(07-05-2019 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (07-05-2019 05:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: not sure how it matters that IMG (or Learfield) charges for their representation to major universities
and why does IMG have the same cost as ESPN does the AAC hold a monopoly on having a bunch of college kids making $8.50 an hour running around with GoPros and IPhones live streaming the game on facebook to get the cost down?......anyone can do that if they choose to have their production quality at that level even ABC/ESPN
and if they are in competition with ESPN then they should know those cost (especially a guy that was employed by ABC which when it comes to sports is basically ESPN over the air)......and they should know what those cost are and if those cost can be lowered
how does it put one in a good competitive light if you go out and get quoted in an article about the cost to stream games (at your former employer) and then when major programs and conferences come to you and discuss doing business with you you have to explain to them that you were in fact inflating those cost just to somehow make yourself look good.....because along the way people are going to know those cost because athletic department employees switch jobs all the time and often know numbers from their former job when they go to their new job
sort of like a guy that leaves ABC and goes to work for IMG knows the cost associated with streaming production of live sports and he knows that he will not be fooling anyone if he drastically overstates those numbers in a decent sized sports publication
sort of like Neal Pilson would have looked stupid if CBS had given major new money to the SEC SEC SEC for adding aggy (and MU) or if the SEC SEC SEC network had come right out paying $15 million and moved to $20 million per year per team....but of course Neal was right and those thinking otherwise (like known idiot travis clay) were wrong and had to even write an article saying that CBS should just go ahead and sell the SEC SEC SEC contract (with 9 or so years left on it at that time) to someone else because CBS was DoNe For!!!! with the SEC SEC SEC
lol.....Good grief. Here is the quote everyone is spazzing out over.
“The number the American Athletic Conference got, it’s a little misleading because the AAC is going to have to produce a lot of events, and that’s going to cost millions of dollars,” said Lulla, the former head of ABC Sports’ legal and business department and a lead counsel at IMG."
Where did he lie? Where did he give a number that wasn't true? Hell, where did even give a number? Did he even give a range? What is the context for "costing millions"? Is the context annually? Is it for the entire conference? Is the context per school over the life of the deal? Did he contact any of the schools to get a detailed outline of their production plans or do an inventory of the current production capabilities of each school before making his estimate? When he made the estimate---was he aware than every AAC school is already producing streams for many of these events that air on their own proprietary school web sites? Or is this just another vague off the cuff---"it COULD cost AS MUCH AS" type estimate?
Its a one line quote in sports article written by a sports writer who probably knows less about ESPN+ production costs than half the people on this board. Then the crazies on the board here start extrapolating that its 90% of the AAC contract.
Im going with the statement from the guy who used run the CBS-Sports Division (Im guessing he knows something about production costs), the guy who contracted with media experts and consultants for detailed reports on costs in anticipation of a possible ESPN+ deal, the guy who actually set up the AAC Digital Network that produces hundreds of events every year, the guy who talked to his individual schools about their individual plans for upgrades and handling the production costs for these games, the guy who was actually in the room when the deal was done----Thats the guy Im listening to who says the actual costs are just a small fraction of the 2 million per school estimate that was thrown out there by a San Diego paper a few months ago.
Aresco's claim seems pretty reasonable when you look at all the schools with tiny budgets that have been producing ESPN3 streams for years. Common sense tells you schools with total budgets 5-10 million dollars dont have 2 million dollars a year to spend on producing ESPN+ content....yet all their games are right there on ESPN3/ESPN+. The only viable conclusion is it can be done relatively cheaply. Sure, if you want it to look like Monday Night Football, you can spend as much as you like---but you can generate a respectable quality product for a far less than the 2 million a year per school figure many are throwing around these days.
you seem to not have a real argument or you present it poorly
you call out that the person works for IMG and that IMG takes a cut of the contracts they sign with universities (we all knew that) and you fail,to explain how that is relevant at all or how that means he does not know what streaming a live sporting event cost
then you point out that IMG is in competition with ESPN+
you fail to further explain that argument either (possibly because you really can't, but you just tossed it out there again as if that makes him less credible)
so one could conclude you were trying to imply that he might be willing to falsely present the cost of streaming live events for the AAC because he is in competition with the AAC
so that is where I stated that he would not have any reason to falsely present those numbers or to inflate them because those he will be trying to do business with will know the numbers themselves and if he is falsely stating those numbers in that article they will know that and it would reflect poorly on him
was there some other argument you were trying to make when you stated that he is in competition with ESPN for streaming live sports?
and you are trying to say that a few million in cost to stream all the required event is no big deal, but in a 12 team conference getting about $5.5 million per year per team to start the agreement (excluding any production cost they eat) then say $2.4 million a year in cost is $200,000 per year or $200,000 per member
from the ECU article saying by the 3rd year 1,000 events will be streamed (so 333 a year) that is only $7,000 per event in production cost which is very low
it it is closer to the low end of PAC 12 OLYMPIC event production cost then you are looking at over $400,000 per conference member per year which is a meaningful % off of the expected payout
and really at $5.5 million to start out and $7 million per year average $200,000 is a meaningful amount and double that is much more meaningful