(08-21-2013 12:29 AM)billings Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:16 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(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.

According to Chuck Sullivan, the AAC's Director of Communications, the sold games would have otherwise been televised on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN News... not ESPN3.

https://twitter.com/sullivan7504/status/...6073830400

CBS sports would not have paid for ESPN 3 level content. There is a reason ESPN is putting them on the 3 as there is little demand for them let alone any chance for ESPN to make money on them

ESPN isn't starving content. They've got tons of content that can draw as well or better to plug in those holes they have and have far more invested in that other content. That was content that was going to get tucked on 3 or on a little watched channel (who remembers to check News or Classic on Saturday to watch a game?) there was more money to be made selling it.

(08-21-2013 06:50 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  This is just bloody awful, Espn bends people over every which way. When I read the defending national champ Louisville Cardinals were going to be featured on CBSSN I just

There is no upside to this, at all....

The upside is that you have less than a year that you need to worry about this. Not exactly the case with the others.

Maybe CBS will finally decide they don't want to be left behind ABC/ESPN, NBCSN, and now FS1 -- all of which are working hard to secure major broadcast rights. At this point, though, CBSSN appears happy to get lower-tier rights and very little ratings. This is a blow to the AAC.

(08-21-2013 07:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  What this all comes down to is Aresco is a liar. He repeatedly said games would only be sub-licensed to networks with 74 million subscribers or more, on numerous occasions from the original press conference announcing the deal, to a CBS interview, to an interview with Tim Brando, and probably a few other places. He's always been a liar, but now he's been flat out caught in an extremely public lie about the one portion of his TV deal that he's been selling, the exposure. He's a liar, an idiot, a snake, and he should have been fired months ago.

You think anyone else would have done better? I know you THINK they could have but the league was bent over the barrel from the get go. No one was going to give you the money or exposure you want. NO ONE. Not Fox, not ESPN and not NBC since ESPN matched the offer. That means that NBC were offering the same exact deal ESPN was.

Face it, no matter who was in charge you weren't getting what you wanted and firing Aresco wouldn't change any of that. In fact it will cost you money you desperately need to buy him out.

(08-21-2013 10:44 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 07:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  What this all comes down to is Aresco is a liar. He repeatedly said games would only be sub-licensed to networks with 74 million subscribers or more, on numerous occasions from the original press conference announcing the deal, to a CBS interview, to an interview with Tim Brando, and probably a few other places. He's always been a liar, but now he's been flat out caught in an extremely public lie about the one portion of his TV deal that he's been selling, the exposure. He's a liar, an idiot, a snake, and he should have been fired months ago.

You think anyone else would have done better? I know you THINK they could have but the league was bent over the barrel from the get go. No one was going to give you the money or exposure you want. NO ONE. Not Fox, not ESPN and not NBC since ESPN matched the offer. That means that NBC were offering the same exact deal ESPN was.

Face it, no matter who was in charge you weren't getting what you wanted and firing Aresco wouldn't change any of that. In fact it will cost you money you desperately need to buy him out.

lol...its free money we got from you guys.

(08-21-2013 10:44 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 07:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  What this all comes down to is Aresco is a liar. He repeatedly said games would only be sub-licensed to networks with 74 million subscribers or more, on numerous occasions from the original press conference announcing the deal, to a CBS interview, to an interview with Tim Brando, and probably a few other places. He's always been a liar, but now he's been flat out caught in an extremely public lie about the one portion of his TV deal that he's been selling, the exposure. He's a liar, an idiot, a snake, and he should have been fired months ago.

You think anyone else would have done better? I know you THINK they could have but the league was bent over the barrel from the get go. No one was going to give you the money or exposure you want. NO ONE. Not Fox, not ESPN and not NBC since ESPN matched the offer. That means that NBC were offering the same exact deal ESPN was.

Face it, no matter who was in charge you weren't getting what you wanted and firing Aresco wouldn't change any of that. In fact it will cost you money you desperately need to buy him out.

Explain why he flat out lied to people on multiple occasions about how many subscribers a network needed to have games sub licensed to them. You didn't address my complaint, you just said no one else could do better. Maybe they couldn't, who knows, but I know no one else would go out and make outlandish statements that have turned out to either be exaggerations or flat out lies over and over and over again like this idiot does.

Am I the only one who glanced over the title of this thread and thought it said ESPN was selling AAC inventory to CSNBBS?

Sounds to Me there will be some members moving up in the near future. January p5 meetings could be interesting for some.

(08-21-2013 10:57 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Am I the only one who glanced over the title of this thread and thought it said ESPN was selling AAC inventory to CSNBBS?

Which probably has more viewers than CBSSN....

I think 1 plus for CBSSN now is they're for Directv in the same location as FS1, NBCSN. I think it's FS1 at 219, NBCSN at 220, and CBSSN at 221. It's become a sports block area now and easier for folks to find games.

(08-21-2013 10:44 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 07:22 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  What this all comes down to is Aresco is a liar. He repeatedly said games would only be sub-licensed to networks with 74 million subscribers or more, on numerous occasions from the original press conference announcing the deal, to a CBS interview, to an interview with Tim Brando, and probably a few other places. He's always been a liar, but now he's been flat out caught in an extremely public lie about the one portion of his TV deal that he's been selling, the exposure. He's a liar, an idiot, a snake, and he should have been fired months ago.

You think anyone else would have done better? I know you THINK they could have but the league was bent over the barrel from the get go. No one was going to give you the money or exposure you want. NO ONE. Not Fox, not ESPN and not NBC since ESPN matched the offer. That means that NBC were offering the same exact deal ESPN was.

Face it, no matter who was in charge you weren't getting what you wanted and firing Aresco wouldn't change any of that. In fact it will cost you money you desperately need to buy him out.

On the other hand, I don't think a random P5 deputy commissioner or FCS commissioner would have done any worse. So they could probably save a lot of money by hiring someone cheaper.

Of course, we don't know what Aresco's buyout is.

Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed. My retirement consultant used to tell me if I put 10k a year in my 401 K is was going to be worth a couple million when I retire. I knew he was full of chit, and shame on me if I'd believed him.

The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

(08-21-2013 12:37 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed.

But that's not the only way to get the games on national-basic-cable, defined as 74M subscribers. There's ESPN-News, which is in 70M+ homes. There's sublicensing to NBC-SN, or FoxSports1.

Quote:The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

That's largely because the PAC-12 held back a lot of content for the PAC network. If they were willing to put games on ESPN-U and ESPNews and NBC-SN, that would have been very doable.

(08-21-2013 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:37 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed.

But that's not the only way to get the games on national-basic-cable, defined as 74M subscribers. There's ESPN-News, which is in 70M+ homes. There's sublicensing to NBC-SN, or FoxSports1.

Quote:The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

That's largely because the PAC-12 held back a lot of content for the PAC network. If they were willing to put games on ESPN-U and ESPNews and NBC-SN, that would have been very doable.

Sorry, don't think it was ever possible for the American to have 5 games a week on "national" TV. I'm not going to bother to check, but ESPN has all the ACC rights, correct? How many ACC football games a week are on ESPN, 2, or U? I don't think it's 5, and some of those games are mirror games anyway.

(08-21-2013 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:37 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed.

But that's not the only way to get the games on national-basic-cable, defined as 74M subscribers. There's ESPN-News, which is in 70M+ homes. There's sublicensing to NBC-SN, or FoxSports1.

Quote:The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

That's largely because the PAC-12 held back a lot of content for the PAC network. If they were willing to put games on ESPN-U and ESPNews and NBC-SN, that would have been very doable.

They already have Pac games on ESPNU.

(08-21-2013 01:18 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:37 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed.

But that's not the only way to get the games on national-basic-cable, defined as 74M subscribers. There's ESPN-News, which is in 70M+ homes. There's sublicensing to NBC-SN, or FoxSports1.

Quote:The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

That's largely because the PAC-12 held back a lot of content for the PAC network. If they were willing to put games on ESPN-U and ESPNews and NBC-SN, that would have been very doable.

They already have Pac games on ESPNU.

They showed 2 games last year on ESPNU. They're allowed 4. Pac 12 network had last year 20 conference football games, and also like 4-5 games OOC that would have been broadcastable easily. 16 games on ABC/Fox last year, and then another 28 on ESPN/2/u/FX. That's 44 there. So, it's very doable.

(08-21-2013 01:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:18 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:37 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed.

But that's not the only way to get the games on national-basic-cable, defined as 74M subscribers. There's ESPN-News, which is in 70M+ homes. There's sublicensing to NBC-SN, or FoxSports1.

Quote:The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

That's largely because the PAC-12 held back a lot of content for the PAC network. If they were willing to put games on ESPN-U and ESPNews and NBC-SN, that would have been very doable.

They already have Pac games on ESPNU.

They showed 2 games last year on ESPNU. They're allowed 4. Pac 12 network had last year 20 conference football games, and also like 4-5 games OOC that would have been broadcastable easily. 16 games on ABC/Fox last year, and then another 28 on ESPN/2/u/FX. That's 44 there. So, it's very doable.

Isn't that what I said?

Sure, maybe, the Pac could have gotten 60 games, if they'd allowed games on ESPNews and such, never would have gotten 113 basketball games though.

Anyway, they are the Pac12. The AAC is not. It was delusional to think that ESPN was going to load up with Navy v Memphis, SMU v UCF, Houston v Tulane, ECU v Uconn and Cincy v USF on a saturday afternoon.

(08-21-2013 01:45 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:18 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:37 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  Anyone who thought the Big East/American was going to have 5 football games a week on ESPN, U, or 2, and 113 basketball games a season on those channels deserves to be disappointed.

But that's not the only way to get the games on national-basic-cable, defined as 74M subscribers. There's ESPN-News, which is in 70M+ homes. There's sublicensing to NBC-SN, or FoxSports1.

Quote:The power conferences don't have 60 football games and 113 basketball games on true national TV, why would anyone think the AAC would get that? The Pac12 has 44 football games on Fox or ESPN, and 68 basketball games, but somehow the AAC was going to get 60 and 113 national games? Absurd.

That's largely because the PAC-12 held back a lot of content for the PAC network. If they were willing to put games on ESPN-U and ESPNews and NBC-SN, that would have been very doable.

They already have Pac games on ESPNU.

They showed 2 games last year on ESPNU. They're allowed 4. Pac 12 network had last year 20 conference football games, and also like 4-5 games OOC that would have been broadcastable easily. 16 games on ABC/Fox last year, and then another 28 on ESPN/2/u/FX. That's 44 there. So, it's very doable.

Isn't that what I said?

Sure, maybe, the Pac could have gotten 60 games, if they'd allowed games on ESPNews and such, never would have gotten 113 basketball games though.

Anyway, they are the Pac12. The AAC is not. It was delusional to think that ESPN was going to load up with Navy v Memphis, SMU v UCF, Houston v Tulane, ECU v Uconn and Cincy v USF on a saturday afternoon.

113 basketball games is actually a lot easier than it sounds. Remember with 11 teams(2014 going forward)- it's with a 18 conference game schedule 99 conference games. Then add all the OOC games- so they would have 200+ to choose from. It's not impossible in the least.

Also have to remember, CBSSN will likely use this to get more subscribers. Think I saw a lot of the areas they don't have CBSSN are ones that have AAC schools, so this could be used to get CBSSN more broadly available going forward.

(08-21-2013 01:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also have to remember, CBSSN will likely use this to get more subscribers. Think I saw a lot of the areas they don't have CBSSN are ones that have AAC schools, so this could be used to get CBSSN more broadly available going forward.

Most of the AAC schools were CUSA schools until a few months ago, and CUSA has been on CBS-SN for a long time.

If anything, CBS-SN may be worried about losing the subscribers they have.

(08-21-2013 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also have to remember, CBSSN will likely use this to get more subscribers. Think I saw a lot of the areas they don't have CBSSN are ones that have AAC schools, so this could be used to get CBSSN more broadly available going forward.

Most of the AAC schools were CUSA schools until a few months ago, and CUSA has been on CBS-SN for a long time.

If anything, CBS-SN may be worried about losing the subscribers they have.

Except for the fact that a few of the major schools that are coming in- Cincy, Temple, UConn.