(06-28-2019 07:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:31 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  So the Navy AD was right?

Shocking.

Not so fast my friend ... the Houston Chronicle article cites the Sports Business Journal article. But it appears they might be misinterpreting it in saying that the renegotiate clause is specifically tied to those 5 schools. In fact, the author of the SBJ article says that ESPN *can* renegotiate based on UConn leaving. From Ouran's twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/11...4410135553

The Houston C writer might be misinterpreting ESPN's motivation for including the clause - the five schools mentioned - with the nature of the clause, which SBJ says is not linked to just those five schools.

That tweet isn't a clarification on what the Houston article said, just the original link to the original story.

I know. But the HC article cites that SBJ story as its basis for saying that the renegotiate clause is tied to only to five schools. So i think it is worth nothing that the author of that SBJ story does not characterize it that way. In his story, he's saying that the clause does allow for renegotiation based on UConn leaving.

True, but the HC cites a source that supposedly has seen the contract and is rebutting his story.

I think you are misinterpreting the HC article. The "source" cited in the HC article isn't independent of nor a rebuttal of the SBJ story, that referencing of the source is part of his citation of the SBJ article. That is, in the SBJ article, the author cites a source who said that the motivation for ESPN putting in the clause was fear that UCF, USF, Houston, Memphis, or Cincy might leave. And that's the source the HC writer is making reference to. I think the language of the HC article makes that clear, as he references the SBJ article, and the source *without* saying the source contradicts SBJ.

By my reading, the HC writer has no sources of his own, he's merely citing the SBJ article, and in a mistaken way.

In the end, though, none of knows for sure what the contract actually says. IMO, the SBJ article is the best evidence we have to go on, and it makes common sense. But nobody knows for sure.

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were only ever and still remained Cincy, Houston, and UConn.

Nope. UConn, Cincy, Houston and Temple were designated Group A schools by NBC, which was adopted by ESPN.

In the current contract, the five schools where ESPN can void the contract if they leave are: Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis.

ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

Basketball is the huge deal as part of the contract. UConn is like Kansas is to the Big 12. Kansas is part of value for men's basketball which is crucial part of the Big 12's tv contract. UConn's basketball is a major part of the AAC's tv contract. ESPN can void the contract becuase one of the AAC's major basketball brand left the conference. We know Kansas's football is worth a lot less, but their basketball is worth a lot to the Big 12. UConn's basketball is worth a lot to the AAC.

(06-28-2019 07:55 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 04:38 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 02:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Contract isn't written on a $ per school, per year basis.
ESPN total $ for AAC total inventory, with numbers of appearances (really ranges of numbers of appearances) on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2/U, and ESPN+. Look at the conference press release from deal signing.
http://theamerican.org/news/2019/3/27/ge...nsion.aspx

"Football" says "A minimum of 40 regular-season telecasts per season on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, including at least 20 across ABC, ESPN and ESPN2, which represents increased annual exposure across those ESPN networks. A similar number of Thursday and Friday contests."
and "ESPN+" says "It is estimated that between 30-35 conference-controlled football games and approximately 135 men's basketball games will be distributed annually on the cutting-edge platform. An estimated 160 conference-controlled women's basketball games, plus first and quarterfinal rounds of the women's basketball championship, will also be streamed on the digital platform. In addition, hundreds of Olympic sports events ..."

So long as the inventory can be delivered within those ranges, albeit with a handful fewer games with the absence of our last place football team and ninth place basketball....no reason to decrement from $1B over 12 years, or $83,333,333,33 per year to the conference...

So you're clinging to the idea that ESPN is going to be willing to pay the AAC the same total amount even though it's now 11 schools not 12?

Good luck with that - seriously, as USF would stand to benefit. But I see very little chance that happens. To me, it's obvious that of course the dollar value arrived at was on a per-school-payout basis, as that is what the schools are interested in. That's what the AAC schools cared about. And ESPN was willing to pay that for the 12 specific schools in the conference, not 11. Heck, using your logic, the AAC could lose 5 schools but as long as it could provide 40 football games for the linear channels, 65 hoops games, etc. as indicated in the press release, the money would stay the same, but of course that beggars belief. And btw, if there's anything that's been offered in this thread *less* reliable pertaining to this than the vague comments from the Navy AD, it's the stuff from the AAC press conference you quoted, which tells us nothing about how the dollar values were arrived at.

UConn was 1/12 the conference, so i expect the deal will be pro-rated back by 1/12 in total dollars, keeping the per-school payout, the real thing ESPN and the AAC bargained over, the same.

In the end, as you say, ESPN doesn't *have* to do this, but ... what would their motivation NOT to do it be? The motivation TO do it is obvious - save themselves $7m per year.

To me, it's obvious that of course the dollar value arrived at was on a per-school-payout basis
- AND -
keeping the per-school payout, the real thing ESPN and the AAC bargained over, the same.
THIS IS JUST WRONG.
Network and conference talk total dollars and overall inventory. Per school payout is message board fodder, not the negotiaing points.


using your logic, the AAC could lose 5 schools but as long as it could provide 40 football games for the linear channels, 65 hoops games, etc.
This is what is referred to in logic as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

First,no, it's not wrong, otherwise ESPN would be willing to pay $83m a year to any conference with 12 teams that can deliver 1400 games of this and 60 games of that and 40 games for this. But obviously, that's not the case. ESPN wasn't paying for 1400 random games between random teams, what they were paying for was that number of games among 12 schools that if felt were worth that much. My 'reducto absurdim' point was offered to try to make that clear to you since other methods weren't working. Oh well.

And OF COURSE the AAC schools bargained with a per-school-payout in mind, as that is their specific bottom line. They don't care what the conference gets "as a whole", they care what their share is. That's not "message board fodder" it's exactly what the Presidents care about. To think that wasn't very much on the mind of Aresco when he was bargaining beggars belief.

Again, none of us knows exactly what ESPN will do. But the motivation for pro-rating the yearly payment from $83m to $76m seems clear - save $7m, whereas the motivation for paying the full $83m to the 11-school AAC seems unclear.

You said "the dollar value arrived at was on a per-school-payout basis" and "the per-school payout, the real thing ESPN and the AAC bargained over"

Oh good grief ...

It doesn't matter what language each side started the negotiations with, whether ESPN started by mentioning a per-school amount or a total-dollar for the conference offer, and neither of us knows what that was anyway. Regardless, the bottom line for the AAC schools was NOT some grand overall number for the conference, it was the PER SCHOOL amount, because that is what each school actually gets.

That's what was on their minds, and it surely was thus on Aresco's mind. Nobody at UCF or Temple would be happy if Aresco signed a deal for $19 Trillion dollars for 3 years if somehow Temple and UCF each got only $2 million a year for it.

There's just no denying that, that is obvious.

(06-28-2019 10:26 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were only ever and still remained Cincy, Houston, and UConn.

Nope. UConn, Cincy, Houston and Temple were designated Group A schools by NBC, which was adopted by ESPN.

In the current contract, the five schools where ESPN can void the contract if they leave are: Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis.

ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

Basketball is the huge deal as part of the contract. UConn is like Kansas is to the Big 12. Kansas is part of value for men's basketball which is crucial part of the Big 12's tv contract. UConn's basketball is a major part of the AAC's tv contract. ESPN can void the contract becuase one of the AAC's major basketball brand left the conference. We know Kansas's football is worth a lot less, but their basketball is worth a lot to the Big 12. UConn's basketball is worth a lot to the AAC.

Please relax and push away from the keyboard. The AAC's contract has not been publicly released but, it definitely isn't heavily favoring Basketball. ESPN wanted the Football side of the AAC and that's apparent to all by the subleasing of the majority of the AAC's Basketball content owned by ESPN over the last contract.

I do not know for certain the details of this contract but, I do know that ESPN wanted a Grant of Rights signed by Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF and USF. That's because those are the schools most likely to be pouched by any future Conference Expansion. UConn saw this and that's how we wound up here today.

for everyone that wants to say basketball has no value here are some numbers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlybenjam...2a90aa308f

look on that list Kansas is #12 on that list and Indiana is #13 on the list and neither are there for their football

then look at the dates the deals were signed Kansas was 2014 and Indiana was 2017

then look at other programs like Tennessee or Florida State or Georgia....Kansas is making a lot more than any of them and all three of those schools signed their deals AFTER Kansas so it is not a matter of those schools working under an old contract

here is where UConn stands in comparison

https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foo...story.html

so 7 years for $32.45 or about $4.63 million a year which puts them well up there with other schools

and this is a deal with a company that is in the business of selling products to fans based on giving products and money to schools and they do so with dozens of schools

lets look at some other numbers

http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2015/04...s-and.html

the above is older, but they do not put out current list that I see and it does not include all the schools in the NCAA D1-A, but it has 75 of them and UConn is #44 and above a number of P5 schools....and I would say if you are buying university branded crap and wearing it then you are probably watching the games as well.....and those sales are why the other numbers higher up for apparel deals are there for UConn and others that are not great at football, but do very well at basketball or some other sports

if you are buying the stuff you are watching and if you are watching they want to advertise to you and they pay for that which means networks want you to be on their TV

UConn has a lot more to protect than just conference revenues and UConn definitely delivers the buyers of branded goods and the makers of those goods have responded accordingly in giving them money and goods....I think people that operate TV channels can connect the dots from there as well (even if it is ESPN)

there is clearly value in basketball at least to those that make and sell team branded gear and that surely translates to some TV dollar values as well especially for teams that play at a high level and win championships in that sport

(06-28-2019 10:32 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 10:26 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were only ever and still remained Cincy, Houston, and UConn.

Nope. UConn, Cincy, Houston and Temple were designated Group A schools by NBC, which was adopted by ESPN.

In the current contract, the five schools where ESPN can void the contract if they leave are: Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis.

ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

Basketball is the huge deal as part of the contract. UConn is like Kansas is to the Big 12. Kansas is part of value for men's basketball which is crucial part of the Big 12's tv contract. UConn's basketball is a major part of the AAC's tv contract. ESPN can void the contract becuase one of the AAC's major basketball brand left the conference. We know Kansas's football is worth a lot less, but their basketball is worth a lot to the Big 12. UConn's basketball is worth a lot to the AAC.

Please relax and push away from the keyboard. The AAC's contract has not been publicly released but, it definitely isn't heavily favoring Basketball. ESPN wanted the Football side of the AAC and that's apparent to all by the subleasing of the majority of the AAC's Basketball content owned by ESPN over the last contract.

I do not know for certain the details of this contract but, I do know that ESPN wanted a Grant of Rights signed by Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF and USF. That's because those are the schools most likely to be pouched by any future Conference Expansion. UConn saw this and that's how we wound up here today.

The HC article is an interview with the Houston AD Chris Pezman and the writer is the UH beat writer. Its just as likely that Pezman is the direct source for that information on background. If you notice, Duarte does not reference or credit another printed source for that information as he should if he relying on another printed source. In fact, the information in his article actually refutes the stance taken by the SBJ article he references earlier in the paragraph. He says a source indicates the composition clause is triggered by the loss of 5 schools---none of which are UConn. That would be the exact opposite take the SBJ piece reflected (that the loss of UConn WOULD trigger the ESPN right to renegotiate the compensation).

(06-28-2019 10:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  for everyone that wants to say basketball has no value here are some numbers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlybenjam...2a90aa308f

look on that list Kansas is #12 on that list and Indiana is #13 on the list and neither are there for their football

then look at the dates the deals were signed Kansas was 2014 and Indiana was 2017

then look at other programs like Tennessee or Florida State or Georgia....Kansas is making a lot more than any of them and all three of those schools signed their deals AFTER Kansas so it is not a matter of those schools working under an old contract

here is where UConn stands in comparison

https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foo...story.html

so 7 years for $32.45 or about $4.63 million a year which puts them well up there with other schools

and this is a deal with a company that is in the business of selling products to fans based on giving products and money to schools and they do so with dozens of schools

lets look at some other numbers

http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2015/04...s-and.html

the above is older, but they do not put out current list that I see and it does not include all the schools in the NCAA D1-A, but it has 75 of them and UConn is #44 and above a number of P5 schools....and I would say if you are buying university branded crap and wearing it then you are probably watching the games as well.....and those sales are why the other numbers higher up for apparel deals are there for UConn and others that are not great at football, but do very well at basketball or some other sports

if you are buying the stuff you are watching and if you are watching they want to advertise to you and they pay for that which means networks want you to be on their TV

UConn has a lot more to protect than just conference revenues and UConn definitely delivers the buyers of branded goods and the makers of those goods have responded accordingly in giving them money and goods....I think people that operate TV channels can connect the dots from there as well (even if it is ESPN)

there is clearly value in basketball at least to those that make and sell team branded gear and that surely translates to some TV dollar values as well especially for teams that play at a high level and win championships in that sport

Absolutely. Its silly to argue that basketball has no value. Even back when they were a BCS football conference, the Big East made more media money from basketball than they did from football.

(06-28-2019 11:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That would be the exact opposite take the SBJ piece reflected (that the loss of UConn WOULD trigger the ESPN right to renegotiate the compensation).

I think, however, if the AAC doesn't replace UConn, then you're in breach with ESPN, because you're not providing the numbers of games covered in the contract.

Not that it's a big deal--either the AAC doesn't replace UConn, ESPN scales back the contract by 1/12, or the AAC does replace UConn, ESPN leaves the contract alone. Depends on whether Aresco can convince the other FBS conferences to let the AAC stand at 11, or whether the integrity of the CCG rules are more important.

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

It's interesting to hear what was valuable for one wasn't necessarily so for the other. But, to me, it still seems like a bad deal what the AAC was going to give over to ESPN. There was more security with the terms of the old deal. This one kinda debased select content and hung renegotiation triggers. I'm just shocked the AAC actually signed it. No wonder UConn left.

Or, more simply, ESPN got the better of the AAC on this one, and UConn knew it and had enough.

It's more than just a UConn thing, too. The deal is potentially bad for any of the top programs in the conference. And I'd love to know what's going on in Wichita right now. Even if the AAC is more money coming in than MVC, if the basketball doesn't improve, they're going into old territory with just higher travel costs.

Perhaps the AAC's biggest issue is its new ESPN deal that pays the league $1 billion over 12 years. With a membership of 12, AAC teams were set to receive approximately $7 million per year. CBS Sports reported last week that the ESPN contract contains language that allows for renegotiation if the AAC loses members.

Industry sources say there are few, if any, schools that could be added to the league that bring that $7 million annual valuation.


Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-of-uconn/

(06-28-2019 12:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

It's interesting to hear what was valuable for one wasn't necessarily so for the other. But, to me, it still seems like a bad deal what the AAC was going to give over to ESPN. There was more security with the terms of the old deal. This one kinda debased select content and hung renegotiation triggers. I'm just shocked the AAC actually signed it. No wonder UConn left.

Or, more simply, ESPN got the better of the AAC on this one, and UConn knew it and had enough.

It's more than just a UConn thing, too. The deal is potentially bad for any of the top programs in the conference. And I'd love to know what's going on in Wichita right now. Even if the AAC is more money coming in than MVC, if the basketball doesn't improve, they're going into old territory with just higher travel costs.

it is a bad deal and potentially a horrible deal for the top teams in the conference and maybe worse for the others, but those are the teams that pushed this deal and that is most likely what pushed UConn out

lets look at recent history.....ESPN and Fox basically told the Big 12 a fat no on expansion because they did not want to pay the money

that was a VERY short period of time ago so what has changed where suddenly the Big 12 or anyone else is looking to expand....well pretty much nothing....all the more so relative to value of programs the Big 12 could expand with because the value of those programs was just set by ESPN at an average of just under 7 million a year for 12 years

BUT.....it was widely reported that additional money was offered for the AAC to have a GOR and that schools in the conference said no.....while ignoring the fact that they two major sports networks had already told the Big 12 they did not want to pay Big 12 money for any of them and further ignoring the fact that without a GOR they were being offered an average of $7 million each for 12 years......which is well under the $20 million the Big 12 is set to get (and escalating in the back half of the contract) from those same media partners

but somehow along with no GOR and reduced money the contract is still for TWELVE YEARS which is well past when all the major conferences except for the ACC will have at least some if not all of their media deals come open

and now it is reported that there might be specific teams that can cause ESPN to do more than just cut the rate by the number of teams that left

pretty much the reality is that out of 12 teams in the AAC at least 8 of them if not 10 of them will probably still be there in 12 years from now unless they just leave on their own like UConn is doing...and there is a strong chance that all 12 (well 11 now) will still be there

yet none of those 8+ teams could think to themselves how are we getting this horrible long term deal with no protections for ourselves in terms of teams leaving, the contract not getting a major reworking, or why not sign a 5 year deal with a GOR

and UConn has been down this path before, they went from being one of the "must have" teams in the last deal, and a team with their own third tier deal for womens BB and some mens BB......to now basically sitting there and watching 4 or maybe 5 other teams pretend like they need to make this horrible deal because of the optics of the numbers (one BILLION!!!, $7 million!!!) while ignoring that it is TWELVE YEARS, potentially falls apart of some teams leave, will not be paying UConn or any of those that were collecting BE exit fees any major new money for YEARS

and I think UConn saw the writing on the wall and left ASAP because they know in the future the "best" is that all 12 teams are in the conference 12 years from now and complaining to each other endlessly about who is at fault for such a crappy deal and at worst 8 of them are still in the same conference 6 years from now when the deal gets worked over because some specific teams left

either way who in the hell wants to wait around for that especially when you are being pushed aside for those that want to sign this terrible deal so they can strut around and say "P6" while dreaming of getting out of the conference as fast as they can

it is just circus geeking and 7 or 8 other schools just let 4 or 5 get their way most likely at the expense of all of them or at the expense of a large majority of them

other than saying ONE BILLION and seven million there is nothing at all to look at about this contract and think that is is for the long term good of a CONFERENCE remaining viable and cohesive for the long term

and while no one member of a conference should ever stop looking out for their own best interest there is nothing about this contract at all that signifies that either faction of the conference gave any thought to the deal other than what they thought the press release would say the day after it was signed and none of them gave any thought to 5 or 7 years down the road much less 12....well except UConn that decided they would just go ahead and GTFO now before things get really ugly and take control of their own destiny

Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

(06-28-2019 12:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

It's interesting to hear what was valuable for one wasn't necessarily so for the other. But, to me, it still seems like a bad deal what the AAC was going to give over to ESPN. There was more security with the terms of the old deal. This one kinda debased select content and hung renegotiation triggers. I'm just shocked the AAC actually signed it. No wonder UConn left.

Or, more simply, ESPN got the better of the AAC on this one, and UConn knew it and had enough.

It's more than just a UConn thing, too. The deal is potentially bad for any of the top programs in the conference. And I'd love to know what's going on in Wichita right now. Even if the AAC is more money coming in than MVC, if the basketball doesn't improve, they're going into old territory with just higher travel costs.

Its actually a better deal than they had before with respect to the consequences of membership changes. In the old deal they were referred to as "A" schools and "B" schools. In that deal, if they lost an "A" school the entire deal could be scrapped. If they lost an "A" school+ some combination of "B" schools--it could be scrapped as well. So, this deal is actually provides marginally better security with respect to conference membership changes.

(06-28-2019 01:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

It's interesting to hear what was valuable for one wasn't necessarily so for the other. But, to me, it still seems like a bad deal what the AAC was going to give over to ESPN. There was more security with the terms of the old deal. This one kinda debased select content and hung renegotiation triggers. I'm just shocked the AAC actually signed it. No wonder UConn left.

Or, more simply, ESPN got the better of the AAC on this one, and UConn knew it and had enough.

It's more than just a UConn thing, too. The deal is potentially bad for any of the top programs in the conference. And I'd love to know what's going on in Wichita right now. Even if the AAC is more money coming in than MVC, if the basketball doesn't improve, they're going into old territory with just higher travel costs.

it is a bad deal and potentially a horrible deal for the top teams in the conference and maybe worse for the others, but those are the teams that pushed this deal and that is most likely what pushed UConn out

lets look at recent history.....ESPN and Fox basically told the Big 12 a fat no on expansion because they did not want to pay the money

that was a VERY short period of time ago so what has changed where suddenly the Big 12 or anyone else is looking to expand....well pretty much nothing....all the more so relative to value of programs the Big 12 could expand with because the value of those programs was just set by ESPN at an average of just under 7 million a year for 12 years

BUT.....it was widely reported that additional money was offered for the AAC to have a GOR and that schools in the conference said no.....while ignoring the fact that they two major sports networks had already told the Big 12 they did not want to pay Big 12 money for any of them and further ignoring the fact that without a GOR they were being offered an average of $7 million each for 12 years......which is well under the $20 million the Big 12 is set to get (and escalating in the back half of the contract) from those same media partners

but somehow along with no GOR and reduced money the contract is still for TWELVE YEARS which is well past when all the major conferences except for the ACC will have at least some if not all of their media deals come open

and now it is reported that there might be specific teams that can cause ESPN to do more than just cut the rate by the number of teams that left

pretty much the reality is that out of 12 teams in the AAC at least 8 of them if not 10 of them will probably still be there in 12 years from now unless they just leave on their own like UConn is doing...and there is a strong chance that all 12 (well 11 now) will still be there

yet none of those 8+ teams could think to themselves how are we getting this horrible long term deal with no protections for ourselves in terms of teams leaving, the contract not getting a major reworking, or why not sign a 5 year deal with a GOR

and UConn has been down this path before, they went from being one of the "must have" teams in the last deal, and a team with their own third tier deal for womens BB and some mens BB......to now basically sitting there and watching 4 or maybe 5 other teams pretend like they need to make this horrible deal because of the optics of the numbers (one BILLION!!!, $7 million!!!) while ignoring that it is TWELVE YEARS, potentially falls apart of some teams leave, will not be paying UConn or any of those that were collecting BE exit fees any major new money for YEARS

and I think UConn saw the writing on the wall and left ASAP because they know in the future the "best" is that all 12 teams are in the conference 12 years from now and complaining to each other endlessly about who is at fault for such a crappy deal and at worst 8 of them are still in the same conference 6 years from now when the deal gets worked over because some specific teams left

either way who in the hell wants to wait around for that especially when you are being pushed aside for those that want to sign this terrible deal so they can strut around and say "P6" while dreaming of getting out of the conference as fast as they can

it is just circus geeking and 7 or 8 other schools just let 4 or 5 get their way most likely at the expense of all of them or at the expense of a large majority of them

other than saying ONE BILLION and seven million there is nothing at all to look at about this contract and think that is is for the long term good of a CONFERENCE remaining viable and cohesive for the long term

and while no one member of a conference should ever stop looking out for their own best interest there is nothing about this contract at all that signifies that either faction of the conference gave any thought to the deal other than what they thought the press release would say the day after it was signed and none of them gave any thought to 5 or 7 years down the road much less 12....well except UConn that decided they would just go ahead and GTFO now before things get really ugly and take control of their own destiny

This only makes sense to a Big12 fan who thinks there is absolutely no chance the Big12 loses a team (or several). Personally, I would agree that the chances are good Texas and Oklahoma will NOT leave---but that hardly represents a certainty. AAC teams on the bubble would be idiots to give up any chance of getting to a P5 just a few years from the time when the opportunity could potentially arise. Not to mention---ESPN would not have paid any significant premium for a GOR when a conference composition clause (like this one) provides the same protection for nothing. If there is no golden ticket for the AAC bubble teams---then the clause wont matter anyway. There would be no team leaving because there is nowhere to go.

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

Depends on what you think the tv sports rights future holds. Many believe the MAC was wise to lock in a longer agreement because the cord cutting issues could casue a disruptive period during which where sports rights might not be worth as much in the near term future. So, there is always a trade off---security vs opportunity to earn more. While I would prefer a shorter duration deal---its very possible that the longer deal may turn out to be the better move.

(06-28-2019 01:15 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Perhaps the AAC's biggest issue is its new ESPN deal that pays the league $1 billion over 12 years. With a membership of 12, AAC teams were set to receive approximately $7 million per year. CBS Sports reported last week that the ESPN contract contains language that allows for renegotiation if the AAC loses members.

Industry sources say there are few, if any, schools that could be added to the league that bring that $7 million annual valuation.


Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-of-uconn/

Arkansas State and Liberty? Where did those names come from?

(06-28-2019 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

Depends on what you think the tv sports rights future holds. Many believe the MAC was wise to lock in a longer agreement because the cord cutting issues could casue a disruptive period during which where sports rights might not be worth as much in the near term future. So, there is always a trade off---security vs opportunity to earn more. While I would prefer a shorter duration deal---its very possible that the longer deal may turn out to be the better move.

I think the SDSU athletic director said it best - he was very surprised the deal was for 12 years given the mediocre money.

Aresco had a stated goal of "closing the gap" with the P5 in important areas like money. This deal provides a very slight closing of the gap in year one, when the gap will go from about $30m to $2m to $31m to $7m.

That's the gap between the AAC and the *lowest* paid P5. The average P5 is higher.

But thereafter, for the next 11 years, the gap will again grow, because all the P5 have deals that allow them to substantially boost their media revenue each year, whereas the AAC is caught in a very tight window that caps at under $8m.

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

you really cannot blame the deal fully on him because the ADs and presidents have to agree to it and sign it

what you can blame on him is the inability to make all 12 members sit down in a room and listen to how stupid all of their goals are and how trying to give two factions what they both want is going to result in a horrible deal for the vast majority of them if not all of them

"we do not want to be tied to a GOR".....well then you are not going to have stability

"we want a long term contract for stability"......well you can get a long term contract, but ESPN wants the right to at least cut some money from it if a team or teams leave and possibly rework it (according to some reports) if particular teams leave

"we want it to be X amount of total dollars so we can keep repeating that dollar amount"......well you are only going to get that with a deal that is extremely long

"well good a long term deal is great for stability"......well not when you have no GOR and the media partner wants the right to (possibly reported) rework the deal completely if some particular teams leave.......and that long of a deal gets you well past when all the major conferences but one will have reworked some or all of their deals

"we will do a short term deal with a GOR".....OK but it is not going to have the big total dollar amount you want to tell everyone about and it will leave people to speculate about the long term viability of the conference

who knows what he really discussed with them, and who knows what type of things he tried to offer up that would mitigate some of the factors the conference is facing.....but he did not sell them well if he offered them, but then again should he really have to sell them especially when 8 or so members are probably going to be around in 12 years no matter what and probably more than that (unless they choose to leave on their own like UConn)

I mean really it should have been much shorter term because it is terrible long term and the conference already took a risk and told everyone it would pay off and they sure tried to sell this contract like it paid off, but that faded fast when UConn bolted and when everyone wakes up too the idea that pretty much everyone else would bolt if a P5 came calling.....so why pretend you have a long term deal when it looks like it is full of holes and or even if it goes the full length is is terrible for all that are left and probably just about as bad if everyone is left

and that type of lack of long term planning or vision or calculation of risk vs reward IMO often comes from university types

but it was his job to make sure it was clear to all what they were getting into and perhaps he told them and they said "we take it"

but knowing the personalities of at least a couple of the university presidents or ADs (in Texas and Florida) more than likely they pushed for something that fit a narrative and they are stuck believing they will not have to be around to pick up the pieces....and Aresco should have make clear to call that out and may not have or may have downplayed it if UConn brought it up

(06-28-2019 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

Depends on what you think the tv sports rights future holds. Many believe the MAC was wise to lock in a longer agreement because the cord cutting issues could casue a disruptive period during which where sports rights might not be worth as much in the near term future. So, there is always a trade off---security vs opportunity to earn more. While I would prefer a shorter duration deal---its very possible that the longer deal may turn out to be the better move.

I think the SDSU athletic director said it best - he was very surprised the deal was for 12 years given the mediocre money.

Aresco had a stated goal of "closing the gap" with the P5 in important areas like money. This deal provides a very slight closing of the gap in year one, when the gap will go from about $30m to $2m to $31m to $7m.

That's the gap between the AAC and the *lowest* paid P5. The average P5 is higher.

But thereafter, for the next 11 years, the gap will again grow, because all the P5 have deals that allow them to substantially boost their media revenue each year, whereas the AAC is caught in a very tight window that caps at under $8m.

There were a whole lot of people on this board who didn't think the AAC was going to go from $2m to $7m. I'm not sure what you thought the number was going to be but I was just wild arse guessing 6-8m without any kind of GOR (which was obviously never happening). I highly doubt you were in the camp that was expecting 10+ million a year for the deal (considering your consistent degrading of the AAC for years), so other than the length of the deal (which only actually matters if conference realignment doesn't happen in the mid 2020's) I don't really see the criticism of the value of the deal. It's an over 300% raise from the old deal.

(06-28-2019 02:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  My understanding was that the "must have" schools in the AAC arrangement were ESPN can rip up the contract and start over if any one of those five leave. They cannot rip up the contract if UConn leaves. They probably can ask that the contract be adjusted. Remains to be seen if they will.

It's interesting to hear what was valuable for one wasn't necessarily so for the other. But, to me, it still seems like a bad deal what the AAC was going to give over to ESPN. There was more security with the terms of the old deal. This one kinda debased select content and hung renegotiation triggers. I'm just shocked the AAC actually signed it. No wonder UConn left.

Or, more simply, ESPN got the better of the AAC on this one, and UConn knew it and had enough.

It's more than just a UConn thing, too. The deal is potentially bad for any of the top programs in the conference. And I'd love to know what's going on in Wichita right now. Even if the AAC is more money coming in than MVC, if the basketball doesn't improve, they're going into old territory with just higher travel costs.

it is a bad deal and potentially a horrible deal for the top teams in the conference and maybe worse for the others, but those are the teams that pushed this deal and that is most likely what pushed UConn out

lets look at recent history.....ESPN and Fox basically told the Big 12 a fat no on expansion because they did not want to pay the money

that was a VERY short period of time ago so what has changed where suddenly the Big 12 or anyone else is looking to expand....well pretty much nothing....all the more so relative to value of programs the Big 12 could expand with because the value of those programs was just set by ESPN at an average of just under 7 million a year for 12 years

BUT.....it was widely reported that additional money was offered for the AAC to have a GOR and that schools in the conference said no.....while ignoring the fact that they two major sports networks had already told the Big 12 they did not want to pay Big 12 money for any of them and further ignoring the fact that without a GOR they were being offered an average of $7 million each for 12 years......which is well under the $20 million the Big 12 is set to get (and escalating in the back half of the contract) from those same media partners

but somehow along with no GOR and reduced money the contract is still for TWELVE YEARS which is well past when all the major conferences except for the ACC will have at least some if not all of their media deals come open

and now it is reported that there might be specific teams that can cause ESPN to do more than just cut the rate by the number of teams that left

pretty much the reality is that out of 12 teams in the AAC at least 8 of them if not 10 of them will probably still be there in 12 years from now unless they just leave on their own like UConn is doing...and there is a strong chance that all 12 (well 11 now) will still be there

yet none of those 8+ teams could think to themselves how are we getting this horrible long term deal with no protections for ourselves in terms of teams leaving, the contract not getting a major reworking, or why not sign a 5 year deal with a GOR

and UConn has been down this path before, they went from being one of the "must have" teams in the last deal, and a team with their own third tier deal for womens BB and some mens BB......to now basically sitting there and watching 4 or maybe 5 other teams pretend like they need to make this horrible deal because of the optics of the numbers (one BILLION!!!, $7 million!!!) while ignoring that it is TWELVE YEARS, potentially falls apart of some teams leave, will not be paying UConn or any of those that were collecting BE exit fees any major new money for YEARS

and I think UConn saw the writing on the wall and left ASAP because they know in the future the "best" is that all 12 teams are in the conference 12 years from now and complaining to each other endlessly about who is at fault for such a crappy deal and at worst 8 of them are still in the same conference 6 years from now when the deal gets worked over because some specific teams left

either way who in the hell wants to wait around for that especially when you are being pushed aside for those that want to sign this terrible deal so they can strut around and say "P6" while dreaming of getting out of the conference as fast as they can

it is just circus geeking and 7 or 8 other schools just let 4 or 5 get their way most likely at the expense of all of them or at the expense of a large majority of them

other than saying ONE BILLION and seven million there is nothing at all to look at about this contract and think that is is for the long term good of a CONFERENCE remaining viable and cohesive for the long term

and while no one member of a conference should ever stop looking out for their own best interest there is nothing about this contract at all that signifies that either faction of the conference gave any thought to the deal other than what they thought the press release would say the day after it was signed and none of them gave any thought to 5 or 7 years down the road much less 12....well except UConn that decided they would just go ahead and GTFO now before things get really ugly and take control of their own destiny

This only makes sense to a Big12 fan who thinks there is absolutely no chance the Big12 loses a team (or several). Personally, I would agree that the chances are good Texas and Oklahoma will NOT leave---but that hardly represents a certainty. AAC teams on the bubble would be idiots to give up any chance of getting to a P5 just a few years from the time when the opportunity could potentially arise. Not to mention---ESPN would not have paid any significant premium for a GOR when a conference composition clause (like this one) provides the same protection for nothing. If there is no golden ticket for the AAC bubble teams---then the clause wont matter anyway. There would be no team leaving because there is nowhere to go.

no it makes sense to someone that understands that there is little chance that more than 4 teams leave the AAC which means that 8 others (well 7 now) are going to be there for the long term and while no team should just sit there and accept the fate that they will not move up (which IMO UConn is not doing and instead UConn is taking control of things for themselves) that does not mean you all sit in a room and blow P6 smoke up each others butts while all thinking that you will be leaving sooner than later so who cares how bad this deal is

even if 4 teams leave the Big 12 there is still a very good chance that only two replacements would come from the AAC if any

they could easily grab BYU, CSU and Boise or if WVU is one leaving they could fully go west with CSU, Boise, BYU, SDSU, Reno, UNLV (in their new Vegas stajium) or who knows

every team that thinks they are gone from the AAC has put together long strings of terrible seasons some very recently no matter how much they want to pretend that they have DoMiNaTed every season for decades

who knows who will be pulling the purse strings even in 6 years from now and what their interest will be in placing teams together

while I have always said that the Big 12 should in no way shape or form concern themselves with the PAC 12 and thinking about taking teams from them we all know they have issues.....be it WSU and budgets and Cal and debt, no one happy with the schedules....USC and UCLA are surely not happy with the money anymore and there was the recent article where some clown wants UCLA in the ACC....6 more years of one conference not making the playoffs and who knows what their teams might be willing to do

but no matter what happens with the Big 12 or any other P5 conference or how small of a chance of it happening there is a much greater chance that 8+ of the current AAC members will still be in the conference 7 or 8 years from now unless they do like UConn and leave on their own

but yea signing unimpressive long term deals with a lot of protections for the media partner and basically none for the conference members and screaming P6 while looking to jump ship ASAP will surely sell well to everyone out there especially any conference that might be looking to add members