quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,174
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2425
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: ESPN can renegotiate new AAC TV deal with UConn leaving conference
(06-27-2019 04:38 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: (06-27-2019 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-27-2019 02:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: (06-27-2019 01:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-27-2019 01:48 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: Do you mean the SBJ article that said "The fact that ESPN included the clause in its contract does not mean that the network definitely will open up the deal, which goes into effect with the 2020-21 season. After all, football is the main driver of these media deals, and UConn’s football performance over the last decade has been awful...Sources told me that ESPN will wait and see how -- and if -- the AAC fills the spot vacated by UConn."
Yes, that article. I don't know if ESPN will decide to "renegotiate" the AAC deal or not. I suspect not, as UConn leaving doesn't change anything substantive that was already agreed on by ESPN and the AAC. The only difference is that one of the 12 schools is now gone, so the deal will just be adjusted such that ESPN will now be paying 11 schools $7m a year rather than 12 schools $7m a year.
If the AAC does decide to add a 12th team, then that might complicate things, as ESPN might decide that the 12th team is worth more, or less, than UConn was. But I doubt any team willing to join the AAC would vary by much in value, so again, no need for a full-blown renegotiation.
Contract isn't written on a $ per school, per year basis.
ESPN total $ for AAC total inventory, with numbers of appearances (really ranges of numbers of appearances) on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2/U, and ESPN+. Look at the conference press release from deal signing.
http://theamerican.org/news/2019/3/27/ge...nsion.aspx
"Football" says "A minimum of 40 regular-season telecasts per season on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, including at least 20 across ABC, ESPN and ESPN2, which represents increased annual exposure across those ESPN networks. A similar number of Thursday and Friday contests."
and "ESPN+" says "It is estimated that between 30-35 conference-controlled football games and approximately 135 men's basketball games will be distributed annually on the cutting-edge platform. An estimated 160 conference-controlled women's basketball games, plus first and quarterfinal rounds of the women's basketball championship, will also be streamed on the digital platform. In addition, hundreds of Olympic sports events ..."
So long as the inventory can be delivered within those ranges, albeit with a handful fewer games with the absence of our last place football team and ninth place basketball....no reason to decrement from $1B over 12 years, or $83,333,333,33 per year to the conference...
So you're clinging to the idea that ESPN is going to be willing to pay the AAC the same total amount even though it's now 11 schools not 12?
Good luck with that - seriously, as USF would stand to benefit. But I see very little chance that happens. To me, it's obvious that of course the dollar value arrived at was on a per-school-payout basis, as that is what the schools are interested in. That's what the AAC schools cared about. And ESPN was willing to pay that for the 12 specific schools in the conference, not 11. Heck, using your logic, the AAC could lose 5 schools but as long as it could provide 40 football games for the linear channels, 65 hoops games, etc. as indicated in the press release, the money would stay the same, but of course that beggars belief. And btw, if there's anything that's been offered in this thread *less* reliable pertaining to this than the vague comments from the Navy AD, it's the stuff from the AAC press conference you quoted, which tells us nothing about how the dollar values were arrived at.
UConn was 1/12 the conference, so i expect the deal will be pro-rated back by 1/12 in total dollars, keeping the per-school payout, the real thing ESPN and the AAC bargained over, the same.
In the end, as you say, ESPN doesn't *have* to do this, but ... what would their motivation NOT to do it be? The motivation TO do it is obvious - save themselves $7m per year.
To me, it's obvious that of course the dollar value arrived at was on a per-school-payout basis
- AND -
keeping the per-school payout, the real thing ESPN and the AAC bargained over, the same.
THIS IS JUST WRONG.
Network and conference talk total dollars and overall inventory. Per school payout is message board fodder, not the negotiaing points.
using your logic, the AAC could lose 5 schools but as long as it could provide 40 football games for the linear channels, 65 hoops games, etc.
This is what is referred to in logic as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
First,no, it's not wrong, otherwise ESPN would be willing to pay $83m a year to any conference with 12 teams that can deliver 1400 games of this and 60 games of that and 40 games for this. But obviously, that's not the case. ESPN wasn't paying for 1400 random games between random teams, what they were paying for was that number of games among 12 schools that if felt were worth that much. My 'reducto absurdim' point was offered to try to make that clear to you since other methods weren't working. Oh well.
And OF COURSE the AAC schools bargained with a per-school-payout in mind, as that is their specific bottom line. They don't care what the conference gets "as a whole", they care what their share is. That's not "message board fodder" it's exactly what the Presidents care about. To think that wasn't very much on the mind of Aresco when he was bargaining beggars belief.
Again, none of us knows exactly what ESPN will do. But the motivation for pro-rating the yearly payment from $83m to $76m seems clear - save $7m, whereas the motivation for paying the full $83m to the 11-school AAC seems unclear.
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2019 05:16 PM by quo vadis.)
|
|