Here is Rider doing everything but football.....

Quote:Rider Athletics Set to Begin ESPN Productions in September, Rider U Athletic Board. (Couple interesting points in the article.)

Lawrenceville, Nj. The Rider University Athletic Department will begin streaming athletic contests on ESPN3 and ESPN+ this September. The broadcasts will be produced entirely by members of the Rider University Community, led by Assistant Athletic Director for Digital and New Media Chris Foster, athletic department staff, and Rider University students.

The fact that we are now going to be producing content for ESPN3 and ESPN+ is a great recruiting tool not only for our coaches, but for the University as well in terms of attracting students who might be interested in this career field and can gain experience as part of the engaged learning curriculum.

With 13-15 crew members required for the ESPN3 programming, Rider University students will make up a key component for producing the events. In addition to live event production, Rider students will be responsible for pregame, haftime, and post game current production as well as feature piees, commercials, highlight packages, and interviews.

Rider joins a Metro Atlantic Conference initiative to broadcast live events on the ESPN family of networks.

(07-06-2019 10:02 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Here is Rider doing everything but football.....

Quote:Rider Athletics Set to Begin ESPN Productions in September, Rider U Athletic Board. (Couple interesting points in the article.)

Lawrenceville, Nj. The Rider University Athletic Department will begin streaming athletic contests on ESPN3 and ESPN+ this September. The broadcasts will be produced entirely by members of the Rider University Community, led by Assistant Athletic Director for Digital and New Media Chris Foster, athletic department staff, and Rider University students.

The fact that we are now going to be producing content for ESPN3 and ESPN+ is a great recruiting tool not only for our coaches, but for the University as well in terms of attracting students who might be interested in this career field and can gain experience as part of the engaged learning curriculum.

With 13-15 crew members required for the ESPN3 programming, Rider University students will make up a key component for producing the events. In addition to live event production, Rider students will be responsible for pregame, haftime, and post game current production as well as feature piees, commercials, highlight packages, and interviews.

Rider joins a Metro Atlantic Conference initiative to broadcast live events on the ESPN family of networks.

To this perspective when the MAC signed its last deal with ESPN one of the highlights to the conference presidents was the teaching opportunities it gave to its student body for producing all those events.

Again athletic budgets stack cost and expenses. If AAC school receives 7 million from ESPN and spends 1 million producing extra games for ESPN its outlay then increases by 8 million.

This idea that one has to watch these self produced production costs on these deals is just a naysayer perspective from those associated with CUSA or other entities that couldn't get a big ESPN contract signed. Especially at the major conference level like the AAC where they are investing as much as possible to keep up with the P5.

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

There are things that will be expensive---depending on how define the word. Akron was told by ESPN they would probably have to spend 2 million getting ready for the ESPN3 heavy deal the MAC signed several years ago. After working with consultants, who analyzed their existing capabilties, Akron bid out the consultants proposed plan of action. The cost ended up being only around $300K. For some schools, the answer will be laying fiber optic lines connecting all the sports venues to control boards that already exist in certain stadiums. Some other schools may opt to install control boards at each site or they may just buy a mobile production truck or trailer. There are multiple ways to get it done and every school will find the best and most economical route that suits their individual needs.

By the way, here is the first indication I have been able to find of the actual annual costs of self produced ESPN3/ESPN+ content. Cleveland St apparently generates $699,658 in rights fees and he says they spend about half of that producing the content ($349,829).

Cleveland State — whose athletic budget is less than half of a typical MAC school because it doesn't have football — had $260,311 in ticket sales in 2015, and brought in $699,658 in rights and licensing. Almost 82% of the Vikings' athletic budget was paid by school funds in 2015.

The Horizon League's ESPN deal includes the championship week games in basketball, and some Friday and Sunday contests on ESPNU, Parry said.

The Vikings, the retiring AD said, then "turn around and probably spend half that" to fulfill their obligation for the ESPN3 broadcasts.


https://www.crainscleveland.com/article/...importance

(07-07-2019 01:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

There are things that will be expensive---depending on how define the word. Akron was told by ESPN they would probably have to spend 2 million getting ready for the ESPN3 heavy deal the MAC signed several years ago. After working with consultants, who analyzed their existing capabilties, Akron bid out the consultants proposed plan of action. The cost ended up being only around $300K. For some schools, the answer will be laying fiber optic lines connecting all the sports venues to control boards that already exist in certain stadiums. Some other schools may opt to install control boards at each site or they may just buy a mobile production truck or trailer. There are multiple ways to get it done and every school will find the best and most economical route that suits their individual needs.

I can't remember the last time I saw Akron on TV.

When it comes to the AAC's media deal, I think the money looks great, but I find the number of games being relegated to espn+ is disturbing. I think the AAC would have been better off taking less money and keeping the rights to that tier of programing. They possibly been able to sell it to the NFL Network.

espn+ is fine for an established P5 conference that has decades of fan following, and still maintains a sizable number of games on linear networks. I don't think espn+ was a good idea for the AAC. I think it will be interesting to see what AAC fans think after a season of content under the new deal.

(07-07-2019 01:55 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

There are things that will be expensive---depending on how define the word. Akron was told by ESPN they would probably have to spend 2 million getting ready for the ESPN3 heavy deal the MAC signed several years ago. After working with consultants, who analyzed their existing capabilties, Akron bid out the consultants proposed plan of action. The cost ended up being only around $300K. For some schools, the answer will be laying fiber optic lines connecting all the sports venues to control boards that already exist in certain stadiums. Some other schools may opt to install control boards at each site or they may just buy a mobile production truck or trailer. There are multiple ways to get it done and every school will find the best and most economical route that suits their individual needs.

I can't remember the last time I saw Akron on TV.

When it comes to the AAC's media deal, I think the money looks great, but I find the number of games being relegated to espn+ is disturbing. I think the AAC would have been better off taking less money and keeping the rights to that tier of programing. They possibly been able to sell it to the NFL Network.

espn+ is fine for an established P5 conference that has decades of fan following, and still maintains a sizable number of games on linear networks. I don't think espn+ was a good idea for the AAC. I think it will be interesting to see what AAC fans think after a season of content under the new deal.

lol....Most see Akron on Tuesdays in November.

For the AAC,, its really not as different as some may think. The AAC always had a significant presence on ESPN3. The stuff on ESPN3 is all moving to ESPN+. That part is not all that different at all.

Basically, the biggest change is the CBS-Sports Network deal. CBS-Sports (that many people dont have or cant get) had about AAC 15 football games. If I remember correctly, basically 5 of those are moving to linear ESPN networks and the other 10 are moving to ESPN+. I think CBS-Sports had roughly 25 basketball games but that just going from memory. The AAC already had quite a few basketball games on ESPN3 just because there is so much more basketball inventory to deal with. Some of those games are moving to ESPN linear networks, but most will end up on ESPN+. Its worth noting that both the number of football games and the number of basketball games on linear ESPN networks (ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU) is rising for the deal---not falling.

The up side is the ESPN+ platform can be watched anywhere by anyone willing to spring for $4.99 a month. Cable carriage issues that some had for CBS-Sports Network are not longer an issue. In the end, its not all that much different and the hope is the ESPN+ platform will be grow bigger each year. Also---the possibility that some of these games may yet still end up on CBS-Sports has been floated by Aresco and not dismissed by ESPN.

Akron had 3 games on CBSSN last year, plus one apiece on FOX, BTN, SECN, & FSN. 5 Saturday, 1 Friday, 1 Thursday.

(07-07-2019 01:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The Vikings, the retiring AD said, then "turn around and probably spend half that" to fulfill their obligation for the ESPN3 broadcasts.

This is the kind of stuff that when you ask leaders at these schools why they do this, and how misleading it is to print what’s coming in but not what goes back out, you get the “everyone else is doing it, so we have to keep up.”

Anyone can put **** on ESPN3. Heck, anyone with a camera can put their **** on the net and monetize it better on Youtube. This is just sad that schools chase a buck and spend a mint so it may be picked up...with all other content. That’s not very informed or smart.

(07-05-2019 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 01:11 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The figure is reasonable, and typical of many (not all) ESPN contracts.

The MAC which supposedly gets a little of $1.1M from ESPN is also on the hook for production costs, and for a much smaller number of events pays around $900K back to ESPN for production cost. (CUSA in their press release about their $200-300K per school CBS contract made a sarcastic reference to the SBC and MAC contracts, noting that other conferences give higher figures, but do not mention that they return 90% of the money to ESPN for production costs).

The other misleading aspect of the AAC contract is the escalator. While the final year of the contract (2030-31) will be paying out over $7.5M per school, they actual first year payout will be under $5.5M per school. Then factor in production costs. The $7M figure is an average (which will be reached after the 7th year on the escalator), which is also a bit high (about 10% high), since it does not factor in the AAC HQ share (this is true of all press reports for all conferences, as reporters rarely factor in the conference HQ share).

It's still an extremely good G5 contract, but it may only net schools, after production costs, $3.5M in 2020-21, and for a Football only school under $3M. That doesn't seem like enough of a net to draw anyone in the West away, when contrasted to a $50-60M budget for Athletics, and taking in $1-2M net on the MWC contract (MWC contract is unbalanced, successful programs get far more), especially when considering the cost for moving Olympics (Basketball) into a low end one bid conference, and the impact that would have on gate, donations, loss of NCAA credits/payments and recruiting. (C-USA/MAC/SBC are a one bid conferences, and a school would be Football and Basketball invite to the AAC, a clear $3.3M jump immediately and growing, with no downside ... except that all but Rice and ODU would be faced with needing to spend $10M/year more to compete in the AAC)

UConn may actually be ahead since I am pretty sure FOX pays the Big East production costs. Any football earnings would thus be a net increase over the AAC for them.

I do think think this does put in better perspective the actual level of money, and focuses the gap to P5 all the more, since ESPN pays the production cost of the LHN and SEC, while the ACC schools are paying a couple $million each on production (P12 takes that out of distributions from P12N, and they are more inefficient than ESPN or FOX for SEC and B1G respectively).

Back to the AAC: 1) Uconn's move looks even more financially sensible; 2) the AAC package looks even more insufficient to draw a football only MWC school. We are back where we started. The AAC is better off than it was, but it's not the game changer some of the supporters expected.

On the escalator---yes it starts at 5.5---but that means it ends somewhere around 8.5 million. The averge is 7 million. That means the front half is under 7 million and the back half of the contract is over 7 million. Every sports media contract works the same way. As for the production costs and the allegation that 90% of the MAC money goes back to ESPN for production costs---any links to support that claim? However, even using your numbers---the MAC make $800K a team. 90% of 800K is $720K. Thats not even half of the reported 2 million per schools costs claimed in the articles. For the Sunbelt, the numbers would indicated the costs are more where I think suspect they are (less than $400K per school).

And so far as I know, the ACC is the only conference that gives the conference office a share. I know the Big 12 doesn't. They just pay it out of the gross.

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

I don't think it will be as big a deal as the conferences that try to run an entire conference network. Just to give an example, ECU produces their home baseball games with better quality than stuff I've seen from the Big 10 or PAC 12. I don't think it will cost us materially more to stream that baseball game on ESPN+ vs our own website or Youtube.

(07-08-2019 09:37 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

I don't think it will be as big a deal as the conferences that try to run an entire conference network. Just to give an example, ECU produces their home baseball games with better quality than stuff I've seen from the Big 10 or PAC 12. I don't think it will cost us materially more to stream that baseball game on ESPN+ vs our own website or Youtube.

This is the point I was making before. It’s not just the total production costs you have to look at. What really matters is the net production costs over and above what the AAC schools are already paying today. Many of these events the AAC would be responsible for producing under the new deal are already being self produced either by the schools or by the American Digital Network at present under their current crappy deal that pays less.

(07-08-2019 09:37 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

I don't think it will be as big a deal as the conferences that try to run an entire conference network. Just to give an example, ECU produces their home baseball games with better quality than stuff I've seen from the Big 10 or PAC 12. I don't think it will cost us materially more to stream that baseball game on ESPN+ vs our own website or Youtube.

This is the point I was making before. It’s not just the total production costs you have to look at. What really matters is the net production costs over and above what the AAC schools are already paying today. Many of these events the AAC would be responsible for producing under the new deal are already being self produced either by the schools or by the American Digital Network at present under their current crappy deal that pays less. The AAC Digital Network already produces a bunch of women’s basketball games, men’s baseball games, along with every AAC championship not on linear tv or ESPN3.

(07-08-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 09:37 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

I don't think it will be as big a deal as the conferences that try to run an entire conference network. Just to give an example, ECU produces their home baseball games with better quality than stuff I've seen from the Big 10 or PAC 12. I don't think it will cost us materially more to stream that baseball game on ESPN+ vs our own website or Youtube.

This is the point I was making before. It’s not just the total production costs you have to look at. What really matters is the net production costs over and above what the AAC schools are already paying today. Many of these events the AAC would be responsible for producing under the new deal are already being self produced either by the schools or by the American Digital Network at present under their current crappy deal that pays less. The AAC Digital Network already produces a bunch of women’s basketball games, men’s baseball games, along with every AAC championship not on linear tv or ESPN3.

Much of the cost for the SEC with the SECN was that some schools were set up digitally and some were not. There were some substantial one time startup costs for some of the schools. For others, the startup costs were minimal. Its necessary to avoid confusing one time costs with continuing production costs.

(07-08-2019 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 09:37 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

At the press conference announcing the new TV deal, Aresco (quoted and paraphrased in the Orlando Sentinel) said stuff like:

"The schools will have to build out infrastructure to accommodate the move, but Aresco said that each member institution is prepared to do it. He said part of the revenue from the new agreement allows them to upgrade facilities like control rooms and mobile TV units.

Consultants were also brought in to speak with each member school to make sure it was a feasible option, and Aresco said the conference is still researching how to allocate funding as each school works toward a start-up date of 2021.

“There’s some work to do in terms of logistics, but it’s all good because everybody is really happy with the new deal and the amount of revenue we’re going to be getting in,” Aresco added. "


To me, that sounds like a rather serious, and relatively expensive, undertaking. When you have to build out infrastructure and bring in consultants to discuss feasibility, and are still researching how to allocate dedicated revenues from the deal to upgrade facilities, that's not the language of "well, all our schools already have in-house television facilities for producing local-access programming staffed with film majors earning internship credit, so everything needed is pretty much in place".

Doesn't sound like that at all.

I don't think it will be as big a deal as the conferences that try to run an entire conference network. Just to give an example, ECU produces their home baseball games with better quality than stuff I've seen from the Big 10 or PAC 12. I don't think it will cost us materially more to stream that baseball game on ESPN+ vs our own website or Youtube.

This is the point I was making before. It’s not just the total production costs you have to look at. What really matters is the net production costs over and above what the AAC schools are already paying today. Many of these events the AAC would be responsible for producing under the new deal are already being self produced either by the schools or by the American Digital Network at present under their current crappy deal that pays less. The AAC Digital Network already produces a bunch of women’s basketball games, men’s baseball games, along with every AAC championship not on linear tv or ESPN3.

Much of the cost for the SEC with the SECN was that some schools were set up digitally and some were not. There were some substantial one time startup costs for some of the schools. For others, the startup costs were minimal. Its necessary to avoid confusing one time costs with continuing production costs.

Agree.

(07-08-2019 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Much of the cost for the SEC with the SECN was that some schools were set up digitally and some were not. There were some substantial one time startup costs for some of the schools. For others, the startup costs were minimal. Its necessary to avoid confusing one time costs with continuing production costs.

There was something similar for the MAC. That was why the "all MAC home BBall games on ESPN streaming" was phased in over three years, because some schools were more ready to go than others.

So if we can take it that the AAC lies somewhere between the SEC and the MAC, we've got the situation bracketed.

Whether a little or a lot of the ESPN payment for those rights goes to cover capital costs ... the school owns the new infrastructure and the new equipment, and so the net revenue will climb after those capital costs have been fully paid.

(07-08-2019 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Much of the cost for the SEC with the SECN was that some schools were set up digitally and some were not. There were some substantial one time startup costs for some of the schools. For others, the startup costs were minimal. Its necessary to avoid confusing one time costs with continuing production costs.

All true, bullet. But nobody on this forum is genuinely “confused” on that point. There’s simply an infestation of trolls who are trying to stir the pot.