it via XBOX Live, Sling, DISH, and Direct TV, which have deals with ESPN as well. In all these cases, the ISP pays ESPN for the ESPN3 service, but as a consumer you don't see that because it is rolled in to your internet bill.

In contrast, the only way to get PLUS is to directly pay the $5 a month fee that ESPN charges for it.

ESPN3 and PLUS are similar in that you don't need to have "cable TV" to get either. Many don't realize this about ESPN3, because they have cable and also get their internet from their cable provider, so they think it is part of their ESPN cable TV package, but it really isn't. Access to it is via your internet provider.

But you can't get PLUS the same way you get ESPN3, you have to pay that separate $5 direct fee to get it. Of course to justify this, ESPN is trying to put as much unique content on PLUS as it can, to induce people who already get the ESPN channels to pay extra for it. So another key difference is that the only way you can get some PLUS content is to buy PLUS, as this content is not available on ESPN3 **.

E.g., I have a cable TV package that is quite extensive, i get ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPN News, and ESPNU. And, since my cable provider, COX, is also my internet provider, and they have a ESPN3 deal with ESPN, I get ESPN3/WATCH as well.

But because I don't pay the $5 directly to ESPN specifically for PLUS, I do not get PLUS.

** This has pissed many of us long-time ESPN customers off, as it has become clear since the launching of PLUS that quite a few events that we used to get for "free" on WATCH/ESPN3 have now been shifted to PLUS, even though ESPN said they would be doing very little of this.

(02-07-2019 04:11 PM)usffan Wrote:  In light of this discussion, it should be possible to approximate the broadcast windows on a typical week (not counting the Tuesday/Wednesday windows that sometimes get used). For all intents and purposes, the following windows exist:

Thursdays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Fridays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Saturdays - 4 windows (noon, 3:30, 7 ish, 10:30) with the exceptions for CBS' SEC games and NBC's Notre Dame games

That realistically means on a given week, the broadcast capacity is as follows:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 1
Fox - 3
ABC - 3
ESPN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS1 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)

So, at capacity, there are 88 games that could be broadcast on these networks in any given week. There are some obvious limitations - the Pac-12 Network would rarely if ever use that noon slot on a Saturday, and most conferences east of the Rockies would be unlikely to use those late night slots, but the capacity is there.

Once the conference part of the schedule kicks in (typically the last 2/3 of the season with a few exceptions), the following tend to be the limits for each conference:

SEC - 7 games
ACC - 7 games
B1G - 7 games
Big XII - 5 games
Pac-12 6 games

That accounts for 32 of the 88 slots, so there's clearly a pretty big need for additional inventory. Not all of it has to be football, but through a variety of reasons, we know that football draws more eyeballs than many of the other options. So the fact that the AAC games are drawing better ratings than most of the other G5 teams would certainly suggest that there's value there.

USFFan

If every FBS vs FBS game were televised, they would require roughly 60 time slots per week (fewer in September).

(02-07-2019 04:11 PM)usffan Wrote:  In light of this discussion, it should be possible to approximate the broadcast windows on a typical week (not counting the Tuesday/Wednesday windows that sometimes get used). For all intents and purposes, the following windows exist:

Thursdays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Fridays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Saturdays - 4 windows (noon, 3:30, 7 ish, 10:30) with the exceptions for CBS' SEC games and NBC's Notre Dame games

That realistically means on a given week, the broadcast capacity is as follows:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 1
Fox - 3
ABC - 3
ESPN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS1 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)

So, at capacity, there are 88 games that could be broadcast on these networks in any given week. There are some obvious limitations - the Pac-12 Network would rarely if ever use that noon slot on a Saturday, and most conferences east of the Rockies would be unlikely to use those late night slots, but the capacity is there.

Once the conference part of the schedule kicks in (typically the last 2/3 of the season with a few exceptions), the following tend to be the limits for each conference:

SEC - 7 games
ACC - 7 games
B1G - 7 games
Big XII - 5 games
Pac-12 6 games

That accounts for 32 of the 88 slots, so there's clearly a pretty big need for additional inventory. Not all of it has to be football, but through a variety of reasons, we know that football draws more eyeballs than many of the other options. So the fact that the AAC games are drawing better ratings than most of the other G5 teams would certainly suggest that there's value there.

USFFan

"That realistically means on a given week, ..."

Careful how you use words 'fan. You call this realistic. I call it theoretical. Do you realistically envision TV networks trying to make money with a lineup of 88 games per week. If so, then why stop there. Because, theoretically, you could televise 250 or 300 games per week. You seem to think that if a game is on TV, the network is making money, If that's what you think, I suggest you start your own network and start buying media rights.

(02-08-2019 11:47 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 04:11 PM)usffan Wrote:  In light of this discussion, it should be possible to approximate the broadcast windows on a typical week (not counting the Tuesday/Wednesday windows that sometimes get used). For all intents and purposes, the following windows exist:

Thursdays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Fridays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Saturdays - 4 windows (noon, 3:30, 7 ish, 10:30) with the exceptions for CBS' SEC games and NBC's Notre Dame games

That realistically means on a given week, the broadcast capacity is as follows:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 1
Fox - 3
ABC - 3
ESPN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS1 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)

So, at capacity, there are 88 games that could be broadcast on these networks in any given week. There are some obvious limitations - the Pac-12 Network would rarely if ever use that noon slot on a Saturday, and most conferences east of the Rockies would be unlikely to use those late night slots, but the capacity is there.

Once the conference part of the schedule kicks in (typically the last 2/3 of the season with a few exceptions), the following tend to be the limits for each conference:

SEC - 7 games
ACC - 7 games
B1G - 7 games
Big XII - 5 games
Pac-12 6 games

That accounts for 32 of the 88 slots, so there's clearly a pretty big need for additional inventory. Not all of it has to be football, but through a variety of reasons, we know that football draws more eyeballs than many of the other options. So the fact that the AAC games are drawing better ratings than most of the other G5 teams would certainly suggest that there's value there.

USFFan

"That realistically means on a given week, ..."

Careful how you use words 'fan. You call this realistic. I call it theoretical. Do you realistically envision TV networks trying to make money with a lineup of 88 games per week. If so, then why stop there. Because, theoretically, you could televise 250 or 300 games per week. You seem to think that if a game is on TV, the network is making money, If that's what you think, I suggest you start your own network and start buying media rights.

Reading is fundamental. I said that the realistic capacity was for that number. I didn't say that they would actually do it.

Realistically, I have the capacity to eat 50 Hooters wings for lunch every day. That doesn't mean I'm likely to do it.

Again, it was there to refute that there was a surplus of P5 games limiting need for AAC games. I think there's plenty of evidence that this is not the case.

USFFan

(02-08-2019 12:08 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 11:47 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 04:11 PM)usffan Wrote:  In light of this discussion, it should be possible to approximate the broadcast windows on a typical week (not counting the Tuesday/Wednesday windows that sometimes get used). For all intents and purposes, the following windows exist:

Thursdays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Fridays - 2 windows (7 ish PM, 10:30 ish PM)
Saturdays - 4 windows (noon, 3:30, 7 ish, 10:30) with the exceptions for CBS' SEC games and NBC's Notre Dame games

That realistically means on a given week, the broadcast capacity is as follows:

CBS - 1 (exceptions where they have a night game)
NBC - 1
Fox - 3
ABC - 3
ESPN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPN2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNU - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ESPNNews - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS1 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
FS2 - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
CBSSN - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
SEC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
ACC Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)
Pac-12 Network - 8 (2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)

So, at capacity, there are 88 games that could be broadcast on these networks in any given week. There are some obvious limitations - the Pac-12 Network would rarely if ever use that noon slot on a Saturday, and most conferences east of the Rockies would be unlikely to use those late night slots, but the capacity is there.

Once the conference part of the schedule kicks in (typically the last 2/3 of the season with a few exceptions), the following tend to be the limits for each conference:

SEC - 7 games
ACC - 7 games
B1G - 7 games
Big XII - 5 games
Pac-12 6 games

That accounts for 32 of the 88 slots, so there's clearly a pretty big need for additional inventory. Not all of it has to be football, but through a variety of reasons, we know that football draws more eyeballs than many of the other options. So the fact that the AAC games are drawing better ratings than most of the other G5 teams would certainly suggest that there's value there.

USFFan

"That realistically means on a given week, ..."

Careful how you use words 'fan. You call this realistic. I call it theoretical. Do you realistically envision TV networks trying to make money with a lineup of 88 games per week. If so, then why stop there. Because, theoretically, you could televise 250 or 300 games per week. You seem to think that if a game is on TV, the network is making money, If that's what you think, I suggest you start your own network and start buying media rights.

Reading is fundamental. I said that the realistic capacity was for that number. I didn't say that they would actually do it.

Realistically, I have the capacity to eat 50 Hooters wings for lunch every day. That doesn't mean I'm likely to do it.

Again, it was there to refute that there was a surplus of P5 games limiting need for AAC games. I think there's plenty of evidence that this is not the case.

USFFan

Exactly. There is no treasure trove of un-televised P5 games just lying around waiting to be scooped up.

The sheer number of game sis more than will be consumed.

The average college fan likes their school and maybe top 40 vs top 40 games. They will consume 4 a week, 6 if they are nutty. With rare exception top 40 vs top 40 are P5 vs P5 games.

The value of the others is much lower. Sure the AAC has the last couple of years had 3 or 4 compelling games. But they have far more Memphis vs Tulsa, ECU vs SMU, Tulane vs USF that nobody cares about anymore than EMU vs Kent or SJSU vs New Mexico.

The best the AAC can do is package maybe one game a week of potential value. The question is, do the networks care? A big problem the AAC has is they compete with the SEC, ACC, B12 and B1G for eastern and central time zone slots. Their best game is going to be going head to head with Alabama vs Tennessee, Ohio State vs Michigan State, Oklahoma vs West Virginia, Clemson vs Virginia Tech, Wisconsin vs Iowa, South Carolina vs Georgia, Florida State vs North Carolina, or similar set of games at any given time slot.

The best package the AAC could come up with is probably Friday Night football with their best match up of the week. That might have some value. ESPN has MLB playoffs in October (why MACtion is November), so useful weeknight slots are not available. Still niche slot packaging is the best hope to get more than a G5+ contract. Lost of Friday Night games for teams with strong rankings or records.

How much would the best AAC game each week as a stand alone package be worth to NBC or CBS? Both of those networks have timeslots available on their flagship OTA channels and getting those timeslots would be ideal for AAC visibility.