Is this a good thing or not?

The American commissioner has been touting the single best benefit of the AAC TV deal was all the coverage the league would get beginning in 2014 across the ESPN networks.

Selling football games to the CBS Sports Network is the opposite of unprecedented coverage. CBS proper would be great, CBSSN is not good.

EDIT: forgot to add the link. http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sport...w?id=36355

Being on 50 million homes (and a channel no one watches) instead of 100 million? I think that's a LOSS.

(08-20-2013 04:48 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  Is this a good thing or not?

The American commissioner has been touting the single best benefit of the AAC TV deal was all the coverage the league would get beginning in 2014 across the ESPN networks.

Selling football games to the CBS Sports Network is the opposite of unprecedented coverage. CBS proper would be great, CBSSN is not good.

EDIT: forgot to add the link. http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sport...w?id=36355

Hmmm... I wonder why. I think everybody will have theory that they something with the AAC membership is going to happen. I can't think of another reason why, of course I have my fan goggles on though.

Not only a horrible deal but another flat out lie by Aresco. He said any sub licensing would be to networks with at least 70 million subscribers. So again he flat out lied. He is an idiot and a failure.

(08-20-2013 05:48 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not only a horrible deal but another flat out lie by Aresco. He said any sub licensing would be to networks with at least 70 million subscribers. So again he flat out lied. He is an idiot and a failure.

Did the conference have the right to veto this deal?

For the American the hits just keep on comin'.

Didn't the old CUSA have split coverage between ESPN and CBSSN? Ironic eh

It will give the AAC a chance to get their product into different areas by having access to new channels. I think it will work out fine for a conference like the American.

im starting to feel a little bad for uconn fans......
.
.
.
.
.
.
lol no im not

Aresco is a liar, an idiot, a failure, and an embarrassment.

(08-20-2013 06:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Didn't the old CUSA have split coverage between ESPN and CBSSN? Ironic eh

No. Fox/CBS-SN

(08-20-2013 07:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Didn't the old CUSA have split coverage between ESPN and CBSSN? Ironic eh

No. Fox/CBS-SN

I thought it was ESPN/CBSSN at first and then FOX took the ESPN portion, which led to the first right of refusal controversy

(08-20-2013 05:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 05:48 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not only a horrible deal but another flat out lie by Aresco. He said any sub licensing would be to networks with at least 70 million subscribers. So again he flat out lied. He is an idiot and a failure.

Did the conference have the right to veto this deal?

Unlikely. Sublicenses are a pretty basic part of TV rights contracts. I can't believe ESPN would waive or condition their rights to do so. ESPN will undoubtedly still keep the cream, and sell only games that would otherwise go to ESPNU, syndication or ESPN3.

The reality was that pretty much every game headed to CBSS would have been on ESPN3 if not sold.

It's a dink to AAC pride so from that viewpoint it is a loss but the bottom line is CBSS is better than ESPN3 unless you have a home set-up capable of handling ESPN3 and you don't have CBSS.

(08-20-2013 07:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Didn't the old CUSA have split coverage between ESPN and CBSSN? Ironic eh

No. Fox/CBS-SN

I thought it was ESPN/CBSSN at first and then FOX took the ESPN portion, which led to the first right of refusal controversy

ESPN had the whole thing, but had sub-licensed a bunch to CBSSN. Then in 2010, while ESPN and CUSA were renegotiating, CUSA got an offer from ESPN, which they initially accepted, then later denied because they didn't want to be on so many weeknight games. CUSA went shopping and got the deal from Fox (with CBSSN) that paid much more than ESPN had offered. ESPN sued because they thought they had a deal and CUSA went and signed with Fox.

What I find interesting is that this seems to suggest ESPN views CBS of less of a competitor than NBCS, not surprising given that NBCS has taken away some ESPN properties while CBSS has been content to nibble around the edges.

But also remember ESPN was sued a bit back for warehousing inventory, they have an obligation to actually use content and not simply buy it to keep someone else from having it.

(08-20-2013 08:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality was that pretty much every game headed to CBSS would have been on ESPN3 if not sold.

I have no basis to dispute what you say, but ... how do you know this?

(08-20-2013 08:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 08:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality was that pretty much every game headed to CBSS would have been on ESPN3 if not sold.

I have no basis to dispute what you say, but ... how do you know this?

Looked at how much ESPN3 is on the early slate.

(08-20-2013 08:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 08:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 08:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality was that pretty much every game headed to CBSS would have been on ESPN3 if not sold.

I have no basis to dispute what you say, but ... how do you know this?

Looked at how much ESPN3 is on the early slate.

Not that I believe it will be better but this season is under the old Big East deal for football.

(08-20-2013 08:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 08:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 08:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality was that pretty much every game headed to CBSS would have been on ESPN3 if not sold.

I have no basis to dispute what you say, but ... how do you know this?

Looked at how much ESPN3 is on the early slate.

What Aresco SAID, defending the deal, was that something like 90% of the football games and 66% of the basketball games would be on networks with 74M+ subscribers--not ESPN3, not RSNs or syndication, not sports-tier channels. AAC fans went back and forth on how that was going to happen--probably lots of games on ESPN-News and lots on ESPN-U.

CBS-SN doesn't have 74M subscribers, and is nowhere close. So the main defense of the TV contract--"the money sucks, but the exposure is good--practically every football game is on basic cable on the ESPN family" is void.