(12-08-2017 06:44 AM)CougarRed Wrote: I wonder if we'll go to 20 conference basketball games as a part of the next TV deal.
The Big Ten has announced it will go to a 20-game conference schedule (from the current 18) next season. The ACC is expected to do so the following season.
We've had 99 conference home games in the inventory the last several years. This year, we have 108. Going to 20 conference games gives us 120.
But more than that, if the other major basketball conferences go to 20, that means less nonconference opportunities to play us. We'd have to fill those spots with games against lesser conferences.
Might as well fill those spots with conference games.
doubtful
the divide in the AAC is pretty big and the top 5 or so teams are not going to want to be forced to play the bottom 5 twice a year at this point. Those extra games are better for marquee OOC games for the top 5 or 6 teams.
Going to 20 means that you play home and homes with all except 2 schools.
Just like it was the last 3 years.
This year, you play home ahd homes with all except 4 schools. Houston only sees the following schools once: Tulsa, Memphis, UConn and UCF.
If they do it right, scheduling strength on strength, going to 20 will help SOS, not hurt it.
I don't want 20 conference games...unless we can play certain schools three times lol
There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
Your friend must be a low level staffer without common sense. The ratings alone show room for an increase.
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
Talking to your cat doesn’t count...
Limited commodities and we're the next best deal. Ratings versus cost. At the end of the day all in at least $8 to $10MM per team. Print It!!!!
The question that is unknown is what is ESPN’s plan as Sports Rights Contracts going forward. They already appear to be incredibly over-extended. How much money will they really have for new contracts?
Even with ESPN trying to gobble up all the content in the past, Fox is still doing well and has become a legitimate contender. CBS seems to have been smart as to where they spend their sports dollar.
True, ESPN is on the hook way out with the SEC and ACC but most of their contracts expire around 2024-2025.
Even though ESPN has made out well on their Chump Change AAC contract, their contract with the NFL has been a disaster. Obviously, on this last deal with the Big 10 we saw ESPN was willing to share them with Fox and CBS.
The AAC is one of the next ones up along with BYU. Here is a list of their current contracts. This article came out in June so it doesn't include the new Big 10 numbers.
(12-06-2017 07:06 PM)SubGod22 Wrote: I seem to remember Aresco saying they would start talking in January. I know it was brought up when he was on one of our local shows after we were officially added tot he conference.
Fall of 2016, after the Big 12 expansion scare, Aresco said he would be talking with ESPN in December (now a year ago), and we've never heard anything of it.
We'll see what happens.
That’s true. Crickets.
To be honest, I always felt that if we were signing early it would have happened last summer. A this point, when your only a year away from getting to test the open market, there isn’t much reason to accept an early deal. Plus, at this point, an early deal would liklely only affect the last year or two of the contract—so the motivation to take extra early money rather than maximize tha contract is reduced. Let us also remember that the BE legacy schools that have been getting a payout of close to 10 million will have a lot of motivation to maximize the next deal and virtually no motivation to settle on a low ball early offer.
That's true. Then again, what is a "low ball" offer? To me, it's an offer that's clearly below what others are willing to pay. In that sense, it's inaccurate to call what NBC offered in 2012/2013 a "low ball" offer because apparently nobody ever made a better offer.
In the end, we'll sign for whatever the market values us at, just as we did in 2013. Hopefully this time, the market will value us considerably higher than it did then.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2017 08:50 AM by quo vadis.)
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
Your friend must be a low level staffer without common sense. The ratings alone show room for an increase.
No, he is a national media figure. It is not linear like you are hoping. There is that whole pesky G5 and P5 thing. We'll see. I'll admit I am wrong, If it turns out that I am.
A typical national media figure isn't exactly unbiased. They hope to change outcomes by spewing propaganda. They report what they want to happen more so that what will actually happen.
I would be more impressed if he were an Big TV accountant or financial officer or statistician but those guys are wrong also.
Long of the short of it is, we won't know until we know.
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
If it is "pennies on the dollar", as your media friend suggests, then this conference will disband. For the money, schools will move to more regionally based conferences-- a few schools will join C-USA, some will go to the MAC, etc. If the media contracts are no better than those other conferences, the savings will be worth it in terms of travel, some increased ticket sales, etc.
(12-08-2017 10:00 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote: A typical national media figure isn't exactly unbiased. They hope to change outcomes by spewing propaganda. They report what they want to happen more so that what will actually happen.
I would be more impressed if he were an Big TV accountant or financial officer or statistician but those guys are wrong also.
Long of the short of it is, we won't know until we know.
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
If it is "pennies on the dollar", as your media friend suggests, then this conference will disband. For the money, schools will move to more regionally based conferences-- a few schools will join C-USA, some will go to the MAC, etc. If the media contracts are no better than those other conferences, the savings will be worth it in terms of travel, some increased ticket sales, etc.
I agree. This is one of the reasons SDSU bailed on the Big East
(12-08-2017 08:07 AM)fanhood Wrote: There are going to be some disappointed people here. "Pennies on the dollar" is the term my media friend used, when I asked him to project the value of the next TV contrac
Lol. I’m sorry, but your friend isn’t connected to these negotiations. He gave you information that is publicly available and an opinion gleaned from Clay Travis articles. Aresco actually ran a major network sports division. I think he has excellent insight as to how much money we make for ESPN. To paraphrase his quote when someone mentions cordcutting and lay offs at ESPN in conjunction with the next tv deal—“you don’t get rid of tv contracts that make you lots of money. Those are the contracts you want more of.”
That said, if it’s “pennies on the dollar”—there won’t be an AAC. Frankly, I see a double at a minimum by simply getting a modest raise from ESPN and by recapturing the rights to stuff ESPN sells to CBS-Sports.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2017 10:34 AM by Attackcoog.)
I've been working on my super computer, but something is wrong. The final answer keeps saying $20 million per team and g4 sucks. Bearcats, can you review my code?
.gif)