Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Analysis of American TV Contract
Author Message
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,678
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #1
Analysis of American TV Contract
Over 2015 and 2016, the American has delivered an average of 29 million viewers for its ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU inventory.

This does not include Navy's home conference games, or home games every other year for Navy against ND and Air Force. Those games join the inventory in 2018.

Add those in, and the American inventory will be worth approximately 33 million viewers per year.

The Big 12 delivered 44 football million viewers for ESPN in 2016. The Pac 12 delivered 39 million football viewers for ESPN in 2016.

ESPN pays the Pac 12 an average of $125M per year over the life of the contract for football and basketball, but that number was lower in the earlier years and will be higher in the later years. This includes 22 football games and 46 basketball games.

ESPN pays the Big 12 an average of $100M per year over the life of the contract for football and basketball, but that number was lower in earlier years and will be higher in later years. It includes 23 football games a year and 100 basketball games.

Assuming:

1. The same football:basketball value ratio for the Pac 12, Big 12 and American, and

2. That the American basketball viewer value (with Wichita added) compared to the Pac 12/Big 12 is proportional to its football viewer value compared to those leagues,

then the American contract should be worth at least 75% of what ESPN pays to the Big 12 (33M/44M * $100M), or about $75M per year on average.

This works out to about $6M per school.

I can't see that number falling below $5M per school or climbing above $8M per school (which is where a comparison to the Pac 12 numbers puts it).

The American ESPN contract expires in June 2020, and will likely be renegotiated by the summer of 2019.
10-12-2017 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
If you look at the US ratings for MLS soccer and Premier League Soccer, the AAC ratings slot in as being superior to MLS soccer and are similar (or better) to Premier League Soccer. The MLS deal is 75 million a year (split between 3 networks) and the Premier Leagues deal is for 166 million a year. These comparable contracts would also tend to be supportive of at least 75 million in value for the new AAC TV contract--possibly more. My guess is---much like MLS Soccer--the AAC will have to split the contract in order to generate maximum value.

Thus, the AAC doesnt need to get all 75 million from ESPN. Lets say ESPN just doesnt want to pay that much for the AAC inventory. It possible that the AAC could get 50-60 million from ESPN for the games that ESPN airs on its ABC/ESPN family of networks. Then, the AAC packages up the rest and sells it to CBS-Sports or NBC for 15-20 million (or both). CBS Sports currently pays 12 million for a 20+ game package with the Mountain West that doesnt include Boise home games. It should be noted that the MW games, as a group, have lower ratings than the AAC games. NBC pays 166 million a year for Premier Soccer---so 15-20 million for a 20 game AAC package wouldnt be a huge leap in my opinion (especially considering they have no FBS college football at all beyond Notre Dame). The combination of the spit contract would still end up in that 70-80 million range (possibly more), but ESPN wouldnt be on the hook for 75 million. They would just pay for what they have actually been using to fill their broadcast line up.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 11:02 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-12-2017 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,982
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 195
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #3
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 10:56 AM by orangefan.)
10-12-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

The thing is---I think that logic already was utilized---but not where you're thinking. I believe ESPN used that thinking in bidding on the front half of the Big10 package. I think they figured by keeping half the package, they still got the #1 pick from the Big10 half the time and the #2 Big10 game the rest of the time. Thus, they really didnt need to replace the top Big10 games, what they would really be replacing is the Purdue vs Indiana type game. The top games from the AAC could be reasonable substitutes there.

So, I think ESPN will ante up on the AAC inventory---because the top CUSA/MAC games wont be viable replacements for Indiana vs Purdue type game. Thus, even if the AAC costs 75 million for the 25 or so games ESPN needs, so what? For just $75 million---they are essentially replacing the Big10 slots that it would have cost $250 million to fill with actual Big10 games. The net result is a savings of 175 million and the diference in ratings should be minimal.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 11:13 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-12-2017 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,763
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 480
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #5
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.
10-12-2017 11:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,678
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
2017 Nonconference records

Big 12 = 14-10
American = 16-13

=====

MWC = 11-23
MAC = 11-26
CUSA = 12-28
SB = 6-26

Anyone who thinks any old G4 league can replace the American is a fool.
10-12-2017 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,982
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 195
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #7
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

The thing is---I think that logic already was utilized---but not where you're thinking. I believe ESPN used that thinking in bidding on the front half of the Big10 package. I think they figured by keeping half the package, they still got the #1 pick from the Big10 half the time and the #2 Big10 game the rest of the time. Thus, they really didnt need to replace the top Big10 games, what they would really be replacing is the Purdue vs Indiana type game. The top games from the AAC could be reasonable substitutes there.

So, I think ESPN will ante up on the AAC inventory---because the top CUSA/MAC games wont be viable replacements for Indiana vs Purdue type game. Thus, even if the AAC costs 75 million for the 25 or so games ESPN needs, so what? For just $75 million---they are essentially replacing the Big10 slots that it would have cost $250 million to fill with actual Big10 games. The net result is a savings of 175 million and the diference in ratings should be minimal.

I think you're right if you're suggesting that only the ratings of the top 20-25 AAC football games, and probably a similar number of basketball games, really matter. The rest is fill. The AAC package has provided some very good football matchups that have drawn decent ratings. Bringing in Wichita St. should create more quality hoops matchups as well. It will be interesting to see how ESPN values it and whether it brings any competing bidders that are serious.
10-12-2017 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

I agree. I just think what happened is VORP was applied to the Big10 vs the AAC----not the AAC vs CUSA/MAC, etc. In other words, if you use VORP to save a few million when looking at AAC vs CUSA/MW/SB/MAC---it makes much more sense to see where AAC games could be substituted for Big10 games. The savings there is several orders of magnitude larger.
10-12-2017 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,190
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 106
I Root For: USC, UA, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #9
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

The thing is---I think that logic already was utilized---but not where you're thinking. I believe ESPN used that thinking in bidding on the front half of the Big10 package. I think they figured by keeping half the package, they still got the #1 pick from the Big10 half the time and the #2 Big10 game the rest of the time. Thus, they really didnt need to replace the top Big10 games, what they would really be replacing is the Purdue vs Indiana type game. The top games from the AAC could be reasonable substitutes there.

So, I think ESPN will ante up on the AAC inventory---because the top CUSA/MAC games wont be viable replacements for Indiana vs Purdue type game. Thus, even if the AAC costs 75 million for the 25 or so games ESPN needs, so what? For just $75 million---they are essentially replacing the Big10 slots that it would have cost $250 million to fill with actual Big10 games. The net result is a savings of 175 million and the diference in ratings should be minimal.

I don't. I think they will keep the AAC at a value price but pay enough to prop it above what ESPN does not own like CUSA. 5 million per team is what I think will happen.
10-12-2017 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,763
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 480
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #10
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:43 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  2017 Nonconference records

Big 12 = 14-10
American = 16-13

=====

MWC = 11-23
MAC = 11-26
CUSA = 12-28
SB = 6-26

Anyone who thinks any old G4 league can replace the American is a fool.

The non-conference records are largely irrelevant. TV execs have shown that they largely don't care when it comes to valuing the G5 leagues.

Now, if you want to argue that the AAC generally has a more attractive non-conference *schedule* with more games featured against P5 teams under AAC control (e.g. the Notre Dame games at Navy), then that's much more relevant for TV contract purposes. This is a stronger argument for the AAC to at least get a premium compared to the other G5 leagues on that basis (although my guess is that it's going to be less of premium than what the typical AAC fan believes the league deserves).
10-12-2017 11:49 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:45 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

The thing is---I think that logic already was utilized---but not where you're thinking. I believe ESPN used that thinking in bidding on the front half of the Big10 package. I think they figured by keeping half the package, they still got the #1 pick from the Big10 half the time and the #2 Big10 game the rest of the time. Thus, they really didnt need to replace the top Big10 games, what they would really be replacing is the Purdue vs Indiana type game. The top games from the AAC could be reasonable substitutes there.

So, I think ESPN will ante up on the AAC inventory---because the top CUSA/MAC games wont be viable replacements for Indiana vs Purdue type game. Thus, even if the AAC costs 75 million for the 25 or so games ESPN needs, so what? For just $75 million---they are essentially replacing the Big10 slots that it would have cost $250 million to fill with actual Big10 games. The net result is a savings of 175 million and the diference in ratings should be minimal.

I think you're right if you're suggesting that only the ratings of the top 20-25 AAC football games, and probably a similar number of basketball games, really matter. The rest is fill. The AAC package has provided some very good football matchups that have drawn decent ratings. Bringing in Wichita St. should create more quality hoops matchups as well. It will be interesting to see how ESPN values it and whether it brings any competing bidders that are serious.

I think thats a fair analysis. The top football and basketball games have drawn quite well--the bottom games, while better than the bottom of the other G5's, are not not especially valuable. But the top AAC games are solid substitutes for the more mundane P5 matchups...and as such command value in excess of typical G5 pay. Like I said, based on Cougar Reds numbers and comparable sports league contracts with similar (or even less ratings), it appears the AAC should command something in the 75 million range or better. That said, I think the AAC will have to split its rights package to get that kind of payout. I just dont think any one network needs the entire package enough to pay that much for it.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 11:55 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-12-2017 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,763
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 480
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #12
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

I agree. I just think what happened is VORP was applied to the Big10 vs the AAC----not the AAC vs CUSA/MAC, etc. In other words, if you use VORP to save a few million when looking at AAC vs CUSA/MW/SB/MAC---it makes much more sense to see where AAC games could be substituted for Big10 games. The savings there is several orders of magnitude larger.

That's one way to look at it, although I think the calculation that's ultimately relevant here is the latter (AAC vs. the other G5 leagues). The mothership ESPN actually hasn't given up many (if any) Big Ten timeslots - they're largely the same as always before. The mothership is really where the big dollars are paid out to pro leagues and college conferences, so that's not opening up opportunities for the AAC or any other G5 league to step in.

Instead, the change is really more at the ESPN2/ESPNU-level where there are no longer as many Big Ten games. At that level, what exactly is the VORP or the comparison between the AAC vs. the other G5 leagues? This is really where the difference applies (and it becomes a more difficult argument because the ratings on those channels are inherently much lower than the mothership, which means you don't get those big eye-catching advertiser premiums for higher ratings).
10-12-2017 11:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

I agree. I just think what happened is VORP was applied to the Big10 vs the AAC----not the AAC vs CUSA/MAC, etc. In other words, if you use VORP to save a few million when looking at AAC vs CUSA/MW/SB/MAC---it makes much more sense to see where AAC games could be substituted for Big10 games. The savings there is several orders of magnitude larger.

That's one way to look at it, although I think the calculation that's ultimately relevant here is the latter (AAC vs. the other G5 leagues). The mothership ESPN actually hasn't given up many (if any) Big Ten timeslots - they're largely the same as always before. The mothership is really where the big dollars are paid out to pro leagues and college conferences, so that's not opening up opportunities for the AAC or any other G5 league to step in.

Instead, the change is really more at the ESPN2/ESPNU-level where there are no longer as many Big Ten games. At that level, what exactly is the VORP or the comparison between the AAC vs. the other G5 leagues? This is really where the difference applies (and it becomes a more difficult argument because the ratings on those channels are inherently much lower than the mothership, which means you don't get those big eye-catching advertiser premiums for higher ratings).

Its not even close--especially if you are looking at the top AAC games (which is where VORP would be useful in swapping top AAC games for mid/lower-tier Big10 games). Basically ESPN saves nearly 200 million a year (even after paying 50-75 million for 25 top AAC games) and the ratings would be quite similar.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 12:00 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-12-2017 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,587
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 341
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #14
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
So let's assume the top teams in the AAC will get $6 million a year from their next media contract. Is that enough to keep anybody from leaving for a P5 invite? And, if it is, will it be enough to let any of those teams close any competitive gaps?
10-12-2017 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,763
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 480
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #15
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  So let's assume the top teams in the AAC will get $6 million a year from their next media contract. Is that enough to keep anybody from leaving for a P5 invite? And, if it is, will it be enough to let any of those teams close any competitive gaps?

This isn't even a debate. There's no amount of money that would keep an AAC school from leaving for the P5 if invited. As we saw within the power conferences themselves, they were willing to switch leagues even for temporary reductions in revenue if it meant going to a more stable and/or prestigious league (e.g. all of the defections from the Big 12).
10-12-2017 12:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  So let's assume the top teams in the AAC will get $6 million a year from their next media contract. Is that enough to keep anybody from leaving for a P5 invite? And, if it is, will it be enough to let any of those teams close any competitive gaps?

Nope. Not even close. Any AAC team would leave for any P5 league.

As for closing competetive gap with the P5---perhaps. Remember, there is plenty of talent in the 65 G5 teams. If the increased money aids in attracting more coaching talent to the AAC and aids in building better AAC facilities that attract some of the better recruits from other G5 leagues, then the AAC schools probably do close the competetive "on the field" gap with the P5 while creating additional seperation from the other G5's. In terms of stealing talent directly from the P5....I dont see the extra 6 million making that happen.
10-12-2017 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,853
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

I think scarcity of timeslots is the key. Everyone is insisting on national games. That has reduced the number of available time slots. Really when you add it all up, ESPN and Fox are full. There is no space for the AAC on Saturdays on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, Fox or FS1. With 2 ABC and 3 ESPN and ESPN2 games, ESPN only has 104 Saturday slots a year (or 112 if you count the August week they have allowed schools to play on). With 1 Fox and 3 FS1 most weeks and a 2nd Fox occasionally, its 52-63 Saturday slots for Fox. That is driving the start of the SEC and ACC networks. Not enough time slots.

There wasn't even any space for 2 out of BYU, UH and Cincinnati joining the Big 12. The networks fought that tooth and nail.

AAC's hope is additional competitors, either picking up the AAC or freeing space on Fox or ESPN. Maybe they ought to be working with the MWC and selling those numbers to CBS. For example:
CBS lead in game to SEC game of the week, doubling as pregame show. AAC/MWC pair of regional games on CBSSN, late Saturday night MWC game and Friday night AAC game on CBS and/or CBSSN. That would be 3 national games and 2 to 4 regional games in a week.
10-12-2017 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,853
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 11:43 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  2017 Nonconference records

Big 12 = 14-10
American = 16-13

=====

MWC = 11-23
MAC = 11-26
CUSA = 12-28
SB = 6-26

Anyone who thinks any old G4 league can replace the American is a fool.

2.5 years is not a proven trend. Go back to 2014 and it looked like this:
AAC 10 31
USA 20 26
MWC 20 28
MAC 10 34
SUN BELT 5 32
10-12-2017 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,982
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 195
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #19
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
Looking at Sportsmediawatch.com, the only AAC package games that have had over 1 million viewers this season to date are TTU-Houston, which had 3.850M as part of regional coverage with Florida St.-NC St., UCLA-Memphis with 3.238M, and Illinois-USF with 1.369. Those are decent numbers, but there's not enough of them. There are only two games in the 500k-999k range, which were both Thursday/Friday games. As we move into the conference season, with more good time slots available and USF, UCF and Navy all looking strong, we might see an improvement.
10-12-2017 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,634
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 978
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Analysis of American TV Contract
(10-12-2017 12:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

I think scarcity of timeslots is the key. Everyone is insisting on national games. That has reduced the number of available time slots. Really when you add it all up, ESPN and Fox are full. There is no space for the AAC on Saturdays on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, Fox or FS1. With 2 ABC and 3 ESPN and ESPN2 games, ESPN only has 104 Saturday slots a year (or 112 if you count the August week they have allowed schools to play on). With 1 Fox and 3 FS1 most weeks and a 2nd Fox occasionally, its 52-63 Saturday slots for Fox. That is driving the start of the SEC and ACC networks. Not enough time slots.

There wasn't even any space for 2 out of BYU, UH and Cincinnati joining the Big 12. The networks fought that tooth and nail.

AAC's hope is additional competitors, either picking up the AAC or freeing space on Fox or ESPN. Maybe they ought to be working with the MWC and selling those numbers to CBS. For example:
CBS lead in game to SEC game of the week, doubling as pregame show. AAC/MWC pair of regional games on CBSSN, late Saturday night MWC game and Friday night AAC game on CBS and/or CBSSN. That would be 3 national games and 2 to 4 regional games in a week.

These games were all part of the AAC pacakge.

Memphis vs UConn--769K
Houston vs Texas Tech----3.85 million
Temple vs USF---992K
UCLA vs Memphis-3.82 million
USF vs Illinois--1.36 million

The AAC has 3 ranked teams at this point, so its fairly likely the number of AAC games at or above a million viewers will increase over the latter half of the season. I would also add that Navy games are not included in the current AAC package and would likely represent several more games with million plus viewers. Those games would be part of future packages. Basically, at the halfway point the AAC has 4 "million+ viewer" games plus another solid showing without even counting any Navy games. I think we will end up with at least 10 "million+ viewer" games at a minimun (not counting Navy home games) with several more in the 500K-1 million range.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 02:03 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-12-2017 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.