(07-18-2019 07:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your point is actually worse for the AAC as a whole, because writing "on behalf of the AAC Finance and TV Committee" suggests that this was a concern for the entire committee, and by extension the conference generally, not just a school or two.

Bottom line is, some of us have been raising the issue of possibly significant production costs associated with ESPN+, enough to take a non-trivial bite out of that $7m payout. In response, we've been told by many around here that these costs are extremely minor, that basically all the schools already have the necessary infrastructure and that the game-day production can be handled by a few undergrad film majors roaming the sidelines with steady-cams for internship credit.

True, thanks to Aresco's talent for obfuscation, even in correspondence within the conference hierarchy, we're still largely in the grey about exactly what those costs will be. But this note of concern from the AAC committee to Aresco casts a shadow over the argument that ESPN+ production costs are trivial and not to be worried about.

The committee was worried.

No. The committee who’s job it is to understand the contract for the presidents wanted to know how much the costs are. Wow. Ya think? Of course there was a concern. That’s their function. Who is the one who is less concerned? The guy that put together the American Digital Network and is intimately aware of the cost of televising women’s basketball games, baseball games, and numerous championship events for the American Digital Network.

Huh? Committees don't raise an issue with the commissioner during media negotiations just because the issue is under the purview of their committee. They do so when they think there is cause for concern, and if the situation with producing ESPN+ content was as cut-and-dried simple and easy as you've claimed it to be, it stands to reason that the schools would all realize this, and therefore no concerns would be raised in the committee and to the commissioner.

Spin away if you like, but this memo belies those claims and suggests the issue of production costs is more complicated, and likely more costly, than you think.

Television finance committees dont raise questions regarding possible costs involved in a proposed television contract? You think that’s spin? Claiming they don’t when we can read the actual memo is the literal definition of spin. Secondly—explain to me how FCS/D2 schools with tiny budgets do it if it’s so expensive. These FCS/D2 schools don’t have “millions” to spend on video streams that are only watched by a few hundred people.

Television finance committees do raise these exact types of questions; usually, however, they are asked and answered before the clients agree to sign a contract. In this case, it is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to costs and production (as Aresco said, it's not until 2021). For schools that are banking on keeping as much financial pace with the P5 (like a Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis) as possible, it is incredibly relevant. Any extra revenue matters.

you have to sign the contract with ESPN before we tell you what is in the contract with ESPN!!!

Alright, there has been a lot made about the travel costs that UConn had in the AAC (as well as what they will have in the Big East). Here are the AWAY trips each of the programs had this year in the AAC:

Baseball - Houston, UCF, ECU, Tulane (Conference Tournament - Clearwater, FL)
Men's Basketball - USF, Cincinnati, Tulsa, UCF, Temple, Memphis, SMU, Wichita State, ECU (Conference Tournament - Orlando, FL)
Men's Cross Country - AAC Conference Tournament (New Orleans, LA)
Men's Golf - AAC Conference Tournament (Palm Harbor, FL)
Men's Soccer - USF, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU
Men's Swimming and Diving - AAC Championships (Indianapolis, IN)
Men's Tennis - AAC Conference Championships (Orlando, FL)
Men's Track & Field - AAC Conference Championships (Birmingham, AL - FEB; Wichita, KS - MAR)

Women's Basketball - Houston, Tulane, Temple, Cincinnati, UCF, Tulsa, Wichita State, USF
Women's Cross Country - AAC Conference Tournament (New Orleans, LA)
Women's Lacrosse - Cincinnati, Vanderbilt, ECU
Women's Soccer - Memphis, Tulsa, UCF, USF
Softball - UCF, Wichita State, Houston, ECU (AAC Conference Tournament - Houston, TX)
Women's Swimming and Diving - AAC Championships (Indianapolis, IN)
Women's Tennis - Memphis, ECU, AAC Championships (Orlando, FL)
Women's Track & Field - AAC Conference Championships (Birmingham, AL - FEB; Wichita, KS - MAR)
Women's Volleyball - UCF, USF, Temple, Memphis, SMU, ECU, Cincinnati, Houston, AAC Championship (Orlando, FL)

For reference, below are the sites of the Big East Championships:
Cross Country - Indianapolis, IN
Women's Soccer - Higher Seed
Men's Soccer - Higher Seed
Women's Volleyball - Omaha, NE (Creighton)
Men's and Women's Swimming and Diving - East Meadow, NY
Women's Basketball* - Chicago, IL
Men's Basketball - New York City, NY
Men's Golf - Okatie, SC
Men's/Women's Tennis - Cayce, SC
Women's Lacrosse - Milwaukee, WI
Men's/Women's Track and Field - New York, NY
Softball - Chicago, IL
Baseball - Mason, OH
*The Women's Tournament will almost be guaranteed to move to UConn once they join

Additionally, the AAC Conference HQ will be relocating shortly to Dallas, where as the Big East HQ is in New York City.

(07-18-2019 08:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 07:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. The committee who’s job it is to understand the contract for the presidents wanted to know how much the costs are. Wow. Ya think? Of course there was a concern. That’s their function. Who is the one who is less concerned? The guy that put together the American Digital Network and is intimately aware of the cost of televising women’s basketball games, baseball games, and numerous championship events for the American Digital Network.

Huh? Committees don't raise an issue with the commissioner during media negotiations just because the issue is under the purview of their committee. They do so when they think there is cause for concern, and if the situation with producing ESPN+ content was as cut-and-dried simple and easy as you've claimed it to be, it stands to reason that the schools would all realize this, and therefore no concerns would be raised in the committee and to the commissioner.

Spin away if you like, but this memo belies those claims and suggests the issue of production costs is more complicated, and likely more costly, than you think.

Television finance committees dont raise questions regarding possible costs involved in a proposed television contract? You think that’s spin? Claiming they don’t when we can read the actual memo is the literal definition of spin. Secondly—explain to me how FCS/D2 schools with tiny budgets do it if it’s so expensive. These FCS/D2 schools don’t have “millions” to spend on video streams that are only watched by a few hundred people.

Television finance committees do raise these exact types of questions; usually, however, they are asked and answered before the clients agree to sign a contract. In this case, it is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to costs and production (as Aresco said, it's not until 2021). For schools that are banking on keeping as much financial pace with the P5 (like a Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis) as possible, it is incredibly relevant. Any extra revenue matters.

you have to sign the contract with ESPN before we tell you what is in the contract with ESPN!!!

Lol. I like that one. Honestly—the interesting thing about that email to me is why was there such a rush to get the deal signed? I think maybe they knew the UConn situation was imminent.

(07-18-2019 07:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:02 PM)scoscox Wrote:  Again, warrior i'd like to specify that we are actually 1 mile further east than UC as the crow flies for uconn, saving them valuable travel dollars

Which has a shorter google drive time from the airport?

from the Cincinnati airport (which is actually in Northen Kentucky), UC is about a mile closer, but like i said I assume they'll be hitchhiking from storrs

(07-18-2019 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. I like that one. Honestly—the interesting thing about that email to me is why was there such a rush to get the deal signed? I think maybe they knew the UConn situation was imminent.

From most reports, the discussions between UConn and the Big East started after the AAC media deal was announced, so I doubt that was the case. Aresco has said he didn't expect it to happen in multiple interviews. He was going on vacation when he found out.

TBH i thought that was odd too. The more I hear about this the more I think Aresco is just a moron

(07-18-2019 07:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your point is actually worse for the AAC as a whole, because writing "on behalf of the AAC Finance and TV Committee" suggests that this was a concern for the entire committee, and by extension the conference generally, not just a school or two.

Bottom line is, some of us have been raising the issue of possibly significant production costs associated with ESPN+, enough to take a non-trivial bite out of that $7m payout. In response, we've been told by many around here that these costs are extremely minor, that basically all the schools already have the necessary infrastructure and that the game-day production can be handled by a few undergrad film majors roaming the sidelines with steady-cams for internship credit.

True, thanks to Aresco's talent for obfuscation, even in correspondence within the conference hierarchy, we're still largely in the grey about exactly what those costs will be. But this note of concern from the AAC committee to Aresco casts a shadow over the argument that ESPN+ production costs are trivial and not to be worried about.

The committee was worried.

No. The committee who’s job it is to understand the contract for the presidents wanted to know how much the costs are. Wow. Ya think? Of course there was a concern. That’s their function. Who is the one who is less concerned? The guy that put together the American Digital Network and is intimately aware of the cost of televising women’s basketball games, baseball games, and numerous championship events for the American Digital Network.

Huh? Committees don't raise an issue with the commissioner during media negotiations just because the issue is under the purview of their committee. They do so when they think there is cause for concern, and if the situation with producing ESPN+ content was as cut-and-dried simple and easy as you've claimed it to be, it stands to reason that the schools would all realize this, and therefore no concerns would be raised in the committee and to the commissioner.

Spin away if you like, but this memo belies those claims and suggests the issue of production costs is more complicated, and likely more costly, than you think.

Television finance committees dont raise questions regarding possible costs involved in a proposed television contract? You think that’s spin? Claiming they don’t when we can read the actual memo is the literal definition of spin. Secondly—explain to me how FCS/D2 schools with tiny budgets do it if it’s so expensive. These FCS/D2 schools don’t have “millions” to spend on video streams that are only watched by a few hundred people.

Television finance committees do raise these exact types of questions; usually, however, they are asked and answered before the clients agree to sign a contract. In this case, it is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to costs and production (as Aresco said, it's not until 2021). For schools that are banking on keeping as much financial pace with the P5 (like a Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis) as possible, it is incredibly relevant. Any extra revenue matters.

Yes, it is amazing that "Coog" is claiming that this memo to Aresco is merely a routine inquiry that would have happened anyway even if it was well-known that ESPN+ production costs would be trivial and could be handled at minimal cost with existing school infrastructure, interns, digital facilities, etc.

Anyone reading the memo can see that it expresses particular concern, namely that the costs of producing for ESPN+ are unknown/uncertain to the committee, and by inference the membership - meaning the members were concerned those costs could be non-trivial and significant.

(07-18-2019 04:07 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:30 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:30 PM)scoscox Wrote:  You realize there are only ten teams in the big east right? 3-5 trips is half the conference on the high end. St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence are 100% locks to bus to. Nova most likely. Georgetown maybe. That's half the conference.

Post the numbers then and don't argue.

They still realistically have to fly to 6/10 games for basketball. And unless I'm mistaken the Big East has associate members correct? So make sure you include flights to Denver, Colorado in your estimates.

Distance from UConn (Storrs) to:
Providence - 50 mi
South Orange (Seton Hall) - 120 mi
New York City (St. John's) - 141 mi
Philadelphia (Villanova/Temple) - 234 mi
Washington D.C. (Georgetown) - 366 mi
Greenville (ECU) - 648 mi
Cincinnati (Xavier/Cincinnati) - 795 mi
Indianapolis (Butler) - 861 mi
Chicago (DePaul) - 916 mi
Milwaukee (Marquette) 1,018 mi
Orlando (UCF) - 1,220 mi
Memphis - 1,241 mi
Tampa Bay (USF) - 1,275 mi
Omaha (Creighton) - 1,369 mi
New Orleans (Tulane) - 1,457 mi
Tulsa - 1,497 mi
Wichita - 1,539 mi
Dallas (SMU) - 1,697 mi
Houston - 1,776 mi

Flight Time from UConn (Storrs) to:
New York City (St. John's) - 35 Mins
Philadelphia (Villanova/Temple) - 47 Mins
Washington D.C. (Georgetown) - 1 Hour, 7 Mins
Greenville (ECU) - 1 Hour, 29 Mins
Cincinnati (Xavier/Cincinnati) - 1 Hour, 40 Mins
Indianapolis (Butler) - 1 Hour, 56 Mins
Chicago (DePaul) - 2 Hours
Milwaukee (Marquette) - 2 Hours, 4 Mins
Orlando (UCF) - 2 Hours, 16 Mins
Tampa Bay (USF) - 2 Hours, 25 Mins
Memphis - 2 Hours, 38 Mins
Omaha (Creighton) - 2 Hours, 54 Mins
Dallas (SMU) - 3 Hours
New Orleans (Tulane) - 3 Hours, 4 Mins
Tulsa - 3 Hours, 7 Mins
Wichita - 3 Hours, 11 Mins
Houston - 3 Hours, 31 Mins

Thanks, I want to say I really appreciate this.

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that UConn wont save travel money. I'm arguing that I don't see how they are going to save (significant) money when you factor in the lost media revenue.

The first three are for sure a huge win. But flights don't necessarily operate on distance to equal price. It's actually cheaper to fly to Houston than it is to fly to Omaha which is shorter.

The only trips outside of trips that aren't in metro cities are ECU, Wichita, and Tulsa. That's why I'm not seeing the massive savings here. Yes, they save money by bus trips but do four bus trips truly save money? The media money realistically is going to be 10 million vs 6 million.

How are you getting ten million? It’s going to be at least a few years before the AAC makes close to 7 million somewhere near 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 (backloaded deal as all are) and the Big East deal will be redone around that time where it could exceed that figure potentially.

When it was signed it was supposed to be between 40-50M a year and appeared to have pro-data pay increases for expansion up to 12 as it said it was set to pay 500M for ten and up to 600M for 12. Towards the end of the deal you can expect around 5M per team in tv dollars and likely a bigger slice of the NCAA tournament money too.

When the new deal is signed I expect they will get an increase as well between natural rights fee increases, more bidders, and the addition of UConn to go with Gtown, Nova, Butler, And others.

It’s not that UConn would be rolling in cash but I’ll be surprised if they make 3-4M less than they would by staying if we are looking purely at tv dollars and not factoring in entry/exit fees.

Media deal + Navy deal + playoff money + bowl money + NCAA credits (3-5) per year + CBS deal. When all is said and done it should be around 9-10 mil.

(07-19-2019 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 07:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. The committee who’s job it is to understand the contract for the presidents wanted to know how much the costs are. Wow. Ya think? Of course there was a concern. That’s their function. Who is the one who is less concerned? The guy that put together the American Digital Network and is intimately aware of the cost of televising women’s basketball games, baseball games, and numerous championship events for the American Digital Network.

Huh? Committees don't raise an issue with the commissioner during media negotiations just because the issue is under the purview of their committee. They do so when they think there is cause for concern, and if the situation with producing ESPN+ content was as cut-and-dried simple and easy as you've claimed it to be, it stands to reason that the schools would all realize this, and therefore no concerns would be raised in the committee and to the commissioner.

Spin away if you like, but this memo belies those claims and suggests the issue of production costs is more complicated, and likely more costly, than you think.

Television finance committees dont raise questions regarding possible costs involved in a proposed television contract? You think that’s spin? Claiming they don’t when we can read the actual memo is the literal definition of spin. Secondly—explain to me how FCS/D2 schools with tiny budgets do it if it’s so expensive. These FCS/D2 schools don’t have “millions” to spend on video streams that are only watched by a few hundred people.

Television finance committees do raise these exact types of questions; usually, however, they are asked and answered before the clients agree to sign a contract. In this case, it is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to costs and production (as Aresco said, it's not until 2021). For schools that are banking on keeping as much financial pace with the P5 (like a Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis) as possible, it is incredibly relevant. Any extra revenue matters.

Yes, it is amazing that "Coog" is claiming that this memo to Aresco is merely a routine inquiry that would have happened anyway even if it was well-known that ESPN+ production costs would be trivial and could be handled at minimal cost with existing school infrastructure, interns, digital facilities, etc.

Anyone reading the memo can see that it expresses particular concern, namely that the costs of producing for ESPN+ are unknown/uncertain to the committee, and by inference the membership - meaning the members were concerned those costs could be non-trivial and significant.

Again—any prudent person would need to know the answer to the question of production costs before signing the agreement (by the way—this email is clearly written PRIOR to signing). So, the question is normal. The clause in question we now know has been a fairly standard part of conference contracts since ESPN+ came into being (and was appearing commonly in many conference deals going back to the ESPN3 days).

So, what is it exactly you find so unusual or shocking here? The idea that a conference tv and finance committee wanted more info on what the “production costs” in the proposed contract or that “production costs” were part of the ESPN+ aspect of the deal?

I find it unusual that the commissioner told them he didn't know and they wouldn't know until they signed it, but they definitely needed to hurry up and sign it. As far as I know, they still don't know the estimate of costs.

Seems like a bad practice.

(07-19-2019 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 07:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Huh? Committees don't raise an issue with the commissioner during media negotiations just because the issue is under the purview of their committee. They do so when they think there is cause for concern, and if the situation with producing ESPN+ content was as cut-and-dried simple and easy as you've claimed it to be, it stands to reason that the schools would all realize this, and therefore no concerns would be raised in the committee and to the commissioner.

Spin away if you like, but this memo belies those claims and suggests the issue of production costs is more complicated, and likely more costly, than you think.

Television finance committees dont raise questions regarding possible costs involved in a proposed television contract? You think that’s spin? Claiming they don’t when we can read the actual memo is the literal definition of spin. Secondly—explain to me how FCS/D2 schools with tiny budgets do it if it’s so expensive. These FCS/D2 schools don’t have “millions” to spend on video streams that are only watched by a few hundred people.

Television finance committees do raise these exact types of questions; usually, however, they are asked and answered before the clients agree to sign a contract. In this case, it is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to costs and production (as Aresco said, it's not until 2021). For schools that are banking on keeping as much financial pace with the P5 (like a Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis) as possible, it is incredibly relevant. Any extra revenue matters.

Yes, it is amazing that "Coog" is claiming that this memo to Aresco is merely a routine inquiry that would have happened anyway even if it was well-known that ESPN+ production costs would be trivial and could be handled at minimal cost with existing school infrastructure, interns, digital facilities, etc.

Anyone reading the memo can see that it expresses particular concern, namely that the costs of producing for ESPN+ are unknown/uncertain to the committee, and by inference the membership - meaning the members were concerned those costs could be non-trivial and significant.

Again—any prudent person would need to know the answer to the question of production costs before signing the agreement (by the way—this email is clearly written PRIOR to signing). So, the question is normal. The clause in question we now know has been a fairly standard part of conference contracts since ESPN+ came into being (and was appearing commonly in many conference deals going back to the ESPN3 days).

So, what is it exactly you find so unusual or shocking here? The idea that a conference tv and finance committee wanted more info on what the “production costs” in the proposed contract or that “production costs” were part of the ESPN+ aspect of the deal?

I've explained it twice. If it's not sinking in, I have to blame your wishful thinking creating blinders.

Heck, by your own standards, Aresco is "imprudent" because in the memo he is indicating that the costs haven't been hashed out but he wants to rush ahead with the agreement anyway. Even after it was signed he still doesn't know.

(07-19-2019 03:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 06:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 07:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Television finance committees dont raise questions regarding possible costs involved in a proposed television contract? You think that’s spin? Claiming they don’t when we can read the actual memo is the literal definition of spin. Secondly—explain to me how FCS/D2 schools with tiny budgets do it if it’s so expensive. These FCS/D2 schools don’t have “millions” to spend on video streams that are only watched by a few hundred people.

Television finance committees do raise these exact types of questions; usually, however, they are asked and answered before the clients agree to sign a contract. In this case, it is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty with regards to costs and production (as Aresco said, it's not until 2021). For schools that are banking on keeping as much financial pace with the P5 (like a Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF and Memphis) as possible, it is incredibly relevant. Any extra revenue matters.

Yes, it is amazing that "Coog" is claiming that this memo to Aresco is merely a routine inquiry that would have happened anyway even if it was well-known that ESPN+ production costs would be trivial and could be handled at minimal cost with existing school infrastructure, interns, digital facilities, etc.

Anyone reading the memo can see that it expresses particular concern, namely that the costs of producing for ESPN+ are unknown/uncertain to the committee, and by inference the membership - meaning the members were concerned those costs could be non-trivial and significant.

Again—any prudent person would need to know the answer to the question of production costs before signing the agreement (by the way—this email is clearly written PRIOR to signing). So, the question is normal. The clause in question we now know has been a fairly standard part of conference contracts since ESPN+ came into being (and was appearing commonly in many conference deals going back to the ESPN3 days).

So, what is it exactly you find so unusual or shocking here? The idea that a conference tv and finance committee wanted more info on what the “production costs” in the proposed contract or that “production costs” were part of the ESPN+ aspect of the deal?

I've explained it twice. If it's not sinking in, I have to blame your wishful thinking creating blinders.

Heck, by your own standards, Aresco is "imprudent" because in the memo he is indicating that the costs haven't been hashed out but he wants to rush ahead with the agreement anyway. Even after it was signed he still doesn't know.

Well—he does know it’s not particularly significant. It’s also not a one size fits all number. What we do know is FCS/lower D1 schools with tiny 5-10 million dollar budgets can afford it. So—we know those schools aren’t paying “millions” to produce streams that will only be watched by a few hundred people.

(06-25-2019 09:06 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The failed P-6 campaign that led to a lousy TV deal with ESPN along with UConn athletic department in 2018: generated $40 million in revenue, spent $81 million in expenses is why UConn is packing it up and going home!

“The long-term goal is obviously to move athletics closer to financial self-sufficiency,” UConn spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said in an email, noting that as recently as 2013, the athletic department did not require a significant subsidy. “In recent years, declining conference and media licensing revenue, along with rising costs, have created the current deficit. It is not sustainable and the Division of Athletics is continually working to identify savings and drive up revenue in order to help close this gap.”

The biggest individual team culprit of the UConn athletic department’s 2018 deficit was the school’s football program, which lost $8.7 million. Additionally, men’s basketball lost about $5 million, women’s basketball lost about $3.1 million and the rest of the school’s sports lost about $22.3 million among them.

Lets look at the new American P-6 TV Deal: At first glance: Each school will get just under $7 million per year starting in 2020-21, still not at the level of the SEC’s $43.1 million from 2017-18 but considerably more than the couch change that Div. I’s have-nots receive. The fine print: Most games will be on ESPN+, a pay web service ($4.99 per month) with only 2 million subscribers, rather than linear or “real” TV; schools are responsible for on-campus production costs, which some estimate could lower their net annual take by as much as $2 million; and the deal is for 12 years, when technology may change and media rights might be worth more and Div. I athletic budgets will undoubtedly have soared.

“That’s what blew me away,” SDSU’s Wicker says, “that 13 years from now they’re still only going to be getting $7 million per school, knowing what things cost today and what they might cost in 13 years. I would be surprised if we got locked into something like that. I think that’s too long.”

So UConn to the Big East Makes Sense, Feels Terrible....Why??? The timing is interesting in one regard. UConn stopped receiving payouts from the current Big East schools this year for the split that took place six years ago.

As part of the settlement, the basketball-only schools kept the Big East name and Madison Square Garden for its conference championship, while the leftover football schools were compensated handsomely. The football schools reportedly kept roughly $100 million of the $110 million left over from previous exit fees, entry fees, and money earned during the NCAA tournament.

And now it appears as though they want back in The BIG East jumping from a BAD AAC TV deal to a more stable BIG EAST "Basketball Only" TV Deal!

Link
https://www.courant.com/sports/hc-sp-uco...story.html

Link
https://www.abqjournal.com/1308039/mwc-m...om-tv.html

Link
http://friarbasketball.com/2019/06/22/ad...-terrible/

Corrections:
In 12 years AAC will be paid 8.5 million per school. The contract begins at 5.5 mill and goes up each year until the 12th year. This will average 7 mill for the 12 years


The cost per year for broadcasting will depend on how much equipment the school already has.

The average cost will be something between $100,000 and perhaps $300,000 per year. Exact cost will not be known until after year one however the 2 million you mentioned is the cost of the PAC12 network schools and includes all costs for the network divided by the 12 schools. The PAC network does many things the ESPN plus schools will not need to do.

It’s kind of funny to listen to people play down the costs because the production value will be really ******. Congrats on having MAC level production value I guess?

(07-19-2019 09:50 PM)scoscox Wrote:  It’s kind of funny to listen to people play down the costs because the production value will be really ******. Congrats on having MAC level production value I guess?

It’s third tier stuff. Some of the non revenue content may literally only get a few hundred hits. Your not going to cover it like it’s the super bowl. For college sports—ESPN+ is really just ESPN3—-but behind a paywall.

It’s definitely not all third tier stuff. It’s the majority of your basketball and football games according to quotes I’ve seen.

Still I understand that angle of it. It’s just an odd defense “well it won’t be as expensive as the pac-12 because the production will be swac level!” Congrats I guess if that’s what you’re shooting for