As usual, just like politics, everybody interprets things based on their own belief sets.

Go back and read the specific wording in the HC article:

The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

So, the HC is agreeing with the SBJ, BUT adds that its source says that clause is tied specifically to 5 schools, and not UConn. The SBJ doesn't go that far.

Seems pretty simple. You either believe the HC or not, but it does NOT negate the SBJ version, just clarifies it.

Unless somebody comes along and specifically negates the HC version, I would think it's likely valid.

And just anecdotally, I do know that the Memphis prez has said publicly on a handful of occasions that the new ESPN deal recognizes that Memphis is a premium brand in the AAC, which would tend to support the HC's version.

(06-28-2019 03:17 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

Depends on what you think the tv sports rights future holds. Many believe the MAC was wise to lock in a longer agreement because the cord cutting issues could casue a disruptive period during which where sports rights might not be worth as much in the near term future. So, there is always a trade off---security vs opportunity to earn more. While I would prefer a shorter duration deal---its very possible that the longer deal may turn out to be the better move.

I think the SDSU athletic director said it best - he was very surprised the deal was for 12 years given the mediocre money.

Aresco had a stated goal of "closing the gap" with the P5 in important areas like money. This deal provides a very slight closing of the gap in year one, when the gap will go from about $30m to $2m to $31m to $7m.

That's the gap between the AAC and the *lowest* paid P5. The average P5 is higher.

But thereafter, for the next 11 years, the gap will again grow, because all the P5 have deals that allow them to substantially boost their media revenue each year, whereas the AAC is caught in a very tight window that caps at under $8m.

There were a whole lot of people on this board who didn't think the AAC was going to go from $2m to $7m. I'm not sure what you thought the number was going to be but I was just wild arse guessing 6-8m without any kind of GOR (which was obviously never happening). I highly doubt you were in the camp that was expecting 10+ million a year for the deal (considering your consistent degrading of the AAC for years), so other than the length of the deal (which only actually matters if conference realignment doesn't happen in the mid 2020's) I don't really see the criticism of the value of the deal. It's an over 300% raise from the old deal.

I evolved over time, but for the last two to three years, I felt it was going to be around $8m a year and said so at various times, so the deal fell just short of my expectations, but definitely within range of it. So yes, as to expectations, it pretty much hit my mark.

But remember, expectations and satisfaction are two different things. If I'm a Wake Forest fan and we are playing Clemson, I may fully expect Clemson to beat the tar out of us, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied or happy when it happens.

For seven years, we were told by Aresco to wait for 2020, when the big payoff would come. Just last year, he said the deal would be "within the P5 range" or something to that effect. And yet the deal he delivered was light-years from that. And as the SDSU AD said, the real kicker is that 12 long years from now, AAC schools will only be getting around $8m a year. It's a very tight window with no real growth.

Meanwhile, actual "P" schools will be seeing their revenues rise probably by $2m or more each year, meaning the already yawning gap will just grow larger.

You know a deal is soft and weak when a school like UConn thinks they can make more money by putting their other sports in another conference and go Indy in football. Even Alabama or Ohio State can't do that.

(06-28-2019 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:17 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

Depends on what you think the tv sports rights future holds. Many believe the MAC was wise to lock in a longer agreement because the cord cutting issues could casue a disruptive period during which where sports rights might not be worth as much in the near term future. So, there is always a trade off---security vs opportunity to earn more. While I would prefer a shorter duration deal---its very possible that the longer deal may turn out to be the better move.

I think the SDSU athletic director said it best - he was very surprised the deal was for 12 years given the mediocre money.

Aresco had a stated goal of "closing the gap" with the P5 in important areas like money. This deal provides a very slight closing of the gap in year one, when the gap will go from about $30m to $2m to $31m to $7m.

That's the gap between the AAC and the *lowest* paid P5. The average P5 is higher.

But thereafter, for the next 11 years, the gap will again grow, because all the P5 have deals that allow them to substantially boost their media revenue each year, whereas the AAC is caught in a very tight window that caps at under $8m.

There were a whole lot of people on this board who didn't think the AAC was going to go from $2m to $7m. I'm not sure what you thought the number was going to be but I was just wild arse guessing 6-8m without any kind of GOR (which was obviously never happening). I highly doubt you were in the camp that was expecting 10+ million a year for the deal (considering your consistent degrading of the AAC for years), so other than the length of the deal (which only actually matters if conference realignment doesn't happen in the mid 2020's) I don't really see the criticism of the value of the deal. It's an over 300% raise from the old deal.

I evolved over time, but for the last two to three years, I felt it was going to be around $8m a year and said so at various times, so the deal fell just short of my expectations, but definitely within range of it. So yes, as to expectations, it pretty much hit my mark.

But remember, expectations and satisfaction are two different things. If I'm a Wake Forest fan and we are playing Clemson, I may fully expect Clemson to beat the tar out of us, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied or happy when it happens.

For seven years, we were told by Aresco to wait for 2020, when the big payoff would come. Just last year, he said the deal would be "within the P5 range" or something to that effect. And yet the deal he delivered was light-years from that. And as the SDSU AD said, the real kicker is that 12 long years from now, AAC schools will only be getting around $8m a year. It's a very tight window with no real growth.

Meanwhile, actual "P" schools will be seeing their revenues rise probably by $2m or more each year, meaning the already yawning gap will just grow larger.

You know a deal is soft and weak when a school like UConn thinks they can make more money by putting their other sports in another conference and go Indy in football. Even Alabama or Ohio State can't do that.

Why do you care? You are the biggest troll ever to post on this forum. Do you even have a life in at least the Summer? You are the biggest anti G5 loser on the planet. UConn sucks. AAC got rid of their worse product and will get paid for it.

(06-28-2019 07:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  As usual, just like politics, everybody interprets things based on their own belief sets.

Go back and read the specific wording in the HC article:

The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

So, the HC is agreeing with the SBJ, BUT adds that its source says that clause is tied specifically to 5 schools, and not UConn. The SBJ doesn't go that far.

Seems pretty simple. You either believe the HC or not, but it does NOT negate the SBJ version, just clarifies it.

I think it's clear the HC writer misinterpreted the SBJ article. Because that article says that ESPN could renegotiate if *UConn* left. Not just if some random "member" leaves. Here's the tweet from the SBJ author advertising his article, and he says UConn specifically:

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/11...4410135553

So that means that if the HC writer has a source that says that ESPN can renegotiate only if five schools leave, of which UConn is not one, then the HC writer is contradicting the SBJ article, not merely clarifying it.

BUT, I don't think the HC writer HAS any such source. The wording of the quote you provide doesn't indicate that the source he references is *his* source. Rather, it sounds like the source is the one from the SBJ article. Just re-read your quote - at no point does his language transition from citing the SBJ article to citing a source of his own. If he was, he likely would have said something like this to distinguish his reporting from the SBJ reporting- "The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. But a source I contacted says that the clause is specifically tied to five schools ...". But he never does that.

No, his language implies that when he talks about the "source", he is still making reference to the SBJ article he just cited. And that makes sense, because in the SBJ article, the author DOES in fact talk about the five schools the HC writer mentions. Here's a quote from the SBJ article. It's behind a paywall but Yahoo has quoted it:

"The 12-year, $1 billion media rights deal that was signed in March carries a composition clause that gives ESPN the right to renegotiate its terms if any of the schools leave the conference. The network inserted the clause in case the AAC’s football powerhouse — UCF — left for a bigger conference. Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and USF also were seen as likely AAC schools to be poached by bigger conferences if realignment took hold again."

See? The SBJ article says that the *motivation* for ESPN to put in the clause was indeed fear that five schools in particular - UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, or Cincy - might leave. BUT crucially, he also says the clause was not written to only apply to those schools, but to any school that leaves.

I think the HC writer just misinterpreted the SBJ article. He wrongly thought that the SBJ writer was saying that the clause was limited to five schools.

(06-28-2019 08:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:17 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends on what you think the tv sports rights future holds. Many believe the MAC was wise to lock in a longer agreement because the cord cutting issues could casue a disruptive period during which where sports rights might not be worth as much in the near term future. So, there is always a trade off---security vs opportunity to earn more. While I would prefer a shorter duration deal---its very possible that the longer deal may turn out to be the better move.

I think the SDSU athletic director said it best - he was very surprised the deal was for 12 years given the mediocre money.

Aresco had a stated goal of "closing the gap" with the P5 in important areas like money. This deal provides a very slight closing of the gap in year one, when the gap will go from about $30m to $2m to $31m to $7m.

That's the gap between the AAC and the *lowest* paid P5. The average P5 is higher.

But thereafter, for the next 11 years, the gap will again grow, because all the P5 have deals that allow them to substantially boost their media revenue each year, whereas the AAC is caught in a very tight window that caps at under $8m.

There were a whole lot of people on this board who didn't think the AAC was going to go from $2m to $7m. I'm not sure what you thought the number was going to be but I was just wild arse guessing 6-8m without any kind of GOR (which was obviously never happening). I highly doubt you were in the camp that was expecting 10+ million a year for the deal (considering your consistent degrading of the AAC for years), so other than the length of the deal (which only actually matters if conference realignment doesn't happen in the mid 2020's) I don't really see the criticism of the value of the deal. It's an over 300% raise from the old deal.

I evolved over time, but for the last two to three years, I felt it was going to be around $8m a year and said so at various times, so the deal fell just short of my expectations, but definitely within range of it. So yes, as to expectations, it pretty much hit my mark.

But remember, expectations and satisfaction are two different things. If I'm a Wake Forest fan and we are playing Clemson, I may fully expect Clemson to beat the tar out of us, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied or happy when it happens.

For seven years, we were told by Aresco to wait for 2020, when the big payoff would come. Just last year, he said the deal would be "within the P5 range" or something to that effect. And yet the deal he delivered was light-years from that. And as the SDSU AD said, the real kicker is that 12 long years from now, AAC schools will only be getting around $8m a year. It's a very tight window with no real growth.

Meanwhile, actual "P" schools will be seeing their revenues rise probably by $2m or more each year, meaning the already yawning gap will just grow larger.

You know a deal is soft and weak when a school like UConn thinks they can make more money by putting their other sports in another conference and go Indy in football. Even Alabama or Ohio State can't do that.

Why do you care? You are the biggest troll ever to post on this forum. Do you even have a life in at least the Summer? You are the biggest anti G5 loser on the planet. UConn sucks. AAC got rid of their worse product and will get paid for it.

You are a worthless AAC fanboy, you lap up whatever nonsense is posted on the AAC board by other rabid fanboys, or by Aresco. Totally useless, as there are many other fanboys who duplicate your "contributions". Heck, if Cincy were smart, they would dump the AAC and beg for Big East membership too.

(06-28-2019 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  As usual, just like politics, everybody interprets things based on their own belief sets.

Go back and read the specific wording in the HC article:

The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

So, the HC is agreeing with the SBJ, BUT adds that its source says that clause is tied specifically to 5 schools, and not UConn. The SBJ doesn't go that far.

Seems pretty simple. You either believe the HC or not, but it does NOT negate the SBJ version, just clarifies it.

I think it's clear the HC writer misinterpreted the SBJ article. Because that article says that ESPN could renegotiate if *UConn* left. Not just if some random "member" leaves. Here's the tweet from the SBJ author advertising his article, and he says UConn specifically:

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/11...4410135553

So that means that if the HC writer has a source that says that ESPN can renegotiate only if five schools leave, of which UConn is not one, then the HC writer is contradicting the SBJ article, not merely clarifying it.

BUT, I don't think the HC writer HAS any such source. The wording of the quote you provide doesn't indicate that the source he references is *his* source. Rather, it sounds like the source is the one from the SBJ article. Just re-read your quote - at no point does his language transition from citing the SBJ article to citing a source of his own. If he was, he likely would have said something like this to distinguish his reporting from the SBJ reporting- "The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. But a source I contacted says that the clause is specifically tied to five schools ...". But he never does that.

No, his language implies that when he talks about the "source", he is still making reference to the SBJ article he just cited. And that makes sense, because in the SBJ article, the author DOES in fact talk about the five schools the HC writer mentions. Here's a quote from the SBJ article. It's behind a paywall but Yahoo has quoted it:

"The 12-year, $1 billion media rights deal that was signed in March carries a composition clause that gives ESPN the right to renegotiate its terms if any of the schools leave the conference. The network inserted the clause in case the AAC’s football powerhouse — UCF — left for a bigger conference. Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and USF also were seen as likely AAC schools to be poached by bigger conferences if realignment took hold again."

See? The SBJ article says that the *motivation* for ESPN to put in the clause was indeed fear that five schools in particular - UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, or Cincy - might leave. BUT crucially, he also says the clause was not written to only apply to those schools, but to any school that leaves.

I think the HC writer just misinterpreted the SBJ article. He wrongly thought that the SBJ writer was saying that the clause was limited to five schools.

1) The HC writer says he has a source. 2) As the long time UH beat writer, the HC writer has direct and regular access to the UH athletic director 3) The article includes other direct quotes from the UH AD that are obviously from that day 4) But you dont think he has a source?

Look---his source could be wrong---but your claim that he has no source is based on pretty much nothing. We have two writers with two different sources that disagree. That literally happens almost everyday on the evening news. Political talking head shows have made a cottage industry out it.

Quo won't admit anything that doesn't fit his narrative.

Look, UConn is the powerhouse in basketball name brand in the AAC. They were one of the finalists going to the Big 12, but Memphis was not.

(06-28-2019 11:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Look, UConn is the powerhouse in basketball name brand in the AAC. They were one of the finalists going to the Big 12, but Memphis was not.

After Memphis's recruiting this year, would that happen again? Sorry, that is in the past and probably why they went back to the NBE.

I hear ESPN will cut the AAC 3 mil for the loss of UConn Basket ball, and then give the AAC a raise of 4.5 mil for the loss of UConn football.

(06-28-2019 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  As usual, just like politics, everybody interprets things based on their own belief sets.

Go back and read the specific wording in the HC article:

The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

So, the HC is agreeing with the SBJ, BUT adds that its source says that clause is tied specifically to 5 schools, and not UConn. The SBJ doesn't go that far.

Seems pretty simple. You either believe the HC or not, but it does NOT negate the SBJ version, just clarifies it.

I think it's clear the HC writer misinterpreted the SBJ article. Because that article says that ESPN could renegotiate if *UConn* left. Not just if some random "member" leaves. Here's the tweet from the SBJ author advertising his article, and he says UConn specifically:

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/11...4410135553

So that means that if the HC writer has a source that says that ESPN can renegotiate only if five schools leave, of which UConn is not one, then the HC writer is contradicting the SBJ article, not merely clarifying it.

BUT, I don't think the HC writer HAS any such source. The wording of the quote you provide doesn't indicate that the source he references is *his* source. Rather, it sounds like the source is the one from the SBJ article. Just re-read your quote - at no point does his language transition from citing the SBJ article to citing a source of his own. If he was, he likely would have said something like this to distinguish his reporting from the SBJ reporting- "The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. But a source I contacted says that the clause is specifically tied to five schools ...". But he never does that.

No, his language implies that when he talks about the "source", he is still making reference to the SBJ article he just cited. And that makes sense, because in the SBJ article, the author DOES in fact talk about the five schools the HC writer mentions. Here's a quote from the SBJ article. It's behind a paywall but Yahoo has quoted it:

"The 12-year, $1 billion media rights deal that was signed in March carries a composition clause that gives ESPN the right to renegotiate its terms if any of the schools leave the conference. The network inserted the clause in case the AAC’s football powerhouse — UCF — left for a bigger conference. Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and USF also were seen as likely AAC schools to be poached by bigger conferences if realignment took hold again."

See? The SBJ article says that the *motivation* for ESPN to put in the clause was indeed fear that five schools in particular - UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, or Cincy - might leave. BUT crucially, he also says the clause was not written to only apply to those schools, but to any school that leaves.

I think the HC writer just misinterpreted the SBJ article. He wrongly thought that the SBJ writer was saying that the clause was limited to five schools.

1) The HC writer says he has a source. 2) As the long time UH beat writer, the HC writer has direct and regular access to the UH athletic director 3) The article includes other direct quotes from the UH AD that are obviously from that day 4) But you dont think he has a source?

Look---his source could be wrong---but your claim that he has no source is based on pretty much nothing. We have two writers with two different sources that disagree. That literally happens almost everyday on the evening news. Political talking head shows have made a cottage industry out it.

As I explained, he doesn't actually say that. There's nothing about the structure of the sentence that makes it clear that he, the HC writer, has a special source. And, as I explained, if he did, then his source is *contradicting* the SBJ article, and that's something a reporter would want to highlight, as it represents a new piece of crucial information that goes above and beyond what someone else has reported.

But the HC writer doesn't do that. He doesn't point out that "his source" contradicts/refutes what SBJ said. He even confuses Triple A in to thinking he isn't contradicting the SBJ article, when he actually is.

Granted, confusing Triple A isn't hard to do, but still, as I said, any reporter with new information is going to highlight that. This reporter apparently didn't even know that the SBJ article specifically says ESPN can renegotiate based on UConn. There's no reason to think he has a source independent of the SBJ source. You are just assuming he does, based on vague wording.

(06-28-2019 08:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:17 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the SDSU athletic director said it best - he was very surprised the deal was for 12 years given the mediocre money.

Aresco had a stated goal of "closing the gap" with the P5 in important areas like money. This deal provides a very slight closing of the gap in year one, when the gap will go from about $30m to $2m to $31m to $7m.

That's the gap between the AAC and the *lowest* paid P5. The average P5 is higher.

But thereafter, for the next 11 years, the gap will again grow, because all the P5 have deals that allow them to substantially boost their media revenue each year, whereas the AAC is caught in a very tight window that caps at under $8m.

There were a whole lot of people on this board who didn't think the AAC was going to go from $2m to $7m. I'm not sure what you thought the number was going to be but I was just wild arse guessing 6-8m without any kind of GOR (which was obviously never happening). I highly doubt you were in the camp that was expecting 10+ million a year for the deal (considering your consistent degrading of the AAC for years), so other than the length of the deal (which only actually matters if conference realignment doesn't happen in the mid 2020's) I don't really see the criticism of the value of the deal. It's an over 300% raise from the old deal.

I evolved over time, but for the last two to three years, I felt it was going to be around $8m a year and said so at various times, so the deal fell just short of my expectations, but definitely within range of it. So yes, as to expectations, it pretty much hit my mark.

But remember, expectations and satisfaction are two different things. If I'm a Wake Forest fan and we are playing Clemson, I may fully expect Clemson to beat the tar out of us, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied or happy when it happens.

For seven years, we were told by Aresco to wait for 2020, when the big payoff would come. Just last year, he said the deal would be "within the P5 range" or something to that effect. And yet the deal he delivered was light-years from that. And as the SDSU AD said, the real kicker is that 12 long years from now, AAC schools will only be getting around $8m a year. It's a very tight window with no real growth.

Meanwhile, actual "P" schools will be seeing their revenues rise probably by $2m or more each year, meaning the already yawning gap will just grow larger.

You know a deal is soft and weak when a school like UConn thinks they can make more money by putting their other sports in another conference and go Indy in football. Even Alabama or Ohio State can't do that.

Why do you care? You are the biggest troll ever to post on this forum. Do you even have a life in at least the Summer? You are the biggest anti G5 loser on the planet. UConn sucks. AAC got rid of their worse product and will get paid for it.

You are a worthless AAC fanboy, you lap up whatever nonsense is posted on the AAC board by other rabid fanboys, or by Aresco. Totally useless, as there are many other fanboys who duplicate your "contributions". Heck, if Cincy were smart, they would dump the AAC and beg for Big East membership too.

You are a worthless troll who hates any G5 success, especially the AAC. Unlike UConn UC has been to 8 straight NCAA tourney's. UConn missing 4-5 consecutive Tourneys isn't about being in the AAC (nothing bad about their recruiting classes) it is on their coaching staffs. UC has made the Tourney playing in the MVC, Metro, Great Midwest, CUSA, Big East, AAC. Football independence = no bowl tie in, no access to NY6, no TV contract, lol. Only an idiot troll would suggest this.

(06-29-2019 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  As usual, just like politics, everybody interprets things based on their own belief sets.

Go back and read the specific wording in the HC article:

The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

So, the HC is agreeing with the SBJ, BUT adds that its source says that clause is tied specifically to 5 schools, and not UConn. The SBJ doesn't go that far.

Seems pretty simple. You either believe the HC or not, but it does NOT negate the SBJ version, just clarifies it.

I think it's clear the HC writer misinterpreted the SBJ article. Because that article says that ESPN could renegotiate if *UConn* left. Not just if some random "member" leaves. Here's the tweet from the SBJ author advertising his article, and he says UConn specifically:

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/11...4410135553

So that means that if the HC writer has a source that says that ESPN can renegotiate only if five schools leave, of which UConn is not one, then the HC writer is contradicting the SBJ article, not merely clarifying it.

BUT, I don't think the HC writer HAS any such source. The wording of the quote you provide doesn't indicate that the source he references is *his* source. Rather, it sounds like the source is the one from the SBJ article. Just re-read your quote - at no point does his language transition from citing the SBJ article to citing a source of his own. If he was, he likely would have said something like this to distinguish his reporting from the SBJ reporting- "The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. But a source I contacted says that the clause is specifically tied to five schools ...". But he never does that.

No, his language implies that when he talks about the "source", he is still making reference to the SBJ article he just cited. And that makes sense, because in the SBJ article, the author DOES in fact talk about the five schools the HC writer mentions. Here's a quote from the SBJ article. It's behind a paywall but Yahoo has quoted it:

"The 12-year, $1 billion media rights deal that was signed in March carries a composition clause that gives ESPN the right to renegotiate its terms if any of the schools leave the conference. The network inserted the clause in case the AAC’s football powerhouse — UCF — left for a bigger conference. Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and USF also were seen as likely AAC schools to be poached by bigger conferences if realignment took hold again."

See? The SBJ article says that the *motivation* for ESPN to put in the clause was indeed fear that five schools in particular - UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, or Cincy - might leave. BUT crucially, he also says the clause was not written to only apply to those schools, but to any school that leaves.

I think the HC writer just misinterpreted the SBJ article. He wrongly thought that the SBJ writer was saying that the clause was limited to five schools.

1) The HC writer says he has a source. 2) As the long time UH beat writer, the HC writer has direct and regular access to the UH athletic director 3) The article includes other direct quotes from the UH AD that are obviously from that day 4) But you dont think he has a source?

Look---his source could be wrong---but your claim that he has no source is based on pretty much nothing. We have two writers with two different sources that disagree. That literally happens almost everyday on the evening news. Political talking head shows have made a cottage industry out it.

As I explained, he doesn't actually say that. There's nothing about the structure of the sentence that makes it clear that he, the HC writer, has a special source. And, as I explained, if he did, then his source is *contradicting* the SBJ article, and that's something a reporter would want to highlight, as it represents a new piece of crucial information that goes above and beyond what someone else has reported.

But the HC writer doesn't do that. He doesn't point out that "his source" contradicts/refutes what SBJ said. He even confuses Triple A in to thinking he isn't contradicting the SBJ article, when he actually is.

Granted, confusing Triple A isn't hard to do, but still, as I said, any reporter with new information is going to highlight that. This reporter apparently didn't even know that the SBJ article specifically says ESPN can renegotiate based on UConn. There's no reason to think he has a source independent of the SBJ source. You are just assuming he does, based on vague wording.

Who cares. The TV contract is going to be pretty much exactly as first reported back in March.

(06-29-2019 06:50 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:17 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There were a whole lot of people on this board who didn't think the AAC was going to go from $2m to $7m. I'm not sure what you thought the number was going to be but I was just wild arse guessing 6-8m without any kind of GOR (which was obviously never happening). I highly doubt you were in the camp that was expecting 10+ million a year for the deal (considering your consistent degrading of the AAC for years), so other than the length of the deal (which only actually matters if conference realignment doesn't happen in the mid 2020's) I don't really see the criticism of the value of the deal. It's an over 300% raise from the old deal.

I evolved over time, but for the last two to three years, I felt it was going to be around $8m a year and said so at various times, so the deal fell just short of my expectations, but definitely within range of it. So yes, as to expectations, it pretty much hit my mark.

But remember, expectations and satisfaction are two different things. If I'm a Wake Forest fan and we are playing Clemson, I may fully expect Clemson to beat the tar out of us, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied or happy when it happens.

For seven years, we were told by Aresco to wait for 2020, when the big payoff would come. Just last year, he said the deal would be "within the P5 range" or something to that effect. And yet the deal he delivered was light-years from that. And as the SDSU AD said, the real kicker is that 12 long years from now, AAC schools will only be getting around $8m a year. It's a very tight window with no real growth.

Meanwhile, actual "P" schools will be seeing their revenues rise probably by $2m or more each year, meaning the already yawning gap will just grow larger.

You know a deal is soft and weak when a school like UConn thinks they can make more money by putting their other sports in another conference and go Indy in football. Even Alabama or Ohio State can't do that.

Why do you care? You are the biggest troll ever to post on this forum. Do you even have a life in at least the Summer? You are the biggest anti G5 loser on the planet. UConn sucks. AAC got rid of their worse product and will get paid for it.

You are a worthless AAC fanboy, you lap up whatever nonsense is posted on the AAC board by other rabid fanboys, or by Aresco. Totally useless, as there are many other fanboys who duplicate your "contributions". Heck, if Cincy were smart, they would dump the AAC and beg for Big East membership too.

You are a worthless troll who hates any G5 success, especially the AAC. Unlike UConn UC has been to 8 straight NCAA tourney's. UConn missing 4-5 consecutive Tourneys isn't about being in the AAC (nothing bad about their recruiting classes) it is on their coaching staffs. UC has made the Tourney playing in the MVC, Metro, Great Midwest, CUSA, Big East, AAC. Football independence = no bowl tie in, no access to NY6, no TV contract, lol. Only an idiot troll would suggest this.

No, you are the worthless troll, because if you didn't exist, there are still 100 other AAC troll fanboys saying exactly the same thing you say. You wouldn't be missed anywhere.

I have more faith in the strength of UC football than you do. I think you guys could get around $4m for your football from ESPN, and that would give you more total media money than the soft/weak Aresco deal will. And ESPN could tie you in to the same bowls BYU has. As for NY6, you can make that by earning a playoff spot - even last year, you've never come close to getting the G5 access bid so that's nothing to worry about.

Cincy is treading water in the AAC. The Big East would be a good upgrade.

(06-29-2019 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 06:50 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I evolved over time, but for the last two to three years, I felt it was going to be around $8m a year and said so at various times, so the deal fell just short of my expectations, but definitely within range of it. So yes, as to expectations, it pretty much hit my mark.

But remember, expectations and satisfaction are two different things. If I'm a Wake Forest fan and we are playing Clemson, I may fully expect Clemson to beat the tar out of us, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied or happy when it happens.

For seven years, we were told by Aresco to wait for 2020, when the big payoff would come. Just last year, he said the deal would be "within the P5 range" or something to that effect. And yet the deal he delivered was light-years from that. And as the SDSU AD said, the real kicker is that 12 long years from now, AAC schools will only be getting around $8m a year. It's a very tight window with no real growth.

Meanwhile, actual "P" schools will be seeing their revenues rise probably by $2m or more each year, meaning the already yawning gap will just grow larger.

You know a deal is soft and weak when a school like UConn thinks they can make more money by putting their other sports in another conference and go Indy in football. Even Alabama or Ohio State can't do that.

Why do you care? You are the biggest troll ever to post on this forum. Do you even have a life in at least the Summer? You are the biggest anti G5 loser on the planet. UConn sucks. AAC got rid of their worse product and will get paid for it.

You are a worthless AAC fanboy, you lap up whatever nonsense is posted on the AAC board by other rabid fanboys, or by Aresco. Totally useless, as there are many other fanboys who duplicate your "contributions". Heck, if Cincy were smart, they would dump the AAC and beg for Big East membership too.

You are a worthless troll who hates any G5 success, especially the AAC. Unlike UConn UC has been to 8 straight NCAA tourney's. UConn missing 4-5 consecutive Tourneys isn't about being in the AAC (nothing bad about their recruiting classes) it is on their coaching staffs. UC has made the Tourney playing in the MVC, Metro, Great Midwest, CUSA, Big East, AAC. Football independence = no bowl tie in, no access to NY6, no TV contract, lol. Only an idiot troll would suggest this.

No, you are the worthless troll, because if you didn't exist, there are still 100 other AAC troll fanboys saying exactly the same thing you say. You wouldn't be missed anywhere.

I have more faith in the strength of UC football than you do. I think you guys could get around $4m for your football from ESPN, and that would give you more total media money than the soft/weak Aresco deal will. And ESPN could tie you in to the same bowls BYU has. As for NY6, you can make that by earning a playoff spot - even last year, you've never come close to getting the G5 access bid so that's nothing to worry about.

Cincy is treading water in the AAC. The Big East would be a good upgrade.

Never missed the Tourney playing in the AAC. 11-2 in Football.

Net Rankings from March top 50.
AAC has 4, Big East has 2.

1 1 Virginia ACC 35-3 10-1 10-1 15-1 0-0
2 2 Gonzaga WCC 33-4 9-1 7-3 17-0 0-0
3 3 Duke ACC 32-6 7-2 10-2 15-2 0-0
4 6 Kentucky SEC 30-7 8-2 5-4 17-1 0-0
5 8 Michigan St. Big Ten 32-7 8-4 9-2 15-1 0-0
6 4 Houston AAC 33-4 11-1 3-2 19-1 0-0
7 10 Texas Tech Big 12 31-7 6-3 8-3 17-1 0-0
8 7 North Carolina ACC 29-7 11-1 4-4 14-2 0-0
9 5 Tennessee SEC 31-6 7-3 6-3 17-0 1-0
10 9 Michigan Big Ten 30-7 7-4 6-2 17-1 0-0
11 12 Purdue Big Ten 26-10 6-6 5-4 15-0 0-0
12 11 Virginia Tech ACC 26-9 5-5 7-2 14-2 0-0
13 18 Auburn SEC 30-10 4-6 11-2 14-2 1-0
14 13 Wofford SoCon 30-5 11-3 4-1 12-1 3-0
15 16 Florida St. ACC 29-8 6-4 8-3 15-1 0-0
16 14 LSU SEC 28-7 9-1 4-4 15-2 0-0
17 20 Kansas Big 12 26-10 3-8 6-2 17-0 0-0
18 15 Buffalo MAC 32-4 12-3 6-1 13-0 1-0
19 21 Iowa St. Big 12 23-12 5-6 6-2 12-4 0-0
20 17 Wisconsin Big Ten 23-11 8-5 3-3 12-3 0-0
21 19 Mississippi St. SEC 23-11 5-5 4-3 14-3 0-0
22 22 Louisville ACC 20-14 5-6 1-4 14-4 0-0
23 24 Kansas St. Big 12 25-9 7-5 4-2 14-2 0-0
24 25 Cincinnati AAC 28-7 7-4 5-1 16-2 0-0
25 27 Maryland Big Ten 23-11 6-5 2-3 15-3 0-0
26 30 UCF AAC 24-9 5-6 4-1 15-2 0-0
27 23 Nevada MWC 29-5 9-3 5-2 15-0 0-0
28 26 Villanova Big East 26-10 5-7 8-1 13-2 0-0
29 28 Marquette Big East 24-10 7-4 1-3 16-3 0-0
30 31 Florida SEC 20-16 5-6 6-4 9-6 0-0
31 29 Utah St. MWC 28-7 9-4 5-2 13-1 1-0
32 37 Oklahoma Big 12 20-14 5-7 4-3 11-4 0-0
33 38 Texas Big 12 21-16 2-8 4-2 15-6 0-0
34 39 Baylor Big 12 20-14 5-6 2-3 13-5 0-0
35 32 Saint Mary's (CA) WCC 22-12 5-5 3-4 14-3 0-0
36 33 NC State ACC 24-12 4-6 3-1 17-5 0-0
37 49 Lipscomb ASUN 29-8 14-4 1-1 12-3 2-0
38 34 VCU Atlantic 10 25-8 8-4 1-3 16-1 0-0
39 47 Belmont OVC 27-6 12-3 2-2 12-1 1-0
40 43 Iowa Big Ten 23-12 4-6 5-2 14-4 0-0
41 51 Oregon Pac-12 25-13 5-7 7-2 13-4 0-0
42 36 Ole Miss SEC 20-13 6-5 3-3 11-5 0-0
43 44 Murray St. OVC 28-5 10-3 3-1 13-1 2-0
44 45 Washington Pac-12 27-9 7-4 5-4 15-1 0-0
45 35 Clemson ACC 20-14 4-6 2-3 14-5 0-0
46 40 New Mexico St. WAC 30-5 10-2 4-2 14-1 2-0
47 52 TCU Big 12 23-14 3-7 5-2 15-5 0-0
48 46 Memphis AAC 22-14 3-8 1-3 18-3 0-0
49 50 Penn St. Big Ten 14-18 4-9 1-3 9-6 0-0
50 42 Syracuse ACC 20-14 6-4 1-4 13-6 0-0

(06-29-2019 07:34 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 06:50 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why do you care? You are the biggest troll ever to post on this forum. Do you even have a life in at least the Summer? You are the biggest anti G5 loser on the planet. UConn sucks. AAC got rid of their worse product and will get paid for it.

You are a worthless AAC fanboy, you lap up whatever nonsense is posted on the AAC board by other rabid fanboys, or by Aresco. Totally useless, as there are many other fanboys who duplicate your "contributions". Heck, if Cincy were smart, they would dump the AAC and beg for Big East membership too.

You are a worthless troll who hates any G5 success, especially the AAC. Unlike UConn UC has been to 8 straight NCAA tourney's. UConn missing 4-5 consecutive Tourneys isn't about being in the AAC (nothing bad about their recruiting classes) it is on their coaching staffs. UC has made the Tourney playing in the MVC, Metro, Great Midwest, CUSA, Big East, AAC. Football independence = no bowl tie in, no access to NY6, no TV contract, lol. Only an idiot troll would suggest this.

No, you are the worthless troll, because if you didn't exist, there are still 100 other AAC troll fanboys saying exactly the same thing you say. You wouldn't be missed anywhere.

I have more faith in the strength of UC football than you do. I think you guys could get around $4m for your football from ESPN, and that would give you more total media money than the soft/weak Aresco deal will. And ESPN could tie you in to the same bowls BYU has. As for NY6, you can make that by earning a playoff spot - even last year, you've never come close to getting the G5 access bid so that's nothing to worry about.

Cincy is treading water in the AAC. The Big East would be a good upgrade.

Never missed the Tourney playing in the AAC. 11-2 in Football.

Net Rankings from March top 50.
AAC has 4, Big East has 2.

The Big East has finished higher than the AAC in Conference RPI every single year since the split, and finished higher than the AAC in NET rankings this year.

If Big East vs AAC was an annual series, the Big East would lead 6-0.

As for football, you guys can go 11-2 against an independent schedule with more P5 opponents on it than you can in the AAC.

It would be a bold move, and a good one.

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

But you are the guy who said for years that 1.8M was our 'true value'... because thats what the market was paying us.

Now 7M and we are undervalued since Aresco made a bad deal??

(06-29-2019 07:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 07:34 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 06:50 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You are a worthless AAC fanboy, you lap up whatever nonsense is posted on the AAC board by other rabid fanboys, or by Aresco. Totally useless, as there are many other fanboys who duplicate your "contributions". Heck, if Cincy were smart, they would dump the AAC and beg for Big East membership too.

You are a worthless troll who hates any G5 success, especially the AAC. Unlike UConn UC has been to 8 straight NCAA tourney's. UConn missing 4-5 consecutive Tourneys isn't about being in the AAC (nothing bad about their recruiting classes) it is on their coaching staffs. UC has made the Tourney playing in the MVC, Metro, Great Midwest, CUSA, Big East, AAC. Football independence = no bowl tie in, no access to NY6, no TV contract, lol. Only an idiot troll would suggest this.

No, you are the worthless troll, because if you didn't exist, there are still 100 other AAC troll fanboys saying exactly the same thing you say. You wouldn't be missed anywhere.

I have more faith in the strength of UC football than you do. I think you guys could get around $4m for your football from ESPN, and that would give you more total media money than the soft/weak Aresco deal will. And ESPN could tie you in to the same bowls BYU has. As for NY6, you can make that by earning a playoff spot - even last year, you've never come close to getting the G5 access bid so that's nothing to worry about.

Cincy is treading water in the AAC. The Big East would be a good upgrade.

Never missed the Tourney playing in the AAC. 11-2 in Football.

Net Rankings from March top 50.
AAC has 4, Big East has 2.

The Big East has finished higher than the AAC in Conference RPI every single year since the split, and finished higher than the AAC in NET rankings this year.

If Big East vs AAC was an annual series, the Big East would lead 6-0.

As for football, you guys can go 11-2 against an independent schedule with more P5 opponents on it than you can in the AAC.

It would be a bold move, and a good one.

AAC has 2 bottom feeders that drag the conference ranking down and no only a TROLL would suggest the BE would go 6-0 against the AAC.
Dec 8 2018. UC 62 Xavier 47

Here is the ranking difference, virtually none
5 Big East 0.556 Villanova (26-10) 5
6 American 0.547 Houston (33-4) 6

(06-29-2019 07:48 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the UConn move just highlights the poor job Aresco did with the new TV deal.

Mediocre money for way too long.

But you are the guy who said for years that 1.8M was our 'true value'... because thats what the market was paying us.

Now 7M and we are undervalued since Aresco made a bad deal??

Quo should have just started off with the AAC sucks in Football and basketball. And then he can be proven wrong in 1 following post.

(06-28-2019 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 10:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  for everyone that wants to say basketball has no value here are some numbers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlybenjam...2a90aa308f

look on that list Kansas is #12 on that list and Indiana is #13 on the list and neither are there for their football

then look at the dates the deals were signed Kansas was 2014 and Indiana was 2017

then look at other programs like Tennessee or Florida State or Georgia....Kansas is making a lot more than any of them and all three of those schools signed their deals AFTER Kansas so it is not a matter of those schools working under an old contract

here is where UConn stands in comparison

https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foo...story.html

so 7 years for $32.45 or about $4.63 million a year which puts them well up there with other schools

and this is a deal with a company that is in the business of selling products to fans based on giving products and money to schools and they do so with dozens of schools

lets look at some other numbers

http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2015/04...s-and.html

the above is older, but they do not put out current list that I see and it does not include all the schools in the NCAA D1-A, but it has 75 of them and UConn is #44 and above a number of P5 schools....and I would say if you are buying university branded crap and wearing it then you are probably watching the games as well.....and those sales are why the other numbers higher up for apparel deals are there for UConn and others that are not great at football, but do very well at basketball or some other sports

if you are buying the stuff you are watching and if you are watching they want to advertise to you and they pay for that which means networks want you to be on their TV

UConn has a lot more to protect than just conference revenues and UConn definitely delivers the buyers of branded goods and the makers of those goods have responded accordingly in giving them money and goods....I think people that operate TV channels can connect the dots from there as well (even if it is ESPN)

there is clearly value in basketball at least to those that make and sell team branded gear and that surely translates to some TV dollar values as well especially for teams that play at a high level and win championships in that sport

Absolutely. Its silly to argue that basketball has no value. Even back when they were a BCS football conference, the Big East made more media money from basketball than they did from football.

Yea and the old big east got killed off .