Per ESPN... 5-year, $2.8M per year plus incentives.

(05-20-2014 04:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:34 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

Wait what? Right to match essentially turned it into a 1 bid deal? ESPN just sat back and waited. No? Now they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right to match killed any possibility of a competitive bidding process. Still shocked Aresco allowed that to stand (or the lawyers thought it was a losing fight) for a league with no name and 8 new members.

No, that is not correct at all, nor remotely how it happened. ESPN was actually the HIGHEST bidder and offered about double what NBC did. They offered more money during the exclusive negogotiating period, and their offer after the AAC hit the free market was still higher than the NBC offer by a wide margin (but lower than the initial offer). However it had more syndicated and ESPN3 games, and much fewer guaranteed national TV games compared to the NBC offer. The AAC turned ESPN down in favor of a contract with NBC, because it offered more guaranteed national TV games on NBC Sports (it offered a few options on NBC Network, but no actual guarantees). There was actually a third offer, but it was even worse than the other two.

That is why you always hear people say the AAC and Aresco chose exposure over money: they did when they signed with NBC. They then presented the deal with NBC to ESPN, as per the right to match, and to everyone's surprise ESPN decided to match the terms, something NBC never expected would happen. The AAC ultimately decided to then sign with ESPN. They did not have to sign with ESPN with the right to match, but chose too because they preferred the exposure on ESPN Networks over NBC.

The right to match did no such thing. You mentioned this before, and we corrected you, but I guess you missed it. Without the right to match, the same process happens, only the AAC sticks with the deal they signed with NBC.

Link?

Even in your scenario, that is not a competitive bidding process. Right to match should not have been considered to hold because of all the departures.

(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Per ESPN... 5-year, $2.8M per year plus incentives.

Pastner gets 2.65. Sounds right.

(05-20-2014 03:34 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

Wait what? Right to match essentially turned it into a 1 bid deal? ESPN just sat back and waited. No? Now they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right to match killed any possibility of a competitive bidding process. Still shocked Aresco allowed that to stand (or the lawyers thought it was a losing fight) for a league with no name and 8 new members.

Instability played a huge roll in the insulting pathetic tv deal... Had the Big East/AAC remain intact, we wouldn't be having these shrink five-cent discussions.

(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Per ESPN... 5-year, $2.8M per year plus incentives.

Ollie deserves it...hope he stays at UCONN for a very, very long time (but it will become harder and harder to turn down NBA $$$ if he has continued success at UCONN).

(05-23-2014 07:36 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Per ESPN... 5-year, $2.8M per year plus incentives.

Ollie deserves it...hope he stays at UCONN for a very, very long time (but it will become harder and harder to turn down NBA $$$ if he has continued success at UCONN).

Buy out is $5M next year and $4M year after. He should be there 2 more years. After that, his NBA buyout will be less than his college buyout. Also, there are clauses to get rid of the buyout if our president or AD leave the university. In addition, there is clause if UCONN change conferences.

I think the contract got everything covered. I expect Ollie to be at UCONN for the long haul. However, I am sure he might get the NBA itch at some point if he wins another championship. After all, he played 13 years in the NBA based on just tenacity and guts.

(05-23-2014 07:36 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Per ESPN... 5-year, $2.8M per year plus incentives.

Ollie deserves it...hope he stays at UCONN for a very, very long time (but it will become harder and harder to turn down NBA $$$ if he has continued success at UCONN).

I think it's reversed. The longer he stays at UConn and cements his legacy, the less reason for him to leave. If he has a more success, he'll be on his way to becoming one of the all-time greats, and there are a lot of HOF coaches from the college ranks. Look at the HOF from the NBA. Not nearly as many. There's the big 3 in Auerbach, Riley and Jackson, but then some of the next tier like Chuck Daly and Tomjanovich are forgotten.

(05-22-2014 01:39 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 04:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:34 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right to match made the contract better. Without the right to match, you'd see the same deal monetarily, but with with games on NBC Sports, as opposed to ESPN Networks. All the right to match did was allow ESPN to match the terms, they initially balked at offering (timeslot guarantees). There was no downside to the right to match.

Lack of an interested third bidder was the problem.

Wait what? Right to match essentially turned it into a 1 bid deal? ESPN just sat back and waited. No? Now they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Right to match killed any possibility of a competitive bidding process. Still shocked Aresco allowed that to stand (or the lawyers thought it was a losing fight) for a league with no name and 8 new members.

No, that is not correct at all, nor remotely how it happened. ESPN was actually the HIGHEST bidder and offered about double what NBC did. They offered more money during the exclusive negogotiating period, and their offer after the AAC hit the free market was still higher than the NBC offer by a wide margin (but lower than the initial offer). However it had more syndicated and ESPN3 games, and much fewer guaranteed national TV games compared to the NBC offer. The AAC turned ESPN down in favor of a contract with NBC, because it offered more guaranteed national TV games on NBC Sports (it offered a few options on NBC Network, but no actual guarantees). There was actually a third offer, but it was even worse than the other two.

That is why you always hear people say the AAC and Aresco chose exposure over money: they did when they signed with NBC. They then presented the deal with NBC to ESPN, as per the right to match, and to everyone's surprise ESPN decided to match the terms, something NBC never expected would happen. The AAC ultimately decided to then sign with ESPN. They did not have to sign with ESPN with the right to match, but chose too because they preferred the exposure on ESPN Networks over NBC.

The right to match did no such thing. You mentioned this before, and we corrected you, but I guess you missed it. Without the right to match, the same process happens, only the AAC sticks with the deal they signed with NBC.

Link?

Even in your scenario, that is not a competitive bidding process. Right to match should not have been considered to hold because of all the departures.

What's not competitive about it? Two networks bid on it, including the one with the right to match. The right to match did nothing to hinder the competitiveness of the bid, as you suggested. The lack of more networks bidding had nothing to do with the right to match: it was the marketability of the product.

Without the right to match, the AAC would be on NBC Sports Network for the same price. That's something NO ONE really wanted (in hindsight). Even of ot was someththing a lot of people did want at the time.