(06-26-2019 07:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:16 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  It’s an expensive proposition that could lead to spending $100,000 on a camera platform or $1 million to run fiber-optic connections from a school’s venues to the control rooms.

Which is what I said ... a lot of these costs are capital costs, like both of those examples, not operating costs. It may cost $1m to run fiber-optic connections from a venue to the control rooms ... but you don't have to do that annually, you have to do that once, so on an annual basis over the life of the contract it's substantially less than $1m.

So getting to a value of a "$2m annual cost" would involve, (1) the annual operating cost, plus (2) a much larger capital cost that has been annualized to a certain amount over the life of the contract.

I don't think it's likely that any infrastructure upgrade UConn would require under the AAC contract would be on the upper end of the range, so I don't think it's likely that the high end of estimates of support costs for the streams applies to UConn.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at the other day. I couldn’t find a way to get to $2M annual cost for what’s required looking at what other schools are doing on plus. If the cost really is $2M per year, you’d hear moaning from MAC, CUSA, SBC, IVY... If those conference schools can produce events meeting ESPN plus standards for much less than $2M per year, then so can AAC schools...unless they’re just really bad at it.

(06-25-2019 02:30 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  It's definitely more than 200k a year. You need FREE STUDENT LABOR to staff cameras, set up equipment, tear down, work the stat booth, broadcast the game, etc. Even a small scale production is going to need at least 3 or 4 salaried individuals to do it - football & basketball could easily have dozens of people. Maybe some are low paid students, but with the price of the cameras there will be at least a few full time salaried employees on a broadcast.

Fixed that for you.

(06-26-2019 07:16 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco did say production quality would have to be upgraded, which could be costly. The schools are obligated to provide an ESPN-level production.

I suspect at many G5 schools, the existing 'in house' production is of public access cable quality. But two mass-com majors wielding steady-cams for internship credit won't cut it.

But the capital costs of the upgrade don't have to be paid every year ... only the operating costs. So there's a wide range of financial impacts depending upon the qualify of the broadcast infrastructure already in place. I'm thinking "as much as $2m" is more like the worst case, and for a BBall focused school with a third tier broadcast deal in the range of a million, it's not likely that UConn is anywhere near the worst case for required upgrade costs.

The reduction in travel costs is likely to be a much bigger financial increment. Half of the Big East is closer than the second closest all-sports AAC member, four of the AAC schools are farther than the longest Big East trip.

I realize that AAC will not have their own linear channel, they will have a branded digital channel... But if you look at what the SEC had to spend for their production, the cost and what the ACC had to spend for the ACCN. The $2M per AAC school and farming out Raycom for the Title games sound like a real bargin. The final cost could be higher! But their are two ways to do it. First the SEC way where they spread the cost over multiple years and then the ACC where they are fronting the total cost at teh start. It would appear the way your Commish is speaking is that the AAC will do it over multiple years like the SEC did... The 2M is a steal... IMHO

From articles:
It’s an expensive proposition that could lead to spending $100,000 on a camera platform or $1 million to run fiber-optic connections from a school’s venues to the control rooms.

Some schools have greater infrastructure needs, which leads to more construction costs to retrofit spaces or build new buildings. Those dollars add up, especially given the ACC’s commitment to have it all ready by launch. Many SEC schools built up their production capabilities after launch.

A year ago, Virginia Tech was expecting to spend $5 million to $7 million to prepare for the ACC Network’s demands. The final budget came in at $10 million.

ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards. In the most crude cases, an SEC school produced games for the digital platform using a single camera combined with the school’s radio broadcast or a Flypack mobile unit if a control room wasn’t available.


For SEC games going on the linear channel, ESPN brought in its own production truck. Over time, SEC schools have raised their standards, which has allowed them to spread the costs for equipment over several years. But the ACC’s goal at launch is to have every school prepared to produce multiple live events at linear-TV quality at the same time.



Link
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

You buried the lead. From your own post—-


That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards.

So now we know costs are less than a million. We now know digital production standards are far less costly than linear standards. Given that FCS schools with no budget at all to speak of have been carrying theses production costs for years on ESPN3—-my guess is it’s somewhere around the 300-400K annually once the intial infrastructure costs are sunk.

(06-26-2019 01:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco did say production quality would have to be upgraded, which could be costly. The schools are obligated to provide an ESPN-level production.

I suspect at many G5 schools, the existing 'in house' production is of public access cable quality. But two mass-com majors wielding steady-cams for internship credit won't cut it.

But the capital costs of the upgrade don't have to be paid every year ... only the operating costs. So there's a wide range of financial impacts depending upon the qualify of the broadcast infrastructure already in place. I'm thinking "as much as $2m" is more like the worst case, and for a BBall focused school with a third tier broadcast deal in the range of a million, it's not likely that UConn is anywhere near the worst case for required upgrade costs.

The reduction in travel costs is likely to be a much bigger financial increment. Half of the Big East is closer than the second closest all-sports AAC member, four of the AAC schools are farther than the longest Big East trip.

No doubt there will be a travel cost savings. I suspect it will be about a million in savings. CUSA is roughly about as spread out as the AAC. The CAA is even more compact than the Big East. When ODU moved from the CAA to CUSA they said their travel costs went up by about a million. That’s probably roughly equal to (or more than) the savings UConn will see.

(06-26-2019 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:16 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco did say production quality would have to be upgraded, which could be costly. The schools are obligated to provide an ESPN-level production.

I suspect at many G5 schools, the existing 'in house' production is of public access cable quality. But two mass-com majors wielding steady-cams for internship credit won't cut it.

But the capital costs of the upgrade don't have to be paid every year ... only the operating costs. So there's a wide range of financial impacts depending upon the qualify of the broadcast infrastructure already in place. I'm thinking "as much as $2m" is more like the worst case, and for a BBall focused school with a third tier broadcast deal in the range of a million, it's not likely that UConn is anywhere near the worst case for required upgrade costs.

The reduction in travel costs is likely to be a much bigger financial increment. Half of the Big East is closer than the second closest all-sports AAC member, four of the AAC schools are farther than the longest Big East trip.

I realize that AAC will not have their own linear channel, they will have a branded digital channel... But if you look at what the SEC had to spend for their production, the cost and what the ACC had to spend for the ACCN. The $2M per AAC school and farming out Raycom for the Title games sound like a real bargin. The final cost could be higher! But their are two ways to do it. First the SEC way where they spread the cost over multiple years and then the ACC where they are fronting the total cost at teh start. It would appear the way your Commish is speaking is that the AAC will do it over multiple years like the SEC did... The 2M is a steal... IMHO

From articles:
It’s an expensive proposition that could lead to spending $100,000 on a camera platform or $1 million to run fiber-optic connections from a school’s venues to the control rooms.

Some schools have greater infrastructure needs, which leads to more construction costs to retrofit spaces or build new buildings. Those dollars add up, especially given the ACC’s commitment to have it all ready by launch. Many SEC schools built up their production capabilities after launch.

A year ago, Virginia Tech was expecting to spend $5 million to $7 million to prepare for the ACC Network’s demands. The final budget came in at $10 million.

ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards. In the most crude cases, an SEC school produced games for the digital platform using a single camera combined with the school’s radio broadcast or a Flypack mobile unit if a control room wasn’t available.


For SEC games going on the linear channel, ESPN brought in its own production truck. Over time, SEC schools have raised their standards, which has allowed them to spread the costs for equipment over several years. But the ACC’s goal at launch is to have every school prepared to produce multiple live events at linear-TV quality at the same time.



Link
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

You buried the lead. From your own post—-


That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards.

So now we know costs are less than a million. We now know digital production standards are far less costly than linear standards. Given that FCS schools with no budget at all to speak of have been carrying theses production costs for years on ESPN3—-my guess is it’s somewhere around the 300-400K annually once the intial infrastructure costs are sunk.

Ok... I can go with an avg of 400K per school per year... (I wonder if that cost will rise, or just stay around the same mark) (Also I am not so sure everyone is at the level in the AAC, I mean look at Arkansas, an SEC School, had to spend 7M just to be able to meet the ESPN "Digital Broadcast requirements")

Then how much will all the schools have to pay for the Championships that will be produced for ESPN+ (RaycomSports) ... Lets say that is 500K per school per year!! Does that cost stay the same over the course of the 12 years or will it go up??

Either way a grand total of 900K per year ... is less then the 2M in the article and if each school will get 6.94M (before Uconn left who knows what now) they would clear 6M... Not to shabby....

(06-26-2019 07:14 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:16 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco did say production quality would have to be upgraded, which could be costly. The schools are obligated to provide an ESPN-level production.

I suspect at many G5 schools, the existing 'in house' production is of public access cable quality. But two mass-com majors wielding steady-cams for internship credit won't cut it.

But the capital costs of the upgrade don't have to be paid every year ... only the operating costs. So there's a wide range of financial impacts depending upon the qualify of the broadcast infrastructure already in place. I'm thinking "as much as $2m" is more like the worst case, and for a BBall focused school with a third tier broadcast deal in the range of a million, it's not likely that UConn is anywhere near the worst case for required upgrade costs.

The reduction in travel costs is likely to be a much bigger financial increment. Half of the Big East is closer than the second closest all-sports AAC member, four of the AAC schools are farther than the longest Big East trip.

I realize that AAC will not have their own linear channel, they will have a branded digital channel... But if you look at what the SEC had to spend for their production, the cost and what the ACC had to spend for the ACCN. The $2M per AAC school and farming out Raycom for the Title games sound like a real bargin. The final cost could be higher! But their are two ways to do it. First the SEC way where they spread the cost over multiple years and then the ACC where they are fronting the total cost at teh start. It would appear the way your Commish is speaking is that the AAC will do it over multiple years like the SEC did... The 2M is a steal... IMHO

From articles:
It’s an expensive proposition that could lead to spending $100,000 on a camera platform or $1 million to run fiber-optic connections from a school’s venues to the control rooms.

Some schools have greater infrastructure needs, which leads to more construction costs to retrofit spaces or build new buildings. Those dollars add up, especially given the ACC’s commitment to have it all ready by launch. Many SEC schools built up their production capabilities after launch.

A year ago, Virginia Tech was expecting to spend $5 million to $7 million to prepare for the ACC Network’s demands. The final budget came in at $10 million.

ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards. In the most crude cases, an SEC school produced games for the digital platform using a single camera combined with the school’s radio broadcast or a Flypack mobile unit if a control room wasn’t available.


For SEC games going on the linear channel, ESPN brought in its own production truck. Over time, SEC schools have raised their standards, which has allowed them to spread the costs for equipment over several years. But the ACC’s goal at launch is to have every school prepared to produce multiple live events at linear-TV quality at the same time.



Link
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

You buried the lead. From your own post—-


That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards.

So now we know costs are less than a million. We now know digital production standards are far less costly than linear standards. Given that FCS schools with no budget at all to speak of have been carrying theses production costs for years on ESPN3—-my guess is it’s somewhere around the 300-400K annually once the intial infrastructure costs are sunk.

Ok... I can go with an avg of 400K per school per year... (I wonder if that cost will rise, or just stay around the same mark) (Also I am not so sure everyone is at the level in the AAC, I mean look at Arkansas, an SEC School, had to spend 7M just to be able to meet the ESPN "Digital Broadcast requirements")

Then how much will all the schools have to pay for the Championships that will be produced for ESPN+ (RaycomSports) ... Lets say that is 500K per school per year!! Does that cost stay the same over the course of the 12 years or will it go up??

Either way a grand total of 900K per year ... is less then the 2M in the article and if each school will get 6.94M (before Uconn left who knows what now) they would clear 6M... Not to shabby....

Again---you have schools doing every single FCS game and basketball game for $400K. Having Raycom do your FB games would be expensive---or is it? How much of the Raycom cost is connected to providing and shipping in the equipment, bringing in and housing a crew to set up the equipment and do the cabling--and then bringing in the actual game day production crew and housing them. Then there are tear down costs and the cost to bring the crews home. But if the equipment is already there and installed---and the broadcast team team is already there and lives in that city--and there is no tear down or equipment shipping cost----it might not really be all that expensive. Basically---your bringing in multiple camera operators and a director. You might even use your own tech staff and board engineers.

“That’s what blew me away,” SDSU’s Wicker says, “that 13 years from now they’re still only going to be getting $7 million per school, knowing what things cost today and what they might cost in 13 years. I would be surprised if we got locked into something like that. I think that’s too long.”


San Diego State U. How much are they getting with their contract? I am sure they will be paid more later.

(06-26-2019 08:11 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  “That’s what blew me away,” SDSU’s Wicker says, “that 13 years from now they’re still only going to be getting $7 million per school, knowing what things cost today and what they might cost in 13 years. I would be surprised if we got locked into something like that. I think that’s too long.”


San Diego State U. How much are they getting with their contract? I am sure they will be paid more later.

lol....Isnt the MW the league at the end of a 12 year deal? Of course, that's also the league that found out the hard way why G5 leagues with low population footprints dont have conference networks on cable. Why is it always the guys who do it wrong that are the biggest critics?

(06-25-2019 12:25 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I saw a Dennis Dodd tweet that the Big East TV deal will be bumped up to approx. $6M per school with the addition of UConn. He has since deleted it, so not sure if that figure is accurate. If so, UConn should have no problem increasing our TV revenue beyond the new AAC deal with ESPN.

Sure, but... $6M total - $4M for UConn's share = $2M to share among the whole Big East; $2M / 10 teams = $200,000 "bump".

(06-26-2019 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:14 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:16 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 01:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But the capital costs of the upgrade don't have to be paid every year ... only the operating costs. So there's a wide range of financial impacts depending upon the qualify of the broadcast infrastructure already in place. I'm thinking "as much as $2m" is more like the worst case, and for a BBall focused school with a third tier broadcast deal in the range of a million, it's not likely that UConn is anywhere near the worst case for required upgrade costs.

The reduction in travel costs is likely to be a much bigger financial increment. Half of the Big East is closer than the second closest all-sports AAC member, four of the AAC schools are farther than the longest Big East trip.

I realize that AAC will not have their own linear channel, they will have a branded digital channel... But if you look at what the SEC had to spend for their production, the cost and what the ACC had to spend for the ACCN. The $2M per AAC school and farming out Raycom for the Title games sound like a real bargin. The final cost could be higher! But their are two ways to do it. First the SEC way where they spread the cost over multiple years and then the ACC where they are fronting the total cost at teh start. It would appear the way your Commish is speaking is that the AAC will do it over multiple years like the SEC did... The 2M is a steal... IMHO

From articles:
It’s an expensive proposition that could lead to spending $100,000 on a camera platform or $1 million to run fiber-optic connections from a school’s venues to the control rooms.

Some schools have greater infrastructure needs, which leads to more construction costs to retrofit spaces or build new buildings. Those dollars add up, especially given the ACC’s commitment to have it all ready by launch. Many SEC schools built up their production capabilities after launch.

A year ago, Virginia Tech was expecting to spend $5 million to $7 million to prepare for the ACC Network’s demands. The final budget came in at $10 million.

ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards. In the most crude cases, an SEC school produced games for the digital platform using a single camera combined with the school’s radio broadcast or a Flypack mobile unit if a control room wasn’t available.


For SEC games going on the linear channel, ESPN brought in its own production truck. Over time, SEC schools have raised their standards, which has allowed them to spread the costs for equipment over several years. But the ACC’s goal at launch is to have every school prepared to produce multiple live events at linear-TV quality at the same time.



Link
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

You buried the lead. From your own post—-


That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards.

So now we know costs are less than a million. We now know digital production standards are far less costly than linear standards. Given that FCS schools with no budget at all to speak of have been carrying theses production costs for years on ESPN3—-my guess is it’s somewhere around the 300-400K annually once the intial infrastructure costs are sunk.

Ok... I can go with an avg of 400K per school per year... (I wonder if that cost will rise, or just stay around the same mark) (Also I am not so sure everyone is at the level in the AAC, I mean look at Arkansas, an SEC School, had to spend 7M just to be able to meet the ESPN "Digital Broadcast requirements")

Then how much will all the schools have to pay for the Championships that will be produced for ESPN+ (RaycomSports) ... Lets say that is 500K per school per year!! Does that cost stay the same over the course of the 12 years or will it go up??

Either way a grand total of 900K per year ... is less then the 2M in the article and if each school will get 6.94M (before Uconn left who knows what now) they would clear 6M... Not to shabby....

Again---you have schools doing every single FCS game and basketball game for $400K. Having Raycom do your FB games would be expensive---or is it? How much of the Raycom cost is connected to providing and shipping in the equipment, bringing in and housing a crew to set up the equipment and do the cabling--and then bringing in the actual game day production crew and housing them. Then there are tear down costs and the cost to bring the crews home. But if the equipment is already there and installed---and the broadcast team team is already there and lives in that city--and there is no tear down or equipment shipping cost----it might not really be all that expensive. Basically---your bringing in multiple camera operators and a director. You might even use your own tech staff and board engineers.

Well I guess that is the biggest question what is the requirment for a ESPN+ branded Network over ESPN3... Clearly if you look at the SEC Schools some like Florida already had production capabilities to meet ESPN Digital Network requirements and spent less than 1M while Arkansas had to spend 7M. They do not have to pay for Raycom to come and produce their games since they have the SECN.

So the million dollar question is are more AAC schools like Florida or Arkansas. My guess is Arkansas....

Second will the AAC decide invest more $$ not to farm out to their title games to Raycom and invest in Production upgrades to produce those games?

For example some AAC folks are upset over a 2M cost... Well if each AAC team has to pay Raycom 500K a year to produce title games for ESPN+ that comes to 6M per team over 12 years.... That is still cheaper then Arkansas 7M cost... It will be interesting!

I seriously doubt production costs are in the millions. The SBC, CUSA, and MAC's TV annual TV money per school is in the mid 6 figures and they're not going to take a net loss of $1 million a year to play week nights on ESPN2.

Also, the article seems to be implying that UConn was planning on the TV money paying the bills, and I'm pretty almost certain that's not the case and that the AAC is getting about the amount of money they're expecting.

(06-27-2019 08:15 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I seriously doubt production costs are in the millions. The SBC, CUSA, and MAC's TV annual TV money per school is in the mid 6 figures and they're not going to take a net loss of $1 million a year to play week nights on ESPN2.

Also, the article seems to be implying that UConn was planning on the TV money paying the bills, and I'm pretty almost certain that's not the case and that the AAC is getting about the amount of money they're expecting.

Ok... I think we need to first understand what the AAC got... They are not producing ESPN 3 quality games. They have basically been given the next digital network much like the SEC and ACC digital networks. the new AAC Digital brand on ESPN + is an upgrade over FCS and other G5 streams. For example many of the SEC schools (Not florida but surely Arkansas who had to spend 7M) came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. (Think ESPN3/quality) FYI- One of the things the ACC keeps hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something. (Why do I bring this up with SEC and ACC...Becuase 2M total per year to produce in-house and pay Raycom Sports to produce title games for ESPN+ games might not be that far off...only time will tell)

If you are saying that a ESPN 3 or basic stream to a PC that is lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. cost 200K - 400K per school per year to produce.. Then how much more will it cost AAC schools for their "responsible for on-campus production costs, to include Raycom Sports and the deal is for the next 12 years.

To say there will be no cost to member school becuase FCS schools can stream their games and to say that the AAC is alreay able to meet the ESPN + Digital Channel mandate of a new digital AAC Brand...well.. is foolish... To say that UCONN will make less money with the BIG East is just plan Stupid!


Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

It’s also worth noting that one big issue UConn had with the AAC Tv deal was the loss of income from selling third tier women’s basketball rights to SNY. With the UConn contract with the Big East now available, we now know UConn also signed away their rights to ALL varsity athletics and club sports to the Big East Conference. The only media rights UConn retains are local radio rights. Therefore, just like in the AAC, there will be no extra money coming from the sale of Olympic sports rights to SNY other than football—which is not controlled by this deal.

(06-27-2019 08:40 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 08:15 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I seriously doubt production costs are in the millions. The SBC, CUSA, and MAC's TV annual TV money per school is in the mid 6 figures and they're not going to take a net loss of $1 million a year to play week nights on ESPN2.

Also, the article seems to be implying that UConn was planning on the TV money paying the bills, and I'm pretty almost certain that's not the case and that the AAC is getting about the amount of money they're expecting.

Ok... I think we need to first understand what the AAC got... They are not producing ESPN 3 quality games. They have basically been given the next digital network much like the SEC and ACC digital networks. the new AAC Digital brand on ESPN + is an upgrade over FCS and other G5 streams. For example many of the SEC schools (Not florida but surely Arkansas who had to spend 7M) came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. (Think ESPN3/quality) FYI- One of the things the ACC keeps hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something. (Why do I bring this up with SEC and ACC...Becuase 2M total per year to produce in-house and pay Raycom Sports to produce title games for ESPN+ games might not be that far off...only time will tell)

If you are saying that a ESPN 3 or basic stream to a PC that is lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. cost 200K - 400K per school per year to produce.. Then how much more will it cost AAC schools for their "responsible for on-campus production costs, to include Raycom Sports and the deal is for the next 12 years.

To say there will be no cost to member school becuase FCS schools can stream their games and to say that the AAC is alreay able to meet the ESPN + Digital Channel mandate of a new digital AAC Brand...well.. is foolish... To say that UCONN will make less money with the BIG East is just plan Stupid!


Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

I guess this is where the disconnect is coming from for me anyway. Why would the AAC be held to a higher standard than other conferences producing events for plus. The standard is the standard, no? Also, Aresco said the American Digital Network is being folded into plus and those employees and productions will continue on and shown on that platform instead of the ADN...business as usual. In other words, championships that are already being produced and distributed on the ADN will now go to plus. Farming out full production instead partial will be an incremental cost for sure. The conference isn’t starting from scratch in that regard (and based on reports from member schools) neither is anyone else...though it stands to reason some are further along than others. I haven’t seen anyone say $0 will be involved, just no where close to $2M which has been corroborated by multiple ADs who should know what it entails.

(06-27-2019 08:40 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 08:15 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I seriously doubt production costs are in the millions. The SBC, CUSA, and MAC's TV annual TV money per school is in the mid 6 figures and they're not going to take a net loss of $1 million a year to play week nights on ESPN2.

Also, the article seems to be implying that UConn was planning on the TV money paying the bills, and I'm pretty almost certain that's not the case and that the AAC is getting about the amount of money they're expecting.

Ok... I think we need to first understand what the AAC got... They are not producing ESPN 3 quality games. They have basically been given the next digital network much like the SEC and ACC digital networks. the new AAC Digital brand on ESPN + is an upgrade over FCS and other G5 streams. For example many of the SEC schools (Not florida but surely Arkansas who had to spend 7M) came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. (Think ESPN3/quality) FYI- One of the things the ACC keeps hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something. (Why do I bring this up with SEC and ACC...Becuase 2M total per year to produce in-house and pay Raycom Sports to produce title games for ESPN+ games might not be that far off...only time will tell)

If you are saying that a ESPN 3 or basic stream to a PC that is lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. cost 200K - 400K per school per year to produce.. Then how much more will it cost AAC schools for their "responsible for on-campus production costs, to include Raycom Sports and the deal is for the next 12 years.

To say there will be no cost to member school becuase FCS schools can stream their games and to say that the AAC is alreay able to meet the ESPN + Digital Channel mandate of a new digital AAC Brand...well.. is foolish... To say that UCONN will make less money with the BIG East is just plan Stupid!


Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

I've watched both the Sun Belt and AAC on ESPN+ and I don't see any difference in video quality and yes we have press box, end zone, and sideline correspondent cameras. I'm not sure what the ACC setting up a conference network has to do with this.

But in any case, when UConn has a $40 million shortfall somehow I don't think they were waiting to see if they were going to net $5 million or $7 million from TV to make their decision. What UConn could save in travel costs would probably be about the same as the difference in TV money.

(06-27-2019 09:26 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 08:40 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 08:15 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I seriously doubt production costs are in the millions. The SBC, CUSA, and MAC's TV annual TV money per school is in the mid 6 figures and they're not going to take a net loss of $1 million a year to play week nights on ESPN2.

Also, the article seems to be implying that UConn was planning on the TV money paying the bills, and I'm pretty almost certain that's not the case and that the AAC is getting about the amount of money they're expecting.

Ok... I think we need to first understand what the AAC got... They are not producing ESPN 3 quality games. They have basically been given the next digital network much like the SEC and ACC digital networks. the new AAC Digital brand on ESPN + is an upgrade over FCS and other G5 streams. For example many of the SEC schools (Not florida but surely Arkansas who had to spend 7M) came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. (Think ESPN3/quality) FYI- One of the things the ACC keeps hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something. (Why do I bring this up with SEC and ACC...Becuase 2M total per year to produce in-house and pay Raycom Sports to produce title games for ESPN+ games might not be that far off...only time will tell)

If you are saying that a ESPN 3 or basic stream to a PC that is lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. cost 200K - 400K per school per year to produce.. Then how much more will it cost AAC schools for their "responsible for on-campus production costs, to include Raycom Sports and the deal is for the next 12 years.

To say there will be no cost to member school becuase FCS schools can stream their games and to say that the AAC is alreay able to meet the ESPN + Digital Channel mandate of a new digital AAC Brand...well.. is foolish... To say that UCONN will make less money with the BIG East is just plan Stupid!


Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

I've watched both the Sun Belt and AAC on ESPN+ and I don't see any difference in video quality and yes we have press box, end zone, and sideline correspondent cameras.

I guess you will have to ask the AAC Commish what the difference is and why there will be extra cost to it since you can't tell when watching....maybe it is becuase the AAC Digital Brand had not launched yet..just a guess......the debate is what the cost will be since part of it will come from the new $$ Per the AAC Commish....

form the link I provided at the bottom:

AAC leader Mike Aresco touts new media rights deal, addresses ESPN+ criticism

“We basically have our own branded network on ESPN+ for certain kinds of events,” Aresco said. There will be some football and basketball games on ESPN+ as well as many Olympic sporting events, some of which weren’t even offered anywhere on linear television or through streaming sites. “This is an abundance of riches for people who want to watch games they couldn’t watch before,” Aresco said.

As for the logistics, the conference will hire a company to produce the football games and Olympic sports championships featured on ESPN+. Men’s and women’s basketball games, as well as regular-season Olympic sporting events, will be left up to the individual schools to produce at their cost.

“The cost is nowhere near what’s being reported,” Aresco said of claims that annual revenue payouts will be less to each school to cover the production costs. “That’s ridiculous. It’s a fraction of that.”

The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added.

Under the new deal, people who subscribe to ESPN+ can find AAC content under its own section with the ability to set alerts for kickoff times and scores.

Link
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c...story.html

I think it is less so the actual deal, but what the deal represented and that is a divergence of goals for the conference

at first blush it looks like the larger share of the members "took control" and looked for "stability" with a long term deal.....but when you analyze that deal and the lack of protections (GOR) and the various situations reported where ESPN can change the deal (particular teams leaving, "continuity" and the like), and the length of the deal without those protections it is not a good deal for any team in the conference that thinks they will still be in the conference in 12 years....it is a really bad deal for them

we do not know if the deal scales like most or if it is more linear in payments, but either way it is a deal that was designed to hit a total dollar amount and a deal designed to give a particular per team payment amount and that is geared towards the goals of the members that want to present themselves in the best possible light for leaving ghe conference and it comes at the expense of teams that will be in the conference in 12 years from now

I would imagine that UConn was not impressed with basically "even money" for them, the lack of desire to take a chance on a shorter term deal like the Big 10 just did, the roll over of many teams on the GOR and worse yet that combined with the length of the deal

I think UConn understands more than anyone that realignment can take a lot of strange twist and turns and trying to craft bad deals for the purpose of taking numbers and hyping them to the media is not really an effective strategy and letting a few teams that like to think they are out the door take the lead on making those bad deals for "marketing purposes" instead of dealing with the current circumstances and making the best deal possible is a good way to wake up in a conference you do not recognize down the road and with a terrible media deal to boot and that often happens to those teams that were sure they were on the way out

one can look at the direction of replacing UConn and what is being talked about and see those same teams that feel they are on the way out looking to make terrible deals to get particular teams they feel have the best "optics" for the short term in the conference while the teams that are pretty sure they are going nowhere sit back and let more poor choices be bantered about by administrations that are looking to GTFO ASAP or by members that are only partially aligned with the conference as it is

I think that alone lets UConn know they made the right decision to go ahead and take control of their own fate for the time being and work from there instead of sitting around letting 4 or 5 teams that desperately want out of the conference continue to toss up ideas that are based around short term goals with poor longer term consequences

UConn wants to take actual chances and deal with the consequences of their decisions instead of letting others that really do not want to take a chance and instead want to craft a narrative (with a really really short term focus) dictate how the conference does business

(06-25-2019 12:43 PM)orangefan Wrote:  There are a few posts on some other threads that break down the revenue on a pro forma basis. UConn will absolutely make more money as a member of the Big East, even if paid out at the same level as current Big East members. Basically, its opportunity to sell rights for football and women's basketball on a separate basis, the increase in NCAA tournament payout as a member of the Big East, the increase in conference basketball tournament revenue, the anticipated increase in basketball attendance and revenue from boosters, exceed any reductions in national TV money and bowl money.

I believe UConn was taking a wait and see attitude about the new AAC TV deal. It waited, it saw, and it no likey.

add on to that , uconn will save probably a few million on travel every year.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...edit#gid=0
this is a spreadsheet from a uconn fan breaking down costs

(06-27-2019 09:42 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  “There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added.

Lol that's just a hilarious quote in hindsight

(06-29-2019 12:35 AM)scoscox Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 09:42 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  “There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added.

Lol that's just a hilarious quote in hindsight

Aresco talks proudly about his deal featuring ESPN+, but unless you are jonesing for Ivy League football, why bother with E+ when there are normally 30-40 games on each Saturday through more conventional sources?