(04-04-2019 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:28 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 06:47 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 08:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That's right. The expectations had already been lowered to 6 million per school at the time Boise considered the invite.

That's not true at all. April 2012, UCF rivals article on Memphis AD talking about $13M a year

13 million was when Pitt and Syracuse were in the fold.

After defections started happening but befor the C7 split Boise was hanging around because the projections were 6 million. Then the C7 split and they high tailed back to the MWC under a preferrential deal.

I'll try typing it slower.

In April 2012, after Syracuse and Pitt and West Virginia were gone, the Big East had invited SMU, UCF, UH, Memphis and Temple, plus Navy, Boise and San Diego State.

In April 2012, the Memphis AD was talking on the radio and said "$13 million."

That was pie in the sky conjecture when a Pitt/Syracuse BE was worth only 13 million.

Probably somewhere in the ballpark of 8-10 mill at that point with all the schools added would have been realistic.

(04-04-2019 06:47 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 08:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That's right. The expectations had already been lowered to 6 million per school at the time Boise considered the invite.

That's not true at all. April 2012, UCF rivals article on Memphis AD talking about $13M a year

(04-03-2019 08:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Aresco's first deal traded cash for exposure. He said it at the time.

Aresco's second deal has cash and exposure. 1 Billion dollars in cash.

He said that, AFTER the deal was done. He wasn't saying that before.
You can take that at face value, or you can take that as making the best propaganda of an unexpectedly bad result.

As far as I can tell, the NBC offer for $20M per year was the only offer on the table. It's not really accurate to say that Aresco "traded cash for exposure" if there wasn't an offer somewhere for more cash but less exposure. Maybe NBC offered $30M a year for televising only half the games, but I doubt it.

What Aresco was able to secure was a guarantee, first from NBC Comcast and then from ESPN, that 90% of AAC football games would be televised on national basic cable. That ended up including a package of games on CBS-SN (AAC signed off on the sublicense, even though it wasn't basic cable). I suspect that if Aresco had signed with NBC for $30M a year for the first 40 games or so, CBS-SN would still have been willing to show the next 15 AAC football games.

I strongly believe that Aresco did about as well as the deputy commissioner of the Big Ten or SEC would have if they got the Big East Commissioner job in the summer of 2012

Why would anyone in a negotiation say that BEFORE the negotiations occur?

The most plausible explanation is one we have heard before from a poster who claims to have knowledge of the dealings. He said that ESPN offered around 40 million---but the exposure package was very heavily tilted toward ESPN3. The AAC declined as they wanted much more exposure for their new relatively unknown league. They got the exposure they wanted from NBC. However, NBC knew that ESPN wasnt offering the AAC much exposure. NBC apparently believed ESPN wouldnt or couldnt offer the same level of exposure and low balled the AAC--thinking that ESPN would never match the number of broadcast windows NBC was providing. Thus, in leaviung ESPN and accepting the NBC offer, the presidents clearly had chosen exposure over more dollars (40 million). When ESPN matched---the presidents--again---- chose exposure as ESPN was offering a similar number of broadcast windows on the more watched ABC/ESPN platforms.

I think MWC is harder to predict than AAC.

MWC has a history of getting fed up with squirrelly start times and valuing gate receipts friendly kickoffs.

MWC has a history of being open to novel exposure.

There is value filling the late starts if MWC wants it.

If CBS were offering CBSSN in the All Access streaming package I’d toss out a pretty high prediction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-04-2019 01:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The obsession some people have with Aresco is truly strange.

The sports/media/business landscape is crammed with people — athletes, managers, admin./executives —who get a lot more money for worse results than him. But even if Aresco were the most egregious example of over-promise/under-deliver, at some point it just becomes weird to keep mentioning it in one conversation after another.

Especially true when this is supposed to be a conversation about the Mountain West and its media deal.

(04-04-2019 05:06 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:28 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 06:47 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 08:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That's right. The expectations had already been lowered to 6 million per school at the time Boise considered the invite.

That's not true at all. April 2012, UCF rivals article on Memphis AD talking about $13M a year

13 million was when Pitt and Syracuse were in the fold.

After defections started happening but befor the C7 split Boise was hanging around because the projections were 6 million. Then the C7 split and they high tailed back to the MWC under a preferrential deal.

I'll try typing it slower.

In April 2012, after Syracuse and Pitt and West Virginia were gone, the Big East had invited SMU, UCF, UH, Memphis and Temple, plus Navy, Boise and San Diego State.

In April 2012, the Memphis AD was talking on the radio and said "$13 million."

That was pie in the sky conjecture when a Pitt/Syracuse BE was worth only 13 million.

Probably somewhere in the ballpark of 8-10 mill at that point with all the schools added would have been realistic.

You know why we had that 'pie in the sky conjecture'?

Because fans of the backfill teams flooded the Big East board, amd they actually believed that the raids made the Big East MORE valuable not less!

I know its hard to believe, but i was there: you had fans of schools like Houston, Memphis, UCF, ECU and Temple proclaiming that those schools were more valuable than WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt, such that the networks would actually offer more than they had in 2011.

That actually happened, yes it did.

(04-04-2019 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 01:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 10:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, selling the AAC today is infinitely easier than it was in early 2013.

No question. Which is one reason why I'm unimpressed with the current deal. Given the AAC's ratings track record of the past 5+ years, Aresco got us no more than what basically all of us valued the AAC at in our predictions.

I see no evidence of an "Aresco premium" in the new deal, that is, positive aspects of the deal that are due to him having a high VORP. I think any commissioner could have made this deal.

The only deals that Aresco has ever negotiated that are incontestably excellent deals are the ones he signed for himself, first in August 2012 and then a year or two ago when he got an extension.

We certainly didn't need to be paying him or anyone else $1.9m a year to get it.

Look---I like Aresco a lot as our commissioner---but even I agree he is overpaid. That said---when the presidents had the opportunity to adjust his pay or at least hold it steady---they gave him a big raise. So---what are you gunna do?

I think the guy is 60-something so he probably will retire right after the next CFP deal is done---which may be why the presidents are paying so much (they want to make sure he is still the AAC commissioner at that time). As I said before--I think the AAC commissioner job should pay more in the $600-$750K area. That would be more in line with the financial resources of the conference.

No question, i do not blame Aresco for taking the money. If the AAC offered me $2m a year to be the commissioner, i would take it too.

(04-02-2019 11:12 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 08:17 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 10:06 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 02:16 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I would think the MWC would actually be pretty valuable to ESPN for those 10:30 and 11:00 broadcasts. I always enjoy turning on those games when I get home and start getting blackout drunk.

Those games would be valuable if they were late like that and between top 4 teams, but the MWC hates them. So are cutting their only marketable asset to fill the stadiums in the afternoon.

Aren’t night games pretty good for attendance though? 10:30 est is only 8:30 mountain time and 7:30 pacific. South Carolina fans would kill for more night games!

They are great in September and early October, after that weather can be brutal. If UNLV and Hawaii could get good, that would solve so e of the problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah November Night games in Boise are tough. But SDSU, UNM, Fresno St, UNLV and Hawaii are great. If the conference could stagger them so warmer climate schools get most of the late ones that could work.

Why doesn't conf stagger them
Sounds like no brainer to me
Utah St & Wym could do 1 a yr in sept
Colo St 1 game could be as late as Oct
NM in Nov

(04-05-2019 12:53 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:12 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 08:17 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 10:06 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 02:16 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I would think the MWC would actually be pretty valuable to ESPN for those 10:30 and 11:00 broadcasts. I always enjoy turning on those games when I get home and start getting blackout drunk.

Those games would be valuable if they were late like that and between top 4 teams, but the MWC hates them. So are cutting their only marketable asset to fill the stadiums in the afternoon.

Aren’t night games pretty good for attendance though? 10:30 est is only 8:30 mountain time and 7:30 pacific. South Carolina fans would kill for more night games!

They are great in September and early October, after that weather can be brutal. If UNLV and Hawaii could get good, that would solve so e of the problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah November Night games in Boise are tough. But SDSU, UNM, Fresno St, UNLV and Hawaii are great. If the conference could stagger them so warmer climate schools get most of the late ones that could work.

(04-05-2019 02:02 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why doesn't conf stagger them
Sounds like no brainer to me
Utah St & Wym could do 1 a yr in sept
Colo St 1 game could be as late as Oct
NM in Nov

I suspect that ESPN only has interest in the No. 1 or No. 2 MWC matchup in a given week, even in the 10 Eastern timeslot. I don't think they want a model where they're obligated to show New Mexico in November if New Mexico is 2-7.

(04-05-2019 01:25 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 01:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The obsession some people have with Aresco is truly strange.

The sports/media/business landscape is crammed with people — athletes, managers, admin./executives —who get a lot more money for worse results than him. But even if Aresco were the most egregious example of over-promise/under-deliver, at some point it just becomes weird to keep mentioning it in one conversation after another.

Especially true when this is supposed to be a conversation about the Mountain West and its media deal.

My thoughts exactly ^^^

Majority here were blasting Mike Aresco way before negotiations even begun... blah blah this... blah blah that... the AAC will get 4 million ea. max blah blah blah... unreal.

ESPN contract is for Boise home games, 1 game can be traded for road game
SDST, Frenso & Nev just rotated off, why are they not split up
Marshall & AF in sept
Portland St gets traded (does CBSSN any way in the matter)
Hawaii in oct
Wym, NM,@Utah St@Colo St in Nov
Utah St gets traded to ESPN
@SJST & @UNLV are in oct
That just a dumb sch

(04-06-2019 12:37 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  ESPN contract is for Boise home games, 1 game can be traded for road game

No, ESPN gets the Boise home games and alternating picks with CBS-SN.

ESPN Press Release from 2012

(03-31-2019 09:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ok. Sounds like we won’t know till summer. Here is a recent interview with the Wyoming AD.

https://www.kfbcradio.com/wyoming-ad-tom...one-audio/
Start at 5:05 minutes left.

Things of note from interview.
1. CBS exclusive negotiators last 6 weeks.
2. ESPN has an exclusive period after CBS.

Thing will be how much is enough to give up control of games. WYO seems to think 2 or 3 times the current amount. 3x would be roughly 4 million.

@MWC Tex

So if cbssports gives us a good deal that addresses both (decent, not great) money and (not all games, but more frequent) better start times, we will know in 6 weeks or less, right?

I would be happy if, for our tier 1/2, we got cbssn to agree to two MW football games each Saturday with our tv revenue only doubling what it is now. One with an earlier start time, and the 2nd game of the day starting at the times they do currently....can this now happen with the aac going heavy with espn? Does the aac/espn deal open up earlier slots for MW on cbssn?

I’m wondering how much espn exposure actually helps us anymore. Do the high school grad aged kids of today really care if they are on espn or not? Especially with the late start times and especially the recruits we get vs the 4 and 5 star recruits’ desires. And western state multi-star recruits seem to head to eastern P5 conferences before the MW anyway. Kind of seems they’d rather be on a big name eastern P5 roster than Pac12 lately.

Side note question for you, MWTex...what do you think are the chances of going heavy with cbssn like I said, and, since cbs and turner sports - now owned by AT&T/WarnerMedia - partner with ncaa men’s basketball tournament, maybe TNT or TBS picks up some MW games as well??? Maybe say we agree to a Thursday night ‘TNT Thursday Night College Football (featuring the Mountain West)’ weekly special of sorts. What do you think of chances of TNT/TBS getting a few games in partnership with cbs sports?