(07-18-2019 04:41 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  On Feb. 24 of this year . . . UC Athletic Director Mike Bohn wrote a letter to Aresco on behalf of the AAC Finance Committee and Television Committee, which also included Patrick Kraft of Temple and Danny White of UCF. . . laid out two specific points of contention with the then unfinalized agreement with ESPN. The first was “the assignment of production costs associated with increased ESPN+ digital streaming content.” The second was “a model of media rights payouts that includes a merit-based distribution component,” which Aresco has since stated is not something he felt was in the league’s best interest. In the letter, Bohn also stressed that “in addition to consulting with the presidents of our member institutions, we believe it is also important in your role as commissioner to engage our conference’s athletic directors directly prior to any official votes, especially on subjects that would benefit greatly from our expertise and input, such as the budgeting and operational requirements of the agreement.” the Larry Scott of the east!

In Aresco’s response to Bohn two days later . . .“Please be assured that the internal items you mention should and will be discussed with the athletic directors. However, these matters can be addressed after the ESPN negotiation is completed and should not slow down that process. We have good reason to want to conclude the ESPN negotiation and announce a new deal as soon as possible. Neither of the items you reference has an impact on whether we accept and conclude the ESPN deal that is on the table. As I mentioned, these are matters we can take up later because the new deal will not start until 2020-21 and we will have no ESPN+ obligations until then. We will have ample time to discuss them.”

That time still exists, but at least some degree of a plan is in place regarding the ESPN+ productions. “Whatever football is on ESPN+, we’ll produce through the conference. It won’t have a huge effect on allocations from distribution. We’re going to do that internally,” Aresco told The Athletic. “(The member schools are) likely to be responsible for their men’s and women’s basketball on ESPN+, but it’s a marginal cost relative to what they’re getting in rights fees. It’s a fraction. We’re getting more, and that factored in the cost of what we’re doing.”

Just how marginal the cost, and how steady and manageable it remains through the life of the deal, is still unknown.

Here's the link: https://theathletic.com/1081183/2019/07/...ed-for-uc/

(07-18-2019 06:58 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:41 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  On Feb. 24 of this year . . . UC Athletic Director Mike Bohn wrote a letter to Aresco on behalf of the AAC Finance Committee and Television Committee, which also included Patrick Kraft of Temple and Danny White of UCF. . . laid out two specific points of contention with the then unfinalized agreement with ESPN. The first was “the assignment of production costs associated with increased ESPN+ digital streaming content.” The second was “a model of media rights payouts that includes a merit-based distribution component,” which Aresco has since stated is not something he felt was in the league’s best interest. In the letter, Bohn also stressed that “in addition to consulting with the presidents of our member institutions, we believe it is also important in your role as commissioner to engage our conference’s athletic directors directly prior to any official votes, especially on subjects that would benefit greatly from our expertise and input, such as the budgeting and operational requirements of the agreement.” the Larry Scott of the east!

In Aresco’s response to Bohn two days later . . .“Please be assured that the internal items you mention should and will be discussed with the athletic directors. However, these matters can be addressed after the ESPN negotiation is completed and should not slow down that process. We have good reason to want to conclude the ESPN negotiation and announce a new deal as soon as possible. Neither of the items you reference has an impact on whether we accept and conclude the ESPN deal that is on the table. As I mentioned, these are matters we can take up later because the new deal will not start until 2020-21 and we will have no ESPN+ obligations until then. We will have ample time to discuss them.”

That time still exists, but at least some degree of a plan is in place regarding the ESPN+ productions. “Whatever football is on ESPN+, we’ll produce through the conference. It won’t have a huge effect on allocations from distribution. We’re going to do that internally,” Aresco told The Athletic. “(The member schools are) likely to be responsible for their men’s and women’s basketball on ESPN+, but it’s a marginal cost relative to what they’re getting in rights fees. It’s a fraction. We’re getting more, and that factored in the cost of what we’re doing.”

Just how marginal the cost, and how steady and manageable it remains through the life of the deal, is still unknown.

Here's the link: https://theathletic.com/1081183/2019/07/...ed-for-uc/

Behind a paywall. What does it say?

AAC media days left questions answered and unresolved for UC?
Link
https://theathletic.com/1081183/2019/07/...ed-for-uc/

With conference media days starting up this week, the college football season has officially wandered back to civilization from its brief wilderness of recruiting, arbitrary administrative verdicts and early morning, strobe-lit weightlifting sessions.

That includes the American Athletic Conference, which hosted its gridiron contingent in Newport, Rhode Island, for fresh-caught lobster and some well-clad interview sessions.

The event was a reintroduction of sorts for the Cincinnati Bearcats, at least within the conference ecosystem, properly hyped and lauded this year after a surprise 11-2 season in 2018. UC was picked second in the AAC preseason poll, finishing behind Central Florida in both the American Championship vote and the East division standings, and quarterback Desmond Ridder and running back Michael Warren II were both recognized on national award watch lists.

Much of the broader interest still focused on the impact of UConn’s impending departure and how UCF would respond to a pair of debilitating injuries at quarterback, but there were a handful of takeaways relevant to the Bearcats, both on and off the field.

Holding strong at 11 members
AAC commissioner Mike Aresco addressed the one-win Huskie in the room head-on in his opening remarks on Tuesday morning. “As you know, in the wake of recent events, there has been much speculation regarding our membership going forward,” Aresco said. “It is important, for the sake of comity in college athletics, and among our friends in other conferences, to tamp down that speculation. At this point we are comfortable with 12 teams — 11 in football and in men’s and women’s basketball — and have no plans to add a member to replace UConn. We are not targeting anyone.”

RELATED: UConn football tries to ignore the noise as its post-AAC future is debated

This falls in line with what Aresco told me a couple weeks ago and what numerous sources have suggested was the general feeling. Aresco even doubled down on stamping out speculation when asked about schools that might have an interest in buying their way into the conference, telling The Athletic: “No. The money runs out. Then you’re in a situation you wouldn’t have been in. I don’t think we’d have an interest in that.”

The one significant remaining roadblock with an 11-team football league is how the scheduling shakes out, though Aresco was again adamant that the conference would keep a championship game. The AAC also prefers to not have unbalanced divisions, but that puts the American in uncharted waters when it comes to configuring matchups. Aresco has continually cited the Big 10 as a conference that existed as an 11-team league for many years — albeit without a championship game — and has also expressed confidence in securing approval from the NCAA on whatever format they do land on. Clearly, that solution is still in the works.

Embracing ESPN+
Before UConn sprinted across a sun-splashed beach and leapt into the waiting arms of the Big East, the top offseason story for the AAC was the new 12-year, $1-billion television rights agreement with ESPN, set to start with the 2020-21 season.

The final numbers may get tweaked at 11 teams instead of 12, but the conference did its damndest to put the deal front-and-center again in Newport. Aresco hailed it as “a landmark 12-year TV/media deal with ESPN which validates our success over the past six years, and which gives us a strong tailwind into an even more successful future.”

The budding emphasis on ESPN+ broadcasts is a crucial piece of the partnership — the Big 12 recently entered a similar streaming covenant of its own with the platform — but it’s also among the chief concerns for the Bearcats, and one that stretches back to before the deal was even finalized.

On Feb. 24 of this year — more than a month before the new rights deal was officially announced — UC Athletic Director Mike Bohn wrote a letter to Aresco on behalf of the AAC Finance Committee and Television Committee, which also included Patrick Kraft of Temple and Danny White of UCF. The letter, acquired via a public records request, laid out two specific points of contention with the then unfinalized agreement with ESPN. The first was “the assignment of production costs associated with increased ESPN+ digital streaming content.” The second was “a model of media rights payouts that includes a merit-based distribution component,” which Aresco has since stated is not something he felt was in the league’s best interest. In the letter, Bohn also stressed that “in addition to consulting with the presidents of our member institutions, we believe it is also important in your role as commissioner to engage our conference’s athletic directors directly prior to any official votes, especially on subjects that would benefit greatly from our expertise and input, such as the budgeting and operational requirements of the agreement.”

In Aresco’s response to Bohn two days later, obtained via the same record request, the commissioner wrote: “Please be assured that the internal items you mention should and will be discussed with the athletic directors. However, these matters can be addressed after the ESPN negotiation is completed and should not slow down that process. We have good reason to want to conclude the ESPN negotiation and announce a new deal as soon as possible. Neither of the items you reference has an impact on whether we accept and conclude the ESPN deal that is on the table. As I mentioned, these are matters we can take up later because the new deal will not start until 2020-21 and we will have no ESPN+ obligations until then. We will have ample time to discuss them.”

That time still exists, but at least some degree of a plan is in place regarding the ESPN+ productions. “Whatever football is on ESPN+, we’ll produce through the conference. It won’t have a huge effect on allocations from distribution. We’re going to do that internally,” Aresco told The Athletic. “(The member schools are) likely to be responsible for their men’s and women’s basketball on ESPN+, but it’s a marginal cost relative to what they’re getting in rights fees. It’s a fraction. We’re getting more, and that factored in the cost of what we’re doing.”

Just how marginal the cost, and how steady and manageable it remains through the life of the deal, is still unknown.

No wayward expansion
On Monday, some 1,700 miles away from Newport, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby stated at his conference’s media day that the league had no intention of expanding. UConn ghosting the AAC stirred the realignment pot once again, with the 10-team Big 12 being the most logical landing zone among the Power Five conferences. But Bowlsby shot that idea down before the UC’s and Houston’s and UCF’s of the sport could finish their morning coffee, with Aresco taking a similar tact in regard to UConn’s vacated spot about 24 hours later.

Bowlsby did admit that the conference has had discussions about expanding the College Football Playoff, which leaves open the possibility for some landscape rattling in the near future. Though as far as the AAC and its programs are concerned, there are no obvious or acknowledged paths to realignment, in or out, for the time being.

P6 state of mind
Six years in, the “Power 6” brand endures inside the walls of the AAC fiefdom, touted repeatedly and often in regard to conference’s upcoming marquee showcases. The opening weekend alone features UC welcoming UCLA to Nippert Stadium, South Florida hosting Wisconsin, Ole Miss traveling to Memphis and Houston going on the road to face Oklahoma.

The league also folded its bowl game lineup into the Newport mix, announcing annual slots in the Military Bowl and a new, untitled bowl in Boston, both against ACC opponents. A third annual selection will alternate between the Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl and the SoFi Hawaii Bowl, along with four additional annual appearances from a pool of eight bowls.

Despite all the P5 opponents and primetime telecasts, the upper-crust bowl games remain more aspirational than attainable. The New Year’s Six spot still requires the top CFP ranking among Group of Five schools, and as any UCF fan in shouting distance will tell you, actually making the playoff is a fool’s errand.

“We still face headwinds, mainly the result of the G5 label we are currently saddled with, but mark my words, that will change,” Aresco said on Tuesday.

For some members, not soon enough.

(07-18-2019 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:58 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:41 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  On Feb. 24 of this year . . . UC Athletic Director Mike Bohn wrote a letter to Aresco on behalf of the AAC Finance Committee and Television Committee, which also included Patrick Kraft of Temple and Danny White of UCF. . . laid out two specific points of contention with the then unfinalized agreement with ESPN. The first was “the assignment of production costs associated with increased ESPN+ digital streaming content.” The second was “a model of media rights payouts that includes a merit-based distribution component,” which Aresco has since stated is not something he felt was in the league’s best interest. In the letter, Bohn also stressed that “in addition to consulting with the presidents of our member institutions, we believe it is also important in your role as commissioner to engage our conference’s athletic directors directly prior to any official votes, especially on subjects that would benefit greatly from our expertise and input, such as the budgeting and operational requirements of the agreement.” the Larry Scott of the east!

In Aresco’s response to Bohn two days later . . .“Please be assured that the internal items you mention should and will be discussed with the athletic directors. However, these matters can be addressed after the ESPN negotiation is completed and should not slow down that process. We have good reason to want to conclude the ESPN negotiation and announce a new deal as soon as possible. Neither of the items you reference has an impact on whether we accept and conclude the ESPN deal that is on the table. As I mentioned, these are matters we can take up later because the new deal will not start until 2020-21 and we will have no ESPN+ obligations until then. We will have ample time to discuss them.”

That time still exists, but at least some degree of a plan is in place regarding the ESPN+ productions. “Whatever football is on ESPN+, we’ll produce through the conference. It won’t have a huge effect on allocations from distribution. We’re going to do that internally,” Aresco told The Athletic. “(The member schools are) likely to be responsible for their men’s and women’s basketball on ESPN+, but it’s a marginal cost relative to what they’re getting in rights fees. It’s a fraction. We’re getting more, and that factored in the cost of what we’re doing.”

Just how marginal the cost, and how steady and manageable it remains through the life of the deal, is still unknown.

Here's the link: https://theathletic.com/1081183/2019/07/...ed-for-uc/

Behind a paywall. What does it say?

Todge quoted it. Its one paragraph is a lengthy article written by Justin Williams, who covers UC athletics for The Athletic. Williams' article is merely a summary of the events that occurred of late, and includes many other issues such as UConn's departure, whether the conference will go back to 12, Bob Bowlsby's comment about the Big 12, the AAC new bowl lineup, AAC media days, whether the CFP will ever expand etc. Williams doesn't have the answers and frankly nobody probably does.

https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

If it really is closer to $6 million annually for payouts, after the infrastructure costs are included, then it makes perfect sense why UConn moved and when it did (especially with rumored reports the next deal will be bumped to $6 million annually for the Big East with UConn in tow). Along with increased fan interest/support, as well as more regional rivalries and matchups, as well as the increased exposure and access to NYC (BET), then UConn definitely appears to not be losing money (since whatever payouts UConn Football will be getting as an Independent will be a bonus).

Aresco said on Memphis radio in late May that incentive based pay is a possibility. I haven’t heard that it’s been ruled out, but he also didn’t go into specifics either of how that might work.

(07-18-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

If it really is closer to $6 million annually for payouts, after the infrastructure costs are included, then it makes perfect sense why UConn moved and when it did (especially with rumored reports the next deal will be bumped to $6 million annually for the Big East with UConn in tow). Along with increased fan interest/support, as well as more regional rivalries and matchups, as well as the increased exposure and access to NYC (BET), then UConn definitely appears to not be losing money (since whatever payouts UConn Football will be getting as an Independent will be a bonus).

I don't know if it is fair to say Cincinnati was worried. Per the article Mike Bohn was writing on behalf of the AAC Finance and Television Committees, not on behalf of Cincinnati (and the other ADs were not writing on behalf of Temple and UCF).

That being said, I haven't heard Bohn comment on this publically to say one way or another. I will say as a Cincinnati fan that I am not entirely happy with the deal-- Cincinnati is one of a hand full of schools in all of college football whose conference revenue today (and now 12 years from now) is not any better than it was in 2012. On a related note the bowl games we will be tied into from 2020-2025 is worse than what we had available to us in 2012. Unfortunately, the reality is there is nothing Cincinnati can do about it. We are stuck-- the P5 is not available to us; the UConn route of Indy/BE is not available to us; and going to another G5 conference would be worse than what we presently have.

(07-18-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

If it really is closer to $6 million annually for payouts, after the infrastructure costs are included, then it makes perfect sense why UConn moved and when it did (especially with rumored reports the next deal will be bumped to $6 million annually for the Big East with UConn in tow). Along with increased fan interest/support, as well as more regional rivalries and matchups, as well as the increased exposure and access to NYC (BET), then UConn definitely appears to not be losing money (since whatever payouts UConn Football will be getting as an Independent will be a bonus).

This makes sense and remember that the escalation in these contract mean it’ll be 5 or so years before they approach 7M before taking costs into account.

(07-18-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

If it really is closer to $6 million annually for payouts, after the infrastructure costs are included, then it makes perfect sense why UConn moved and when it did (especially with rumored reports the next deal will be bumped to $6 million annually for the Big East with UConn in tow). Along with increased fan interest/support, as well as more regional rivalries and matchups, as well as the increased exposure and access to NYC (BET), then UConn definitely appears to not be losing money (since whatever payouts UConn Football will be getting as an Independent will be a bonus).

reading the article it seems the push for unequal revenue probably centered around football games on TV is gaining strength and that would be a major issue for UConn

I have said before the AAC looks like it is quickly becoming a conference that seems to have a few schools that are willing to do anything and everything to push the "P6" and to set themselves up to be the one to get the call for P5 expansion (that looks less and less likely) without any concerns for the long term

and a second set of teams that is just willing to sit back and accept that because they believe they also have a chance in hell of going to a P5 conference or because they are just willing to accept the AAC looks better than other G5s even if things are not getting better and the long term deals seem to possibly be a very bad deal long term

from the standpoint of UConn it was just better to take control for themselves and leave the rest to argue over total revenue splits and the cost of putting games on ESPN+ and do they all share that equally or do some of them have to pay more of that....while possibly also getting less revenues before those production cost

less and less a conference of teams all trying to set themselves up the best they can while trying to have the "best G5 conference" argument help them and more and more a conference where some hope they can trample the others in the conference down until only a couple are left standing to shake their tail feathers at the P5 and with no concern what happens if one or none of them get that call (sort that out later just like the ESPN+ cost)

Quote:Even without UConn, there are still pretty big institutional differences between the rest of the schools. It’s a Southern league…with Cincinnati and Temple. A league of mostly non-flagship state schools, but also Tulane and SMU. It’s a league that cares a lot about football and talks about parity with the P5 (lol), but also includes Tulane, East Carolina and Tulsa. It isn’t a league with deep, historical rivalries or common institutional ties. Most of these schools have played in lots of different conferences.

That makes hashing out the money potentially problematic. What Cincinnati wants, needs, and deserves is going to be different from what Tulsa or Tulane can bring to the table in the short-term. Ohio State and Northwestern can paper over those differences because they’ve been playing football for a hundred years and ****, everybody is still getting rich.

That’s not the case in the AAC, even with this new TV deal. The potential for real tension is still there.

The article above stomps all over the AAC. It also brings up a great point that I never really thought about in that there are teams that are happy to just be in the AAC. How funny would it be if the P5 hopeful teams break off and form the AAAC

Aresco has mentioned a Big 10 style schedule where they played two permanent games among an 8-game schedule with 11 teams.

Here's my suggestion, based on geography, current divisions, and TV appeal:

Current East
UCF = USF, Cincy
Cincy = Memphis, UCF
USF = UCF, Temple
Temple = USF, East Car
East Car = Temple, Tulane

Current West
Houston = Memphis, Navy
Memphis = Houston, Cincy
Navy = Houston, SMU
SMU = Tulsa, Navy
Tulane = East Car, Tulsa
Tulsa = SMU, Tulane

(07-18-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

If it really is closer to $6 million annually for payouts, after the infrastructure costs are included, then it makes perfect sense why UConn moved and when it did (especially with rumored reports the next deal will be bumped to $6 million annually for the Big East with UConn in tow). Along with increased fan interest/support, as well as more regional rivalries and matchups, as well as the increased exposure and access to NYC (BET), then UConn definitely appears to not be losing money (since whatever payouts UConn Football will be getting as an Independent will be a bonus).

Not only are they losing money with the move, they are losing a ton of money. Let’s just start with what many are saying is likley to be a 18.5 million dollar exit/entry transactional fee that everyone just seems to ignore. The average per team total conference distribution is about a million dollars more in the AAC under the current contract. We know this from tax records. It’s is not a debatable point—but is a fact. A five million dollar per team media increase is only going to widen the gap that already exists. The fact is not a single UConn official has ever stated they will make more money. Not one. The best I’ve heard them say is they believe/hope the difference will be insignificant.

In terms of production costs—data is scarce. However I was able to find at least one article by a school that produces all it own games for ESPN3/+ who’s AD indicated their production costs were roughly about 350K a year. This falls in line with my prediction of about that number since the extremely ESPN+ heavy Sunbelt tv deal pays that conference 400k per team. It also makes sense since all these FCS and D1 non-football schools with tiny sub-10 million a year budgets simply can’t afford to spend 1-2 million of their tiny budget for TV streaming productions that will only be seen by a few thousand people at most.

(07-07-2019 01:54 AM)scoscox Wrote:  My man, the Big East is gonna be good as hell next year.

Ticket revenue wasn't on the table because remaining American teams aren't affected, but UConn's will be affected by changing conferences. Added ticket revenue is something they'll benefit from by moving. I could also add that their AD and Pres reported reinvigorated donations as a result of the move as well. Impossible to know an exact amount there, but I'm sure it's not insignificant.

2 million is hardly BS. Total travel in the Big East is almost exactly half of what it was for them in the American. They spent 7 million in the American. 2 million less for half the miles seems reasonable. All of a sudden, half of their away games are bus rides instead of flights. And yes they'll still be saving significantly more only having 1 trip by the women's lacrosse team out to denver rather than multiple trips by all their sports to texas multiple times a year.

Debunking what? Are you denying that they'll have to produce their own events? That will cost money whether it's 400k to 1 million.

optimistic projections have them earning more
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

not to mention the likelihood that the Big East contract gets renegotiated for more money in a few years.

Calling BS.

Post the miles to EACH school in the Big East. There are only about 3-5 trips that realistically can be a bus trip without missing significant class time.

(07-18-2019 09:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

I don't know if it is fair to say Cincinnati was worried. Per the article Mike Bohn was writing on behalf of the AAC Finance and Television Committees, not on behalf of Cincinnati (and the other ADs were not writing on behalf of Temple and UCF).

Your point is actually worse for the AAC as a whole, because writing "on behalf of the AAC Finance and TV Committee" suggests that this was a concern for the entire committee, and by extension the conference generally, not just a school or two.

Bottom line is, some of us have been raising the issue of possibly significant production costs associated with ESPN+, enough to take a non-trivial bite out of that $7m payout. In response, we've been told by many around here that these costs are extremely minor, that basically all the schools already have the necessary infrastructure and that the game-day production can be handled by a few undergrad film majors roaming the sidelines with steady-cams for internship credit.

True, thanks to Aresco's talent for obfuscation, even in correspondence within the conference hierarchy, we're still largely in the grey about exactly what those costs will be. But this note of concern from the AAC committee to Aresco casts a shadow over the argument that ESPN+ production costs are trivial and not to be worried about.

The committee was worried.

For example, getting from UConn to Xavier.

That's a 12.5 hour drive for a small family. Have you ever played a college sport before lol? By the time you load equipment, do roll call, you have already spent 40 minutes. Then good luck not stopping with an entire sports team on a bus. A simple stop at McDonalds easily can take over 2 hours to feed an entire sports team. Then roll call again....Because sports players are like candy to young girls you have to babysit athletes. That 12 hour bus trip is easily going to turn into 13-15 hours not even considering traffic.

That same trip on a private flight is 2 hours. And when the game is over you can fly right back the same day.

(07-18-2019 02:17 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Calling BS.

Post the miles to EACH school in the Big East. There are only about 3-5 trips that realistically can be a bus trip without missing significant class time.

You realize there are only ten teams in the big east right? 3-5 trips is half the conference on the high end. St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence are 100% locks to bus to. Nova most likely. Georgetown maybe. That's half the conference.

(07-18-2019 01:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://mattbrown.substack.com/p/what-we...from-media

The TL;DR here is that the ~$7 million deal isn’t exactly ~$7 million, because schools now also have an increased production cost factor to consider, since they’re producing even more programming to fill those ESPN+ slots…not just football and men’s basketball, but other sports too. Those costs aren’t so high as to torpedo the deal, obviously, but I’ve been told it can cost thousands of dollars to produce say, a women’s basketball game. Depending on what infrastructure existed at the school beforehand, those $7 million dollars might be closer to like, $6.3. Maybe less. The devil is in those details, and it would appear not all of those details have been completely resolved.

So, UConn was not the only one with reservations about the TV deal; Cincinnati clearly had concerns as well, and was concerned enough to include UCF and Temple in the correspondence. Bigger picture, the more alarming aspect is that Aresco couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the direct questions about specificity to costs and payouts with the TV deal.

If it really is closer to $6 million annually for payouts, after the infrastructure costs are included, then it makes perfect sense why UConn moved and when it did (especially with rumored reports the next deal will be bumped to $6 million annually for the Big East with UConn in tow). Along with increased fan interest/support, as well as more regional rivalries and matchups, as well as the increased exposure and access to NYC (BET), then UConn definitely appears to not be losing money (since whatever payouts UConn Football will be getting as an Independent will be a bonus).

Not only are they losing money with the move, they are losing a ton of money. Let’s just start with what many are saying is likley to be a 18.5 million dollar exit/entry transactional fee that everyone just seems to ignore. The average per team total conference distribution is about a million dollars more in the AAC under the current contract. We know this from tax records. It’s is not a debatable point—but is a fact. A five million dollar per team media increase is only going to widen the gap that already exists. The fact is not a single UConn official has ever stated they will make more money. Not one. The best I’ve heard them say is they believe/hope the difference will be insignificant.

In terms of production costs—data is scarce. However I was able to find at least one article by a school that produces all it own games for ESPN3/+ who’s AD indicated their production costs were roughly about 350K a year. This falls in line with my prediction of about that number since the extremely ESPN+ heavy Sunbelt tv deal pays that conference 400k per team. It also makes sense since all these FCS and D1 non-football schools with tiny sub-10 million a year budgets simply can’t afford to spend 1-2 million of their tiny budget for TV streaming productions that will only be seen by a few thousand people at most.

I can confirm this.

My church can produce a 1080p live-stream that can reach outside the United States for pennies. The numbers that people are throwing around are absurd. Once you buy the equipment you don't have to purchase it again. And places like schools and churches can take advantage of (free) labor with students.

(07-18-2019 02:30 PM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:17 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Calling BS.

Post the miles to EACH school in the Big East. There are only about 3-5 trips that realistically can be a bus trip without missing significant class time.

You realize there are only ten teams in the big east right? 3-5 trips is half the conference on the high end. St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence are 100% locks to bus to. Nova most likely. Georgetown maybe. That's half the conference.

Post the numbers then and don't argue.

They still realistically have to fly to 6/10 games for basketball. And unless I'm mistaken the Big East has associate members correct? So make sure you include flights to Denver, Colorado in your estimates.

why? you admitted they'll bus to 3-5 of the teams in the big east. we agree. that is what i said. i don't understand what you're arguing. there's no disagreement

Here's a point about UConn's move that is probably not even in the top 100 concerns but I just thought of it: UConn women's lacrosse is in the American, having moved there from the Big East when the AAC started sponsoring the sport, creating a series of moves that ensured that four conferences (AAC, BE, Atlantic Sun, Southern) would have the six teams necessary to have an automatic bid to the tournament. Does UConn stay in the American or move to the Big East, and if they move, does the Big East trade Denver or Old Dominion to the American to keep the balance?