(02-07-2019 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 12:52 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 11:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends. Aresco clearly wants some ESPN exposure. However, he also wants to keep his league together. Drag home a 3 million a year "all in" deal with ESPN and UConn is gone.

What has been largely accepted as conventional wisdom for some time is that that for the AAC to maximize its value--it will have to sell off its rights in separate bundles to different buyers. So, if a deal is NOT announced this month--all it really means is ESPN would not pay enough to make it worth going "all in" with ESPN. Frankly, I think thats the most likely scenario. ESPN doesnt NEED all of the AAC content---they just WANT it all.

I admit this makes sense, but I also admit I am not qualified to determine if it makes sense (LOL). My feeling is, if you or I really knew what the AAC has to do to maximize its value (bundles or all with one bidder) and what ESPN needs vs what it wants, then we'd be getting paid a million bucks a year to be involved in these kinds of negotiations. I suspect there are complexities and unknowns here that make those kinds of determinations by us laymen suspect.

lol...true. We are guessing---but ESPN isnt too hard to figure out. We currently fill 32 slots on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPN. They need enough AAC content to continue filling most of those slots. I think we can safely surmise they would prefer to have the top 25 or so AAC games in those slots.

We know ESPN-Plus is now up to 2 million subscribers. ESPN is going to want to get enough AAC content on ESPN-Plus to hopefully lure a crap load of AAC fans to subscribe to that service.

The only thing we dont know is how much that is worth to ESPN. We do know they just paid WWF and UCF about 150 million each to supply 15-20 events each to ESPN-Plus that get ratings in the same ballpark as the top 20 AAC football games. To me---thats probably the ceiling. I figure the floor is the MLS Soccer deal (75 million split between 3 networks). MLS Soccer gets lower ratings than the AAC. I think those are the boundaries and we we should end up between those high/low guide posts. Im guessing toward the low end of the range at about 75-100 million for the league---but I think there is a better than even chance for an upside surprise because the most recent deals represent the high end boundaries and the oldest contract is the low "comparable sale".

ESPN does not need AAC content to fill those 32 slots each season. They own a truckload of SEC and ACC content that withers on the vine each Saturday in the Fall. So why do they want to spend any money at all on AAC content? AAC games can provide variety to the lineup. They give more density to the ad footprint and help sell cable in the large cities they occupy. When ESPN owns the AAC content, it means that no other network can air those games in competition to ESPN. Every game that appears in a particular timeslot consumes part of the pool of advertising dollars. These amount to what are marginal or supplemental effects and they will command a commensurate price.

I still contend that the incremental ad revenue derived from AAC content will be the limiting factor for the payout. And GoldenWarrior, fairness will not be a consideration.

Do tell----name off this secret treasure trove of un-televised ACC and SEC games that no network has bothered to buy. I'll wait while you find them.

That said, I admit, I dont think ESPN needed the AAC at all when they signed them. However, since then, they have lost half of thier Big10 content, and the SEC Network and ACC Networks have begun operations. With all the conference networks, there really isnt any P5 inventory lying around unused anymore. I suppose ESPN could cobble together all the Big12 3rd tier content (that would take several years)---and even then---that only amounts to just 10 games a year.

Now, ESPN does have plenty of MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt, and MW inventory. They could use that---but the ratings on that stuff--even with similar window slotting--have not been close to AAC ratings. My theory is that ESPN already made its decision back when they realized it would cost more than 250 million to keep all the Big10 inventory. I think they figured they could plug in the best AAC games and those top AAC games would be more than adequate replacements for the mid-level Indiana vs Minnesota game. So, even if they pay the AAC 100 million a year---ESPN is still actually saving 150 million every year.

Between the SEC and ACC ESPN gets 14 games per week (more during non-conference play) plus the B1G. They have made a good move to buy Ivy League content in an effort to find football fans in the Northeast and to sell ads there. Will it work out? It's a worthwhile experiment, for the price.

Are they willing to try an experiment of another kind in B1G territory? Do they believe they can break from the B1G and satisfy their national advertisers with G5 content in its place? ... risky.
The huge price they pay for B1G content will continue as long as the investment is rewarded with attrative ad revenue/profit. And AAC content will likely continue to attract a price that is below its "worth."