Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
[split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
Author Message
MidknightWhiskey Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 905
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 72
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #121
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-15-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 03:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 01:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  If UConn could have kept its football program in the AAC, it likely would have.

I don't think that's in question. IIRC, UConn even sounded out the AAC about remaining in football.

You very well might be correct, Quo. I do recall, however, (and FWIW) that you were very in favor of the American asking UConn to remain for football only.

Absolutely, and I think the AAC should have done that. For one thing, the AAC football has done well with UConn, and having 11 in football creates scheduling and CCG issues. IMO, telling UConn "no" was a classic case of slicing your nose to spite the face. It was a pride-and-ego decision.

UConn football was dead weight, they were only tolerated for their basketball program and even then as a football first conference there were people wanting to dump UConn.
During their time in the AAC 2013-2019 their football program was 11-45 in conference, 20-65 total (including fcs) 14-65 fbs.
05-15-2020 06:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #122
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-15-2020 06:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 03:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 01:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  If UConn could have kept its football program in the AAC, it likely would have.

I don't think that's in question. IIRC, UConn even sounded out the AAC about remaining in football.

You very well might be correct, Quo. I do recall, however, (and FWIW) that you were very in favor of the American asking UConn to remain for football only.

Absolutely, and I think the AAC should have done that. For one thing, the AAC football has done well with UConn, and having 11 in football creates scheduling and CCG issues. IMO, telling UConn "no" was a classic case of slicing your nose to spite the face. It was a pride-and-ego decision.

UConn football was dead weight, they were only tolerated for their basketball program and even then as a football first conference there were people wanting to dump UConn.
During their time in the AAC 2013-2019 their football program was 11-45 in conference, 20-65 total (including fcs) 14-65 fbs.

Exactly. Quo refuses to see the obvious here. The exit of UConn basketball was a significant loss. The exit of UConn football was addition through subtraction. If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. Not one was interested. Their evaluation was confirmed when CBS basically paid the same thing for the UConn rights as they were paying for CUSA/Sunbelt content. Even if you just want a warm body for scheduling----there are better "warm body" options. Lets also remember that letting UConn football stick around probably reduces that 17 million dollar exit fee----while adding another team means a FULL UCOnn exit fee PLUS an additional entry fee from another school. There is just no angle where it made sense to hang on to UConn football once the basketball team left.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2020 03:30 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-16-2020 03:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,104
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #123
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ... If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. ...

Note that it is easy to overstate this ... the MAC was not on the phone to UConn begging them to join, so it is fair to say they didn't "jump at the chance to add them" with a nuanced understanding of what "jumping at the chance" is supposed to mean ...

... but the response when asked about it was that they had had not had contact from UConn about the issue, so it's reasonable to say whether there was some arrangement where they might be interested in adding them was never put to the test, because UConn was not interested in joining the MAC.
05-16-2020 04:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,846
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 154
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #124
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 04:22 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ... If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. ...

Note that it is easy to overstate this ... the MAC was not on the phone to UConn begging them to join, so it is fair to say they didn't "jump at the chance to add them" with a nuanced understanding of what "jumping at the chance" is supposed to mean ...

... but the response when asked about it was that they had had not had contact from UConn about the issue, so it's reasonable to say whether there was some arrangement where they might be interested in adding them was never put to the test, because UConn was not interested in joining the MAC.

Yea. Not saying they were clamoring for UConn either, but I'm less than convinced that UConn put in any real effort to join the Sun Belt or CUSA, and apparently the MAC never heard from them either. You look at Uconn's schedule and they've done fine getting a slate that's preferable to those conferences with better travel for the most part.

I do think the MAC could have made a little bit of sense given their overlap with the western contingent of the Big East, but those mid-week games are a killer.
05-16-2020 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #125
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
http://forgotten5.com/2020/05/15/analyzi...w-tv-deal/

Analyzing UConn’s New TV Deal
OMAR-RASHON BORJA19 HOURS AGO 0 140

On Monday, UConn announced they reached a deal with CBS Sports Network to broadcast their home games until 2023.

While the first year of the deal will broadcast four home games, the network will carry the Huskies’ full slate in the remaining years.

The question of who would carry UConn’s home games loomed heavy ever since their departure from the American, but this deal provides needed stability and exposure, to some degree.

One of the points of friction for UConn fans was the increased prevalence of sporting events on ESPN+. These fears mostly pertained to basketball as it is debatable how many of UConn’s football games or American games, in general, would have been broadcast on ESPN+.

Most of the ESPN+ games are likely to come from the American’s previous sublicense with CBSSN. The new American deal calls for a minimum of 40 games telecast on ESPN’s linear networks. Additionally, only games that did end up on CBSSN and ESPN3 last year. The conference broadcast 25 games on the two networks, eight of which were FCS games.

Simply put, the fear of the conference’s most impactful games being exiled to ESPN+ is almost nonsense. Arguably, the only reason UConn fans had that fear was because of their underwhelming performance over the past two years.

The addition of UConn games is beneficial to CBS Sports Network as they get some football inventory to replace the anticipated loss of American games. The network will pay the Huskies around $500,000 per year to broadcast their home games, which will combine with the Big East’s TV deal to give them $4.5 million in media revenue per year. This total lags behind the approximate total of $7 million the American’s schools will receive. The production costs of ESPN+ are unlikely to cause that total to fall below the $4.5 million that UConn will make.

Along with this, they get some Power Conference games to air, something their other partners in the service academies, C-USA, and the MAC lack.

Good Move For Purists, But Not So Good For Cord-Cutters
While the Hartford Courant writes of the low carriage numbers of ESPN+, at around 8 million, CBS Sports’ does not have the carriage numbers of a prominent sports network.

NBC Sports Network had 82 million subscribers as of 2017, while Fox Sports 1 is in around 83 million homes as of 2018. As for CBS Sports Network, they are in 55 million homes as the Courant reports.

Additionally, cost and accessibility will be an issue for cord-cutting UConn fans. While ESPN+ is only around $5 a month for content that extends well past AAC sports, CBS Sports Network is harder to find in the streaming domain.

Unlike Fox Sports 1 and ESPN/ESPN+, CBS Sports Network is not as prevalent in streaming packages as the only ones the channel is available on are Fubo TV, Hulu Live, and YouTube TV.

The prices of all services are all over $50 compared to the $5 paywall that some of UConn’s football games would have been behind. Yet, the increased cost for fans to see the Huskies on linear TV appears to be worth it for perceived exposure.

One advantage of the CBSSN deal is UConn not having to pay production costs for their telecasts. However, the accessibility of ESPN+ makes up for the production costs of schools to use the platform.

While UConn has some good home games against Power Five schools, none of these schools are particularly rating producers. In the next four years, UConn hosts Indiana, Purdue, Boston College, Syracuse, and NC State.

Arguably, the pinnacle measure of Power Five TV exposure is prime-time network TV appearances. Below is each school with the number of appearances they have had since 2006, the start of ABC’s Saturday Night Football. This is a good start point because it was the first time one of the over-the-air networks broadcast prime-time college football on a weekly basis.

Boston College: 4
Indiana: 0
NC State: 1
Purdue: 3
Syracuse: 2
Also of note, is Purdue’s one appearance as Fox’s headlining noon game against a 4-4 Nebraska school. Yet, this appearance also comes with a caveat, as a dry slate allowed SMU and Memphis to gain a rare appearance in ABC’s primetime slot.

The stats show that while these teams are a bigger draw than most of UConn’s former counterparts, they will not suddenly bring more people to watch UConn football. People are not going to start watching a UConn team that’s gone 4-20 in the last two years because they are playing Indiana.

Aside from the increased cost, this new deal with CBSSN is beneficial. Many thought UConn would partner with SNY, but this move is an obvious upgrade over any regional network.

This puts them on par with Army, in terms of exposure of course, and a step behind BYU. The Huskies avoid partnering with a streaming service with the lack of reputation of FloSports, which carries UMass and New Mexico State’s games.

Still, UConn has a ways to go in using this deal to make their program comparably marketable with both their former cohorts in the American and other independents.

*Special thanks to mattsarzsports.com for the broadcast data used in this article. This site is an absolute must for college sports fans.[/align]
05-16-2020 09:17 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #126
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 06:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 03:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 01:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think that's in question. IIRC, UConn even sounded out the AAC about remaining in football.

You very well might be correct, Quo. I do recall, however, (and FWIW) that you were very in favor of the American asking UConn to remain for football only.

Absolutely, and I think the AAC should have done that. For one thing, the AAC football has done well with UConn, and having 11 in football creates scheduling and CCG issues. IMO, telling UConn "no" was a classic case of slicing your nose to spite the face. It was a pride-and-ego decision.

UConn football was dead weight, they were only tolerated for their basketball program and even then as a football first conference there were people wanting to dump UConn.
During their time in the AAC 2013-2019 their football program was 11-45 in conference, 20-65 total (including fcs) 14-65 fbs.

Exactly. Quo refuses to see the obvious here. The exit of UConn basketball was a significant loss. The exit of UConn football was addition through subtraction. If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. Not one was interested. Their evaluation was confirmed when CBS basically paid the same thing for the UConn rights as they were paying for CUSA/Sunbelt content. Even if you just want a warm body for scheduling----there are better "warm body" options. Lets also remember that letting UConn football stick around probably reduces that 17 million dollar exit fee----while adding another team means a FULL UCOnn exit fee PLUS an additional entry fee from another school. There is just no angle where it made sense to hang on to UConn football once the basketball team left.

I agree, I hadn't thought of the exit and entry fees, those are very significant numbers.

Then again, factoring that in, I daresay the loss of just about any single AAC school would have been similarly "beneficial" to the conference. There isn't any one AAC brand big enough by themelsves to have moved the needle significantly in terms of the football TV deal and the conference would collect those big $17m exit and entry fees.

Also, it's hard to say UConn football was "dead weight". Yes, they lost a lot of games, but every conference has teams that lose a lot of games. UConn will just be replaced at the bottom of the standings with whoever else is next-worst.
05-16-2020 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #127
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 06:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2020 03:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  You very well might be correct, Quo. I do recall, however, (and FWIW) that you were very in favor of the American asking UConn to remain for football only.

Absolutely, and I think the AAC should have done that. For one thing, the AAC football has done well with UConn, and having 11 in football creates scheduling and CCG issues. IMO, telling UConn "no" was a classic case of slicing your nose to spite the face. It was a pride-and-ego decision.

UConn football was dead weight, they were only tolerated for their basketball program and even then as a football first conference there were people wanting to dump UConn.
During their time in the AAC 2013-2019 their football program was 11-45 in conference, 20-65 total (including fcs) 14-65 fbs.

Exactly. Quo refuses to see the obvious here. The exit of UConn basketball was a significant loss. The exit of UConn football was addition through subtraction. If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. Not one was interested. Their evaluation was confirmed when CBS basically paid the same thing for the UConn rights as they were paying for CUSA/Sunbelt content. Even if you just want a warm body for scheduling----there are better "warm body" options. Lets also remember that letting UConn football stick around probably reduces that 17 million dollar exit fee----while adding another team means a FULL UCOnn exit fee PLUS an additional entry fee from another school. There is just no angle where it made sense to hang on to UConn football once the basketball team left.

I agree, I hadn't thought of the exit and entry fees, those are very significant numbers.

Then again, factoring that in, I daresay the loss of just about any single AAC school would have been similarly "beneficial" to the conference. There isn't any one AAC brand big enough by themelsves to have moved the needle significantly in terms of the football TV deal and the conference would collect those big $17m exit and entry fees.

Also, it's hard to say UConn football was "dead weight". Yes, they lost a lot of games, but every conference has teams that lose a lot of games. UConn will just be replaced at the bottom of the standings with whoever else is next-worst.

In 2018, UConn was ranked #129 in the Massey Composite rankings. That was the year the mwc edged the AAC - 77.32 conference composite ranking vs 79.8
The average MC ranking of 11 AAC teams sans UConn is 4.41 higher than the AAC with UConn. I'm missing a layer of math here between the simple average of individual rankings (80.5) and the conference composite, but it is hard to argue that difference wouldn't have flipped the two conferences' standings.
And if that carried over into the rankings used to rank non-contract-bowl conferences for CFP performance pay (I believe a composite of the old BCS computer ranking systems)...AAC could have gotten $1.4M more that year.

The next lowest will replace UConn? Not as low as #129.
ECU was the next lowest, ranked at #115. In conference 1-7, beating only UConn. So conference play wouldn't have pulled them down. And the Pirates had wins against UNC and ODU that year, helping the conference numbers in that regard.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2020 10:52 AM by slhNavy91.)
05-16-2020 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,216
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #128
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 09:08 AM)Bogg Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 04:22 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ... If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. ...

Note that it is easy to overstate this ... the MAC was not on the phone to UConn begging them to join, so it is fair to say they didn't "jump at the chance to add them" with a nuanced understanding of what "jumping at the chance" is supposed to mean ...

... but the response when asked about it was that they had had not had contact from UConn about the issue, so it's reasonable to say whether there was some arrangement where they might be interested in adding them was never put to the test, because UConn was not interested in joining the MAC.

Yea. Not saying they were clamoring for UConn either, but I'm less than convinced that UConn put in any real effort to join the Sun Belt or CUSA, and apparently the MAC never heard from them either. You look at Uconn's schedule and they've done fine getting a slate that's preferable to those conferences with better travel for the most part.

I do think the MAC could have made a little bit of sense given their overlap with the western contingent of the Big East, but those mid-week games are a killer.

UConn would shutter its FB program or move down to FCS before playing midweek games in the MAC. CUSA and the Sun Belt FB only present the same long distance travel problems as the AAC, even worse with Temple, Navy, Cinn, Memphis, and ECU in the picture for the AAC. Best move for UConn after Aresco them no basketball, no football was to go independent or move down to FCS. Kudos for trying independence first. Time will tell the rest as their independent FB program ventures into the future with the steps Benedict has taken so far with scheduling and adding the CBS Sports contract for minor MAC like / CUSA like TV revenue in addition to the $4+ the university will receive from the NBE. 07-coffee3
05-16-2020 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #129
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 10:50 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 06:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Absolutely, and I think the AAC should have done that. For one thing, the AAC football has done well with UConn, and having 11 in football creates scheduling and CCG issues. IMO, telling UConn "no" was a classic case of slicing your nose to spite the face. It was a pride-and-ego decision.

UConn football was dead weight, they were only tolerated for their basketball program and even then as a football first conference there were people wanting to dump UConn.
During their time in the AAC 2013-2019 their football program was 11-45 in conference, 20-65 total (including fcs) 14-65 fbs.

Exactly. Quo refuses to see the obvious here. The exit of UConn basketball was a significant loss. The exit of UConn football was addition through subtraction. If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. Not one was interested. Their evaluation was confirmed when CBS basically paid the same thing for the UConn rights as they were paying for CUSA/Sunbelt content. Even if you just want a warm body for scheduling----there are better "warm body" options. Lets also remember that letting UConn football stick around probably reduces that 17 million dollar exit fee----while adding another team means a FULL UCOnn exit fee PLUS an additional entry fee from another school. There is just no angle where it made sense to hang on to UConn football once the basketball team left.

I agree, I hadn't thought of the exit and entry fees, those are very significant numbers.

Then again, factoring that in, I daresay the loss of just about any single AAC school would have been similarly "beneficial" to the conference. There isn't any one AAC brand big enough by themelsves to have moved the needle significantly in terms of the football TV deal and the conference would collect those big $17m exit and entry fees.

Also, it's hard to say UConn football was "dead weight". Yes, they lost a lot of games, but every conference has teams that lose a lot of games. UConn will just be replaced at the bottom of the standings with whoever else is next-worst.

In 2018, UConn was ranked #129 in the Massey Composite rankings. That was the year the mwc edged the AAC - 77.32 conference composite ranking vs 79.8
The average MC ranking of 11 AAC teams sans UConn is 4.41 higher than the AAC with UConn. I'm missing a layer of math here between the simple average of individual rankings (80.5) and the conference composite, but it is hard to argue that difference wouldn't have flipped the two conferences' standings.
And if that carried over into the rankings used to rank non-contract-bowl conferences for CFP performance pay (I believe a composite of the old BCS computer ranking systems)...AAC could have gotten $1.4M more that year.

The next lowest will replace UConn? Not as low as #129.
ECU was the next lowest, ranked at #115. In conference 1-7, beating only UConn. So conference play wouldn't have pulled them down. And the Pirates had wins against UNC and ODU that year, helping the conference numbers in that regard.

I don't think it's that kind of simple addition and subtraction. I suspect there are interaction effects at work.

So I don't expect the AAC Massey rating to go up next year (if there is a next year) by the simple amount that would have happened if we just subtracted UConn's low rating from the overall calculation. I suspect that whoever is next-worst will sink down to UConn's level in that regard, or close enough to it as to be trivial.

But we shall see.
05-16-2020 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VCE Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,158
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Tradition
Location:
Post: #130
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 06:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 10:50 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 03:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-15-2020 06:25 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  UConn football was dead weight, they were only tolerated for their basketball program and even then as a football first conference there were people wanting to dump UConn.
During their time in the AAC 2013-2019 their football program was 11-45 in conference, 20-65 total (including fcs) 14-65 fbs.

Exactly. Quo refuses to see the obvious here. The exit of UConn basketball was a significant loss. The exit of UConn football was addition through subtraction. If UConn football held any value what so ever to a conference---the MAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add them. Not one was interested. Their evaluation was confirmed when CBS basically paid the same thing for the UConn rights as they were paying for CUSA/Sunbelt content. Even if you just want a warm body for scheduling----there are better "warm body" options. Lets also remember that letting UConn football stick around probably reduces that 17 million dollar exit fee----while adding another team means a FULL UCOnn exit fee PLUS an additional entry fee from another school. There is just no angle where it made sense to hang on to UConn football once the basketball team left.

I agree, I hadn't thought of the exit and entry fees, those are very significant numbers.

Then again, factoring that in, I daresay the loss of just about any single AAC school would have been similarly "beneficial" to the conference. There isn't any one AAC brand big enough by themelsves to have moved the needle significantly in terms of the football TV deal and the conference would collect those big $17m exit and entry fees.

Also, it's hard to say UConn football was "dead weight". Yes, they lost a lot of games, but every conference has teams that lose a lot of games. UConn will just be replaced at the bottom of the standings with whoever else is next-worst.

In 2018, UConn was ranked #129 in the Massey Composite rankings. That was the year the mwc edged the AAC - 77.32 conference composite ranking vs 79.8
The average MC ranking of 11 AAC teams sans UConn is 4.41 higher than the AAC with UConn. I'm missing a layer of math here between the simple average of individual rankings (80.5) and the conference composite, but it is hard to argue that difference wouldn't have flipped the two conferences' standings.
And if that carried over into the rankings used to rank non-contract-bowl conferences for CFP performance pay (I believe a composite of the old BCS computer ranking systems)...AAC could have gotten $1.4M more that year.

The next lowest will replace UConn? Not as low as #129.
ECU was the next lowest, ranked at #115. In conference 1-7, beating only UConn. So conference play wouldn't have pulled them down. And the Pirates had wins against UNC and ODU that year, helping the conference numbers in that regard.

I don't think it's that kind of simple addition and subtraction. I suspect there are interaction effects at work.

So I don't expect the AAC Massey rating to go up next year (if there is a next year) by the simple amount that would have happened if we just subtracted UConn's low rating from the overall calculation. I suspect that whoever is next-worst will sink down to UConn's level in that regard, or close enough to it as to be trivial.

But we shall see.

It’s more complex than looking at the “simple amount” and expecting a 1 for 1 trade off, but isn’t it kind of silly to think that a league of 12 dropping one of its weaker 2/3 teams won’t get stronger from a ratings perspective?

The overall league win loss % will remain at 50%, but dropping a team that goes 1-3 ooc or 2-2 ooc in favor of a league avg of 2.2-1.8 or 2.5-1.5 ooc makes sense as far as improving league ratings I think. I expect AAC football to be better off without UCONN in other words.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2020 10:42 PM by VCE.)
05-16-2020 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,104
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #131
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 10:40 PM)VCE Wrote:  It’s more complex than looking at the “simple amount” and expecting a 1 for 1 trade off, but isn’t it kind of silly to think that a league of 12 dropping one of its weaker 2/3 teams won’t get stronger from a ratings perspective?

I think we'd expect the 11 remaining to bring a slightly better average performance into conference play, at which point the conference play mostly redistributes that average performance.

But the smaller number of games played in FB means that the actual realization could go the other way, just from a couple of close games turning into AAC losses rather than AAC wins, so there's less confidence in that outcome than there would be in basketball.
05-17-2020 12:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #132
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 09:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  http://forgotten5.com/2020/05/15/analyzi...w-tv-deal/

Analyzing UConn’s New TV Deal
OMAR-RASHON BORJA19 HOURS AGO 0 140

That's a well balanced analysis - thanks for finding and posting.
05-17-2020 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke4 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,507
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #133
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-17-2020 08:11 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 09:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  http://forgotten5.com/2020/05/15/analyzi...w-tv-deal/

Analyzing UConn’s New TV Deal
OMAR-RASHON BORJA19 HOURS AGO 0 140

That's a well balanced analysis - thanks for finding and posting.

That was like a breath of fresh objective air. Nice read.04-cheers
05-17-2020 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #134
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-17-2020 12:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 10:40 PM)VCE Wrote:  It’s more complex than looking at the “simple amount” and expecting a 1 for 1 trade off, but isn’t it kind of silly to think that a league of 12 dropping one of its weaker 2/3 teams won’t get stronger from a ratings perspective?

The overall league win loss % will remain at 50%, but dropping a team that goes 1-3 ooc or 2-2 ooc in favor of a league avg of 2.2-1.8 or 2.5-1.5 ooc makes sense as far as improving league ratings I think. I expect AAC football to be better off without UCONN in other words.

I think we'd expect the 11 remaining to bring a slightly better average performance into conference play, at which point the conference play mostly redistributes that average performance.

But the smaller number of games played in FB means that the actual realization could go the other way, just from a couple of close games turning into AAC losses rather than AAC wins, so there's less confidence in that outcome than there would be in basketball.


I agree - obviously it's a little more complex.

I also think that we will see the AAC's rankings go up whenever we get to play a normal season. To me, a "next man down" theory -- that the now-lowest AAC team will drop from its previous low ranking to UConn-low rankings -- doesn't stand up. And I'm not saying that because "omg, AAC so awesome." In fact the reasoning comes from the opposite direction: that #11 AAC team has been pretty bad on occasion, and STILL stayed above UConn lows.

Looking at the last four seasons, it's not that there were no other AAC teams near the bottom of the rankings. There were teams going winless against AAC teams not named UConn. There were AAC teams losing to FCS teams. There were AAC teams losing to UConn and finishing below the Huskies in the conference standings. And they all stayed a healthy chunk above UConn.

Of course it's possible. As recently as 2015, UConn went bowling (in between seasons ranked at #119 and #123) and a DIFFERENT AAC team was in the bottom two of FBS (#127 of 128)...but they had to go winless to get there. It's, like, historically significant for an AAC football team to be the same kind of anchor on the rest of the conference's statistical rankings as UConn routinely has.

As quo said...we shall see...




==========
Resumes of UConn and the next-lowest AAC teams of the last four seasons:

2019:
UConn 2-10 (0-8) was #125 in the Massey Composite. Wins against FCS Wagner and #129 UMass; OOC losses to #40 Indiana and #73 Illinois
ECU 4-8 (1-7) was next lowest AAC team, #117 MC. 0-7 in the AAC excepting UConn, OOC 3-1 wins over #127 ODU and two FCS (after the Va Tech issue); loss to #107 NCState.

2018:
UConn 1-11(0-8) was #129. Win against FCS Rhode Island; OOC losses to #18 Syracuse, #23 Boise State, and #108 UMass.
ECU 3-9 (1-7) was next lowest AAC team at #115. 0-7 already in the AAC excepting UConn. OOC Ws over #99 UNC and #116 ODU, Ls to #32 NCState and FCS NCA&T

2017:
UConn 3-9 (2-6) was #113. Those conference wins were over #63 Temple and #107 Tulsa to go along with an FCS win. OOC losses to #34 BC, #53 Missouri, and #72 UVA.
ECU 3-9 (2-6) was #109. Conference wins were UConn and 4-8 (2-6) Cincinnati. OOC win over #103 BYU, losses to #23 Virginia Tech, #50 West Virginia, and an FCS.
Tulsa 2-10 (1-7) and #107 MC should be mentioned as well - actually below those 2-6 teams in the conference standings, having lost to UConn. The one conference win was over #52 Houston. OOC win over #116 Louisiana Lafayette. OOC losses to #16 Oklahoma State, #43 Toledo, #117 New Mexico.

2016:
UConn 3-9 (1-7) was #119 of 128. The conference win was over #98 Cincinnati 4-8(1-7). OOC wins over #103 UVA and FCS Maine. OOC losses to #34 BC and #74 Syracuse.
ECU 3-9 (1-7) was next lowest at #107.Winless against AAC teams not named UConn. OOC wins over #43 NCState and FCS. OOC losses to #16 Virginia Tech and #72 South Carolina.
05-17-2020 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Online
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,387
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 948
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #135
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
I have posted many times on this board how I respect UConn's right to make this choice. And I feel it will be a strong move for the university and its athletics program. I tremendously respect UConn and will miss having it in the American and losing the school is a blow on various levels.

But when it comes to the "eye test," the UConn football teams of the past few years have been ... (I can't even bring myself to type the word). If the "next worst" American gridiron program "falls" to the level of UConn football, Mikey Aresco may as well simply fold the league. I just don't see any of the 11 remaining AAC football programs being that "not good."

In short, whatever becomes the worst AAC football program (in general and over time) or the worst team (any given year) in terms of record and conference standings, I expect that program/team to be noticeably more competitive and tough than the Huskies were.

Having said all that, I do wish UConn football well. There is reason to think the Huskies can improve on the field with the indy approach. No need to be nasty.
05-17-2020 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #136
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-17-2020 12:42 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  No need to be nasty.

I hope you're not talking to me.

I have posted on these boards many times that UConn has almost certainly made the right strategic choice for UConn, and I wish them well
05-17-2020 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Online
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,387
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 948
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #137
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-17-2020 12:50 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-17-2020 12:42 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  No need to be nasty.

I hope you're not talking to me.

I have posted on these boards many times that UConn has almost certainly made the right strategic choice for UConn, and I wish them well

Absolutely not, slhNavy91. You have been extremely gracious toward UConn. I enjoy reading your posts and feel your tone and word choice in all your posts are positive (even when you are being frank). I did take an exception recently (and posted this) and you responded promptly and in an appropriate manner.

I strongly appreciate your contributions to this board.
05-17-2020 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #138
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-17-2020 12:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(05-17-2020 12:50 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-17-2020 12:42 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  No need to be nasty.

I hope you're not talking to me.

I have posted on these boards many times that UConn has almost certainly made the right strategic choice for UConn, and I wish them well

Absolutely not, slhNavy91. You have been extremely gracious toward UConn. I enjoy reading your posts and feel your tone and word choice in all your posts are positive (even when you are being frank). I did take an exception recently (and posted this) and you responded promptly and in an appropriate manner.

I strongly appreciate your contributions to this board.

Cool
05-17-2020 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,926
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
Post: #139
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-16-2020 09:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  http://forgotten5.com/2020/05/15/analyzi...w-tv-deal/

Analyzing UConn’s New TV Deal
OMAR-RASHON BORJA19 HOURS AGO 0 140

On Monday, UConn announced they reached a deal with CBS Sports Network to broadcast their home games until 2023.

While the first year of the deal will broadcast four home games, the network will carry the Huskies’ full slate in the remaining years.

The question of who would carry UConn’s home games loomed heavy ever since their departure from the American, but this deal provides needed stability and exposure, to some degree.

One of the points of friction for UConn fans was the increased prevalence of sporting events on ESPN+. These fears mostly pertained to basketball as it is debatable how many of UConn’s football games or American games, in general, would have been broadcast on ESPN+.

Most of the ESPN+ games are likely to come from the American’s previous sublicense with CBSSN. The new American deal calls for a minimum of 40 games telecast on ESPN’s linear networks. Additionally, only games that did end up on CBSSN and ESPN3 last year. The conference broadcast 25 games on the two networks, eight of which were FCS games.

Simply put, the fear of the conference’s most impactful games being exiled to ESPN+ is almost nonsense. Arguably, the only reason UConn fans had that fear was because of their underwhelming performance over the past two years.

The addition of UConn games is beneficial to CBS Sports Network as they get some football inventory to replace the anticipated loss of American games. The network will pay the Huskies around $500,000 per year to broadcast their home games, which will combine with the Big East’s TV deal to give them $4.5 million in media revenue per year. This total lags behind the approximate total of $7 million the American’s schools will receive. The production costs of ESPN+ are unlikely to cause that total to fall below the $4.5 million that UConn will make.

Along with this, they get some Power Conference games to air, something their other partners in the service academies, C-USA, and the MAC lack.

Good Move For Purists, But Not So Good For Cord-Cutters
While the Hartford Courant writes of the low carriage numbers of ESPN+, at around 8 million, CBS Sports’ does not have the carriage numbers of a prominent sports network.

NBC Sports Network had 82 million subscribers as of 2017, while Fox Sports 1 is in around 83 million homes as of 2018. As for CBS Sports Network, they are in 55 million homes as the Courant reports.

Additionally, cost and accessibility will be an issue for cord-cutting UConn fans. While ESPN+ is only around $5 a month for content that extends well past AAC sports, CBS Sports Network is harder to find in the streaming domain.

Unlike Fox Sports 1 and ESPN/ESPN+, CBS Sports Network is not as prevalent in streaming packages as the only ones the channel is available on are Fubo TV, Hulu Live, and YouTube TV.

The prices of all services are all over $50 compared to the $5 paywall that some of UConn’s football games would have been behind. Yet, the increased cost for fans to see the Huskies on linear TV appears to be worth it for perceived exposure.

One advantage of the CBSSN deal is UConn not having to pay production costs for their telecasts. However, the accessibility of ESPN+ makes up for the production costs of schools to use the platform.

While UConn has some good home games against Power Five schools, none of these schools are particularly rating producers. In the next four years, UConn hosts Indiana, Purdue, Boston College, Syracuse, and NC State.

Arguably, the pinnacle measure of Power Five TV exposure is prime-time network TV appearances. Below is each school with the number of appearances they have had since 2006, the start of ABC’s Saturday Night Football. This is a good start point because it was the first time one of the over-the-air networks broadcast prime-time college football on a weekly basis.

Boston College: 4
Indiana: 0
NC State: 1
Purdue: 3
Syracuse: 2
Also of note, is Purdue’s one appearance as Fox’s headlining noon game against a 4-4 Nebraska school. Yet, this appearance also comes with a caveat, as a dry slate allowed SMU and Memphis to gain a rare appearance in ABC’s primetime slot.

The stats show that while these teams are a bigger draw than most of UConn’s former counterparts, they will not suddenly bring more people to watch UConn football. People are not going to start watching a UConn team that’s gone 4-20 in the last two years because they are playing Indiana.

Aside from the increased cost, this new deal with CBSSN is beneficial. Many thought UConn would partner with SNY, but this move is an obvious upgrade over any regional network.

This puts them on par with Army, in terms of exposure of course, and a step behind BYU. The Huskies avoid partnering with a streaming service with the lack of reputation of FloSports, which carries UMass and New Mexico State’s games.

Still, UConn has a ways to go in using this deal to make their program comparably marketable with both their former cohorts in the American and other independents.

*Special thanks to mattsarzsports.com for the broadcast data used in this article. This site is an absolute must for college sports fans.[/align]

Updated with CBSSN 500K per year estimate from the above article (could be as high as 100K per home game we will have to wait and see)

UCONN/Big East:

Value of Big East deal with FOX: $4.2 million per year, per team
Value of current deal with SNY: About $1 million per year
Expected value of football deal with CBSSports: 500K per Year
Potential football buy game: $1 million per year
Bowl game payout: $310,000, based on 2019
Men’s Basketball Fund: $1.6 million
AAC exit fee: $1 million per year, after 2020
Production costs: Zero
TOTAL: $7.61 million


AAC:

Value of new AAC deal: About $7 million per year, per team
Bowl Game Payout: $2.05 million per team in 2019
Men’s Basketball Fund: $725,000
ESPN+ Production costs: 300K per year (per ECU AD) (studio will be 1M build out, but we will not put that in the equation)
Additional travel: About $2 million per year
TOTAL: $7.43 million

Looks like both will be happy!!! I just wonder what the ESPN payout will be once ESPN/AAC let out the numbers from the redo since UCONN left... Probably not much... 500K less per team tops is my guess
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2020 02:42 PM by GTFletch.)
05-17-2020 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #140
RE: [split] UConn football deal with CBS Sports Network
(05-17-2020 02:41 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(05-16-2020 09:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  http://forgotten5.com/2020/05/15/analyzi...w-tv-deal/

Analyzing UConn’s New TV Deal
OMAR-RASHON BORJA19 HOURS AGO 0 140

Updated with CBSSN 500K per year estimate from the above article (could be as high as 100K per home game we will have to wait and see)

UCONN/Big East:

Value of Big East deal with FOX: $4.2 million per year, per team
Value of current deal with SNY: About $1 million per year
Expected value of football deal with CBSSports: 500K per Year
Potential football buy game: $1 million per year
Bowl game payout: $310,000, based on 2019
Men’s Basketball Fund: $1.6 million
AAC exit fee: $1 million per year, after 2020
Production costs: Zero
TOTAL: $7.61 million


AAC:

Value of new AAC deal: About $7 million per year, per team
Bowl Game Payout: $2.05 million per team in 2019
Men’s Basketball Fund: $725,000
ESPN+ Production costs: 300K per year (per ECU AD) (studio will be 1M build out, but we will not put that in the equation)
Additional travel: About $2 million per year
TOTAL: $7.43 million

Looks like both will be happy!!! I just wonder what the ESPN payout will be once ESPN/AAC let out the numbers from the redo since UCONN left... Probably not much... 500K less per team tops is my guess

What SNY deal? SNY may be paying $1M for third tier - that is, WBB - but Fox owns those rights, not UConn.
For precision, UConn's guesstimate of $2M per year travel savings for non revenue sports should be in their column, not the AAC's.
You really shouldn't count buy games. Any AAC teams could do the same, and for example, UConn booked Clemson as an AAC member. Intellectually dishonest to claim that a buy game is a benefit of leaving the AAC.
You list CFP payments, but omit the $500k per team per year from the AAC's other bowls. (And we can keep it at '19 figures without adjusting for that $24M CFP divided eleven ways, instead of twelve, for the sake of argument - it will vary for NY6 bowl and performance anyway)
We don't know what the "Navy tier" CBSSN is paying the AAC is, probably in the low six figures per team, so we can leave it out.

With those adjustments, I get
UConn $7.61M
AAC $9.91M
Basically, the difference is CFP and other bowl money.

Increased MBB, WBB ticket sales and donations could very well make it break even. I wish UConn luck in that.

This was almost certainly the right strategic move for UConn. That will still be true without fudging numbers.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2020 03:33 PM by slhNavy91.)
05-17-2020 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.