(03-07-2019 12:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 11:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 10:29 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 09:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 08:52 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That is what I've been telling you guys, you're moving too fast in your assumptions.

It could also be a tiered deal in the AAC with tiny bucks for the second division properties.

True. However--it took about a month in 2013 from the time the AAC confirmed that the ESPN offer to match the NBC deal was in fact a match--to the time the deal was officially announced. It took the Big10 over a year to officially announce the deal they signed with FOX. Its kind of a leap to assume that there are open market negotiations going on simply because a press conference wasn't held within 10 days. That said---people knew most of the key details of the FOX deal long before it was announced. Similarly, if a deal is indeed done---details of the deal will start leaking out pretty soon.

I didn't say anything about the rights on the open market.

Its just not confirmed what this is yet. Is Memphis tooting its own horn because they know they'll be in the first tier? It may be why the estimates are out of their camp.

It could be peanuts for the second tier, which any prospective backfill like USM or ODU would be looking at should they get slotted for the AAC not first tier money.

Im not sure what you mean here--but there wont be unequal pay within the conference. We might sell multiple rights packages that sell for different prices--but these wouldnt be directly linked to schools. The packages would cite the number of games and the order in which the networks select. The number of games and the contractual selection order would be the factors that drive the price differences in the packages.

Its actually pretty interesting how that part of the business works. For instance, the number of games might not be that different. But first tier might get the first pick in 11 of the 15 weeks. Tier 2 gets the first pick just in 4 weeks. While that sounds simple---there are actually lots of variations that could drive further differences in how the packages are valued. For instance, a first tier package where first tier gets to select the 11 weeks it wants to choose first is more valuable than a first tier package where first tier and second tier alternate selecting weeks to pick first until the second tier uses up it's 4 weeks. That latter option actually insures the second tier gets a far better schedule than they would if the first tier could lock up the best games in 11 weeks of the season before second tier even gets to pick a single game. Depending on the contracts---there ends up being a lot of strategy that plays out behind the scenes in these shared deals.

I'm talking about the AAC subdivided into tiers since some don't pull their weight as properties.

Tier I: Memphis (7 mil)
Tier II: UCF, Houston (5 mil)
Tier III: Cincinnati, East Carolina, USF, Navy (3 mil)
Tier IV: SMU, Tulsa, Tulane (1 mil)
Tier V: UConn, Temple (peanuts)

27 million per year!.....2.25 million. A few can boast while others stay poor. This was one of the rumors that to give more dough to some others would get less.

Think it can't happen? Its already that way in the MWC with Boise earning 3x the other members.

Thats not what they mean by tiers and assuming they even divide it into tiers, its not going to look anything like what you have drawn up. It will be something along the lines I explained. The tiers will be defined by number of games and selection order. First pick is essentially first tier. Second pick is essentially second tier. The games nobody selects make up your third tier content.