(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:25 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 04:55 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 04:38 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  In exchange for keeping the same payout, the 14-team AAC will provide more inventory to ABC/ESPN. 61 or 62 football games total increases to 79 or 80 football games total.

In addition to the payout staying the same, the rest of the contract stays the same. The AAC will have 5 games on ABC, 20 on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and 40 total on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU.

The increased inventory provided overall does mean more inventory goes to ESPN+. But there is no less inventory on OTA or traditional cable.
It will never reach "most" onto ESPN+ for football. In even-numbered years from 2024 on, when the ND at Navy game is included, it will be a 50-50 split. In odd-numbered years from 2023 onward, 51.25% on linear and 48.75% on ESPN+

Obviously basketball and other sports had less linear exposure, so the 30% increase in inventory skews even more to ESPN+. I'll let others speak in more detail on that, since Patriot League will be on ESPN+ except for the small handful of Army-Navy contests on CBSSN and CBS.

One more year for UCF in this contract. Need to get it done.

FWIW, here are where AAC home games aired last year, as far as I can tell. Note that by "OOC" I do not mean a road game, rather a home game vs an OOC team. A "Conference" game is a game between two AAC teams:

ABC ..... 5 ...................... (3 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN ... 10 ..................... (8 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN2 .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPNU .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
CBSSN .. 3 ....................... (2 Conference, 1 OOC)
ESPNn ... 1 ........................ (Conference)
CBS ...... 1 ......................... (Conference, AFA/Navy)


ESPN+ ....24 ..................... (10 Conference, 14 OOC)

So a plurality of all AAC home games were on ESPN+ last year. But, 42 were on ESPN linear cable or ABC, and four were on CBS channels.

For a G5 conference, you have to give Aresco credit for the exposure. That gives the building blocks for more money. Sure.... rag on him on the 7 million a year..... but if you didn't have the exposure and track record over the past 8 years to negotiate on, the new contract could have been 2 million.

IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

(08-12-2022 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:25 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 04:55 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  One more year for UCF in this contract. Need to get it done.

FWIW, here are where AAC home games aired last year, as far as I can tell. Note that by "OOC" I do not mean a road game, rather a home game vs an OOC team. A "Conference" game is a game between two AAC teams:

ABC ..... 5 ...................... (3 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN ... 10 ..................... (8 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN2 .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPNU .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
CBSSN .. 3 ....................... (2 Conference, 1 OOC)
ESPNn ... 1 ........................ (Conference)
CBS ...... 1 ......................... (Conference, AFA/Navy)


ESPN+ ....24 ..................... (10 Conference, 14 OOC)

So a plurality of all AAC home games were on ESPN+ last year. But, 42 were on ESPN linear cable or ABC, and four were on CBS channels.

For a G5 conference, you have to give Aresco credit for the exposure. That gives the building blocks for more money. Sure.... rag on him on the 7 million a year..... but if you didn't have the exposure and track record over the past 8 years to negotiate on, the new contract could have been 2 million.

IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

All true and exposure will continue to increase with added inventory of games. We go from I think 60 to 80 games with the expanded conference. We're following a proven method benefiting the brand and membership.

You cannot grow a brand and invest in your property over time in a vacuum.

(08-10-2022 02:05 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  It almost feels like TV executives have ruined college football.

Almost? This is such a weird take from a fan of a program that wasn't even around when the BCS started.

(08-12-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 04:55 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 04:38 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 04:09 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:19 AM)otown Wrote:  Outside of comments by Aresco, has anyone seen anything in black and white regarding the charges to the AAC contract. I know there are half shares for the CUSA teams and same share for left behinds. My question is, did anything else charge regarding exposure and certain TV carriages? Is it possible that in exchange for keeping the same payout, the AAC gets more on ESPN+ and less on traditional cable/OTA?

Yes. Absolutely. Most games will be on espn + (pay per view) and Treachery Cable.

In exchange for keeping the same payout, the 14-team AAC will provide more inventory to ABC/ESPN. 61 or 62 football games total increases to 79 or 80 football games total.

In addition to the payout staying the same, the rest of the contract stays the same. The AAC will have 5 games on ABC, 20 on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and 40 total on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU.

The increased inventory provided overall does mean more inventory goes to ESPN+. But there is no less inventory on OTA or traditional cable.
It will never reach "most" onto ESPN+ for football. In even-numbered years from 2024 on, when the ND at Navy game is included, it will be a 50-50 split. In odd-numbered years from 2023 onward, 51.25% on linear and 48.75% on ESPN+

Obviously basketball and other sports had less linear exposure, so the 30% increase in inventory skews even more to ESPN+. I'll let others speak in more detail on that, since Patriot League will be on ESPN+ except for the small handful of Army-Navy contests on CBSSN and CBS.

One more year for UCF in this contract. Need to get it done.

FWIW, here are where AAC home games aired last year, as far as I can tell. Note that by "OOC" I do not mean a road game, rather a home game vs an OOC team. A "Conference" game is a game between two AAC teams:

ABC ..... 5 ...................... (3 Conference (including CCG), 2 OOC)
ESPN ... 10 ..................... (8 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN2 .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPNU .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
CBSSN .. 3 ....................... (2 Conference, 1 OOC)
ESPNn ... 1 ........................ (Conference)
CBS ...... 1 ......................... (AFA/Navy)


ESPN+ ....24 ..................... (10 Conference, 14 OOC)

So a plurality of all AAC home games were on ESPN+ last year. But, 42 were on ESPN linear cable or ABC, and four were on CBS channels.

Thanks. I have to admit ESPiN was good to the AAC and UCF.

(08-12-2022 10:04 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:25 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 04:55 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  One more year for UCF in this contract. Need to get it done.

FWIW, here are where AAC home games aired last year, as far as I can tell. Note that by "OOC" I do not mean a road game, rather a home game vs an OOC team. A "Conference" game is a game between two AAC teams:

ABC ..... 5 ...................... (3 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN ... 10 ..................... (8 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN2 .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPNU .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
CBSSN .. 3 ....................... (2 Conference, 1 OOC)
ESPNn ... 1 ........................ (Conference)
CBS ...... 1 ......................... (Conference, AFA/Navy)


ESPN+ ....24 ..................... (10 Conference, 14 OOC)

So a plurality of all AAC home games were on ESPN+ last year. But, 42 were on ESPN linear cable or ABC, and four were on CBS channels.

For a G5 conference, you have to give Aresco credit for the exposure. That gives the building blocks for more money. Sure.... rag on him on the 7 million a year..... but if you didn't have the exposure and track record over the past 8 years to negotiate on, the new contract could have been 2 million.

IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

I agree with you regarding the AAC over expanding with CUSA schools that do not bring value.

However, pretend you are a conference commissioner for a year. You are about to negotiate a new media deal. You obviously want metrics to present to them to aid your argument of conference worth and wanting a higher contract. Without a track record of ratings from exposure to present to them, what else is used? Hopes and dreams? Media markets?

FYI, CUSA tried to use the media market angle last go around with no track record and look at what they brought in....... Facebook, Stadium, and under $500k per school.

So, even you have to admit, exposure was in fact very integral to having metrics to present to the media companies when negotiating the next contract. The metrics being ratings data.......and you and I both know, being on OTA ABC and ESPN with better time slots greatly improve the ratings data.

So, tell me again how exposure is overrated when you need those very metrics to use when negotiating a media deal?

What you are arguing is trying to by a house and getting a mortgage, but telling the bank that you have no credit because your prior payment history is overrated.

FWIW, I'm not saying exposure doesn't matter, I'm saying it is overrated. It doesn't mean what it used to, which as recently as 7-8 years ago meant whether people could see your games or not on TV. Like I said, look at the MAC, in 2010 a clear majority of its home games were not televised on any national format. Now, all of them are. IMO that's a sea-change.

And IMO the metrics we got from 8 years of "exposure" from the 2012 deal didn't do all that much for us - a long deal at $7m a year? I am just not impressed with that. It only looks impressive compared to what CUSA/MAC/SBC are getting, but I never thought we were comparing ourselves with them to begin with.

Even our peanuts 2012 deal for $2m a year was double/triple what they were making at the time, IIRC. So we were always a lot more valuable than them.

(08-12-2022 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:25 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 04:55 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  One more year for UCF in this contract. Need to get it done.

FWIW, here are where AAC home games aired last year, as far as I can tell. Note that by "OOC" I do not mean a road game, rather a home game vs an OOC team. A "Conference" game is a game between two AAC teams:

ABC ..... 5 ...................... (3 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN ... 10 ..................... (8 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN2 .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPNU .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
CBSSN .. 3 ....................... (2 Conference, 1 OOC)
ESPNn ... 1 ........................ (Conference)
CBS ...... 1 ......................... (Conference, AFA/Navy)


ESPN+ ....24 ..................... (10 Conference, 14 OOC)

So a plurality of all AAC home games were on ESPN+ last year. But, 42 were on ESPN linear cable or ABC, and four were on CBS channels.

For a G5 conference, you have to give Aresco credit for the exposure. That gives the building blocks for more money. Sure.... rag on him on the 7 million a year..... but if you didn't have the exposure and track record over the past 8 years to negotiate on, the new contract could have been 2 million.

IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

Nah, not IMO. The MW's TV deal tripled in value over the same 6-7 years that the AAC's did, and for years many AAC fans crowed about how much more 'exposure' the AAC deal brought compared to their deal. And they signed a new deal that only goes for six years, while we are stuck with $7m a year for 12 long years.

Everyone has basic exposure these days. I can watch any MAC game, not just any SEC game.

And regarding outlets, it's IMO now mostly about ego. As far as I could tell, last year, during the regular season the Big 12 had 21 games broadcast OTA (meaning home games on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). The PAC had 14 games broadcast OTA.

The SEC? It had 13 OTA games. But who had higher ratings and was more valuable?

Exposure just doesn't mean what it used to, IMO.

(08-14-2022 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:25 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, here are where AAC home games aired last year, as far as I can tell. Note that by "OOC" I do not mean a road game, rather a home game vs an OOC team. A "Conference" game is a game between two AAC teams:

ABC ..... 5 ...................... (3 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN ... 10 ..................... (8 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPN2 .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
ESPNU .. 13 ...................... (11 Conference, 2 OOC)
CBSSN .. 3 ....................... (2 Conference, 1 OOC)
ESPNn ... 1 ........................ (Conference)
CBS ...... 1 ......................... (Conference, AFA/Navy)


ESPN+ ....24 ..................... (10 Conference, 14 OOC)

So a plurality of all AAC home games were on ESPN+ last year. But, 42 were on ESPN linear cable or ABC, and four were on CBS channels.

For a G5 conference, you have to give Aresco credit for the exposure. That gives the building blocks for more money. Sure.... rag on him on the 7 million a year..... but if you didn't have the exposure and track record over the past 8 years to negotiate on, the new contract could have been 2 million.

IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

Nah, not IMO. The MW's TV deal tripled in value over the same 6-7 years that the AAC's did, and for years many AAC fans crowed about how much more 'exposure' the AAC deal brought compared to their deal. And they signed a new deal that only goes for six years, while we are stuck with $7m a year for 12 long years.

Everyone has basic exposure these days. I can watch any MAC game, not just any SEC game.

And regarding outlets, it's IMO now mostly about ego. As far as I could tell, last year, during the regular season the Big 12 had 21 games broadcast OTA (meaning home games on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). The PAC had 14 games broadcast OTA.

The SEC? It had 13 OTA games. But who had higher ratings and was more valuable?

Exposure just doesn't mean what it used to, IMO.

The AD at AFA completely disagrees with your opinion on the exposure of the AAC media rights deal on the ESPN platform.

Make no mistake, there’s better resources in the American. There’s better exposure. ...The elephant in the room is going to continue until the Mountain West can eliminate the financial gap between itself and its nearest competitor, the American.
- USAFA AD

(08-14-2022 12:29 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 07:25 AM)otown Wrote:  For a G5 conference, you have to give Aresco credit for the exposure. That gives the building blocks for more money. Sure.... rag on him on the 7 million a year..... but if you didn't have the exposure and track record over the past 8 years to negotiate on, the new contract could have been 2 million.

IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

Nah, not IMO. The MW's TV deal tripled in value over the same 6-7 years that the AAC's did, and for years many AAC fans crowed about how much more 'exposure' the AAC deal brought compared to their deal. And they signed a new deal that only goes for six years, while we are stuck with $7m a year for 12 long years.

Everyone has basic exposure these days. I can watch any MAC game, not just any SEC game.

And regarding outlets, it's IMO now mostly about ego. As far as I could tell, last year, during the regular season the Big 12 had 21 games broadcast OTA (meaning home games on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). The PAC had 14 games broadcast OTA.

The SEC? It had 13 OTA games. But who had higher ratings and was more valuable?

Exposure just doesn't mean what it used to, IMO.

The AD at AFA completely disagrees with your opinion on the exposure of the AAC media rights deal on the ESPN platform.

Make no mistake, there’s better resources in the American. There’s better exposure. ...The elephant in the room is going to continue until the Mountain West can eliminate the financial gap between itself and its nearest competitor, the American.
- USAFA AD

Well, that's the view of the AFA AD, but Air Force itself decided not to make a move to the AAC, which IMO carries much more weight.

Bottom line for me is that despite the alleged massive 'exposure' advantage in the 2013 - 2020 AAC contract, at the end of the day both the AAC and the MW tripled the money in their new 2020 deals. No difference there.

And to me it makes no difference to say the AAC is at $7m and the MW is at $4.3m, or whatever it is, because the AAC was way ahead of the MW from the start - $2m to about $1.2m for MW - ten years ago. The AAC is fundamentally more valuable than the MW, but there is IMO no evidence that the 2012-2013 deals both signed have anything to do with that. It was there all along.

(08-14-2022 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 12:29 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, exposure is over-rated these days. It's more of a prestige thing than an 'actual' thing. Meaning, for ego-reasons, conferences want to be on this channel rather than that channel, but the reality is, over the last 10 years everyone has gotten more exposure. Unless you are CUSA with their weird hodge-podge of obscure outlets, just about every FBS game is readily available on cable or streaming. That's the real revolution, because before 2016 or so, it was quite common for games not to be televised. So it really was a question of being on TV or not being on TV.

For example, in 2010, of all the MAC home games, 48 of them were not broadcast on any kind of TV - OTA, cable, streaming, nothing. Only 31 were. Last year, every single MAC home game was broadcast on some kind of national outlet. That is a revolution change in exposure and availability, IMO.

So nowadays, the 'exposure' issue is just about what channel you are on, which IMO is very different, and far less significant, than being on or not at all.

To me, it's as easy to access a game on ESPN+ as it is on CBS or NBC. Yeah, I know that's not true of everyone, but what is the barrier to it being true? $6 a month for ESPN+. Not much of a barrier, IMO. And I really don't think getting 1 million viewers vs 700k viewers on a "lesser" outlets adds up to much in terms of exposure benefits.

About the $7m a year, IMO we over-rate that too. I think the AAC added way too many schools, and the wrong schools, to keep that, and the amount isn't much to begin with. We're stuck at that amount for 10 more long years, and everyone around us will be signing new deals and likely making more.

Right now, in 2022, is IMO the best relative money situation we are likely going to have vs the P-conferences and the other G-conferences. And it's not much of a situation. And it will get worse rather than better over those 10 years.

That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

Nah, not IMO. The MW's TV deal tripled in value over the same 6-7 years that the AAC's did, and for years many AAC fans crowed about how much more 'exposure' the AAC deal brought compared to their deal. And they signed a new deal that only goes for six years, while we are stuck with $7m a year for 12 long years.

Everyone has basic exposure these days. I can watch any MAC game, not just any SEC game.

And regarding outlets, it's IMO now mostly about ego. As far as I could tell, last year, during the regular season the Big 12 had 21 games broadcast OTA (meaning home games on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). The PAC had 14 games broadcast OTA.

The SEC? It had 13 OTA games. But who had higher ratings and was more valuable?

Exposure just doesn't mean what it used to, IMO.

The AD at AFA completely disagrees with your opinion on the exposure of the AAC media rights deal on the ESPN platform.

Make no mistake, there’s better resources in the American. There’s better exposure. ...The elephant in the room is going to continue until the Mountain West can eliminate the financial gap between itself and its nearest competitor, the American.
- USAFA AD

Well, that's the view of the AFA AD, but Air Force itself decided not to make a move to the AAC, which IMO carries much more weight.

Bottom line for me is that despite the alleged massive 'exposure' advantage in the 2013 - 2020 AAC contract, at the end of the day both the AAC and the MW tripled the money in their new 2020 deals. No difference there.

And to me it makes no difference to say the AAC is at $7m and the MW is at $4.3m, or whatever it is, because the AAC was way ahead of the MW from the start - $2m to about $1.2m for MW - ten years ago. The AAC is fundamentally more valuable than the MW, but there is IMO no evidence that the 2012-2013 deals both signed have anything to do with that. It was there all along.

The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

(08-15-2022 07:53 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 12:29 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That "exposure" has real measurable value. The AAC TV deal more than tripled in just 6 years due primarily to that exposure factor which aided recruiting (improving on the field performance) and grew the viewership of the league among more casual fans.

Nah, not IMO. The MW's TV deal tripled in value over the same 6-7 years that the AAC's did, and for years many AAC fans crowed about how much more 'exposure' the AAC deal brought compared to their deal. And they signed a new deal that only goes for six years, while we are stuck with $7m a year for 12 long years.

Everyone has basic exposure these days. I can watch any MAC game, not just any SEC game.

And regarding outlets, it's IMO now mostly about ego. As far as I could tell, last year, during the regular season the Big 12 had 21 games broadcast OTA (meaning home games on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). The PAC had 14 games broadcast OTA.

The SEC? It had 13 OTA games. But who had higher ratings and was more valuable?

Exposure just doesn't mean what it used to, IMO.

The AD at AFA completely disagrees with your opinion on the exposure of the AAC media rights deal on the ESPN platform.

Make no mistake, there’s better resources in the American. There’s better exposure. ...The elephant in the room is going to continue until the Mountain West can eliminate the financial gap between itself and its nearest competitor, the American.
- USAFA AD

Well, that's the view of the AFA AD, but Air Force itself decided not to make a move to the AAC, which IMO carries much more weight.

Bottom line for me is that despite the alleged massive 'exposure' advantage in the 2013 - 2020 AAC contract, at the end of the day both the AAC and the MW tripled the money in their new 2020 deals. No difference there.

And to me it makes no difference to say the AAC is at $7m and the MW is at $4.3m, or whatever it is, because the AAC was way ahead of the MW from the start - $2m to about $1.2m for MW - ten years ago. The AAC is fundamentally more valuable than the MW, but there is IMO no evidence that the 2012-2013 deals both signed have anything to do with that. It was there all along.

The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:53 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 12:29 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nah, not IMO. The MW's TV deal tripled in value over the same 6-7 years that the AAC's did, and for years many AAC fans crowed about how much more 'exposure' the AAC deal brought compared to their deal. And they signed a new deal that only goes for six years, while we are stuck with $7m a year for 12 long years.

Everyone has basic exposure these days. I can watch any MAC game, not just any SEC game.

And regarding outlets, it's IMO now mostly about ego. As far as I could tell, last year, during the regular season the Big 12 had 21 games broadcast OTA (meaning home games on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). The PAC had 14 games broadcast OTA.

The SEC? It had 13 OTA games. But who had higher ratings and was more valuable?

Exposure just doesn't mean what it used to, IMO.

The AD at AFA completely disagrees with your opinion on the exposure of the AAC media rights deal on the ESPN platform.

Make no mistake, there’s better resources in the American. There’s better exposure. ...The elephant in the room is going to continue until the Mountain West can eliminate the financial gap between itself and its nearest competitor, the American.
- USAFA AD

Well, that's the view of the AFA AD, but Air Force itself decided not to make a move to the AAC, which IMO carries much more weight.

Bottom line for me is that despite the alleged massive 'exposure' advantage in the 2013 - 2020 AAC contract, at the end of the day both the AAC and the MW tripled the money in their new 2020 deals. No difference there.

And to me it makes no difference to say the AAC is at $7m and the MW is at $4.3m, or whatever it is, because the AAC was way ahead of the MW from the start - $2m to about $1.2m for MW - ten years ago. The AAC is fundamentally more valuable than the MW, but there is IMO no evidence that the 2012-2013 deals both signed have anything to do with that. It was there all along.

The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:53 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 12:29 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The AD at AFA completely disagrees with your opinion on the exposure of the AAC media rights deal on the ESPN platform.

Make no mistake, there’s better resources in the American. There’s better exposure. ...The elephant in the room is going to continue until the Mountain West can eliminate the financial gap between itself and its nearest competitor, the American.
- USAFA AD

Well, that's the view of the AFA AD, but Air Force itself decided not to make a move to the AAC, which IMO carries much more weight.

Bottom line for me is that despite the alleged massive 'exposure' advantage in the 2013 - 2020 AAC contract, at the end of the day both the AAC and the MW tripled the money in their new 2020 deals. No difference there.

And to me it makes no difference to say the AAC is at $7m and the MW is at $4.3m, or whatever it is, because the AAC was way ahead of the MW from the start - $2m to about $1.2m for MW - ten years ago. The AAC is fundamentally more valuable than the MW, but there is IMO no evidence that the 2012-2013 deals both signed have anything to do with that. It was there all along.

The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

(08-10-2022 05:38 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 04:09 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Most games will be on espn + (pay per view) and Treachery Cable.

For the cable cutters - if you subscribe to Hulu Live you get the ESPN channels, plus the B1G, SEC, and ACC channels. Includes ABC/CBS/NBC as well as all the March Madness channels as well.

How much is that? Sports is the only reason I still have cable and I hate paying comcast that much.

(08-15-2022 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:53 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-14-2022 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, that's the view of the AFA AD, but Air Force itself decided not to make a move to the AAC, which IMO carries much more weight.

Bottom line for me is that despite the alleged massive 'exposure' advantage in the 2013 - 2020 AAC contract, at the end of the day both the AAC and the MW tripled the money in their new 2020 deals. No difference there.

And to me it makes no difference to say the AAC is at $7m and the MW is at $4.3m, or whatever it is, because the AAC was way ahead of the MW from the start - $2m to about $1.2m for MW - ten years ago. The AAC is fundamentally more valuable than the MW, but there is IMO no evidence that the 2012-2013 deals both signed have anything to do with that. It was there all along.

The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

Ok, how about another exercise.

AAC had the MWC deal the past 8 years as far as exposure. How much do you think this new contract gets negotiated for?

How about if AAC had a deal for only CBSN weekends, espn+, and one game on ESPN 2? How much is this new contract negotiated for?

Granted, we are assuming the hypothetical 1st time contract scenario above paid the same as the initial AAC contract.

(08-15-2022 08:06 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:53 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

Ok, how about another exercise.

AAC had the MWC deal the past 8 years as far as exposure. How much do you think this new contract gets negotiated for?

How about if AAC had a deal for only CBSN weekends, espn+, and one game on ESPN 2? How much is this new contract negotiated for?

Granted, we are assuming the hypothetical 1st time contract scenario above paid the same as the initial AAC contract.

There is evidence comparing the AAC current deal to it's last deal that exposure gained being on ESPN Channels and streaming App drove higher viewership. Their media rights increased as a result.

(08-15-2022 10:07 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 08:06 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

Ok, how about another exercise.

AAC had the MWC deal the past 8 years as far as exposure. How much do you think this new contract gets negotiated for?

How about if AAC had a deal for only CBSN weekends, espn+, and one game on ESPN 2? How much is this new contract negotiated for?

Granted, we are assuming the hypothetical 1st time contract scenario above paid the same as the initial AAC contract.

There is evidence comparing the AAC current deal to it's last deal that exposure gained being on ESPN Channels and streaming App drove higher viewership. Their media rights increased as a result.

Exactly what I'm trying to get Quo to admit

(08-15-2022 10:07 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 08:06 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

Ok, how about another exercise.

AAC had the MWC deal the past 8 years as far as exposure. How much do you think this new contract gets negotiated for?

How about if AAC had a deal for only CBSN weekends, espn+, and one game on ESPN 2? How much is this new contract negotiated for?

Granted, we are assuming the hypothetical 1st time contract scenario above paid the same as the initial AAC contract.

There is evidence comparing the AAC current deal to it's last deal that exposure gained being on ESPN Channels and streaming App drove higher viewership. Their media rights increased as a result.

Where is that evidence?

The AAC deal signed in 2013 was described by some as a "trading money for exposure" kind of deal, whereby the AAC agreed to take less money in order to get lots of exposure on ESPN networks.

And ... yes, in 2019, the AAC signed a new deal that basically tripled the payout of the 2013 deal.

But, IMO, that alone does not mean that the extra exposure of the 2013 deal resulted in that payout. In order to determine that, meaning to rule out other causes of the increase, we need a "control group", basically a conference that signed a deal around the same time that the AAC did in 2013, and then also signed another deal around the same time as they AAC did in 2019, but, that 2013 deal had to be without the ton of the exposure that the AAC deal has been described as providing.

IMO, the MW provides just such a control. It signed deals in 2013 and 2019, pretty much the same time frame that the AAC did. And, to my knowledge at least, nobody ever described the MW 2013 deal as a "heavy exposure" or a "traded money for exposure" kind of deal.

And yet, the new deal that the MW signed in 2019-2020 pretty much triples the payout they are receiving as compared to their 2012-2013 deal.

This leads me to conclude that the alleged "exposure" of the AAC 2013 deal had little to do with the tripling of payouts in their 2020 deal, because the MW achieved the same outcome without having that exposure advantage. It suggests that some third cause, something other than the extra exposure that the AAC 2013 deal allegedly had , was at play here for both conferences.

Granted, this isn't a perfect comparison. It's more like a "field experiment" than a laboratory one. A laboratory experiment would be more along the lines of having say a parallel universe, a universe 100% identical to the universe the AAC existed in between 2012-2019, save for the AAC signing an MW type deal at that time instead of the exposure-laden ESPN deal, and then seeing if it still gets the same $7m payout in 2019. But, that's impossible, we don't have access to that kind of scenario.

So IMO, the best available evidence, the evidence comparing the AAC to the MW that actually happened, does not support the idea that the AAC tripled its payout in 2020 due significantly to extra exposure in the 2013 deal.

(08-15-2022 08:06 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:53 AM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  The MWC began in 1999 so I don't really get the correlation of timeline between the AAC and MWC media revenue production.

I still think $7M > $4.3M.

As the AFA AD (who's actually in the business with a lot more information than we do) eloquently stated there is an elephant in the room. I believe it's still there.

It's been pretty well documented the reason the AFA didn't move and the demands placed on MWC leadership to close the GAP of it's upline competitor in the AAC.

The AAC will always have an exposure advantage due to geography over the MWC. That advantage gains more exposure, attract more eyeballs, and derives more income.

Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

Ok, how about another exercise.

AAC had the MWC deal the past 8 years as far as exposure. How much do you think this new contract gets negotiated for?

How about if AAC had a deal for only CBSN weekends, espn+, and one game on ESPN 2? How much is this new contract negotiated for?

Granted, we are assuming the hypothetical 1st time contract scenario above paid the same as the initial AAC contract.

IMO it is likely that if in 2013 the AAC had signed the same deal the MW signed at that time, the same level of exposure that the MW ended up getting, with the same networks and TV outlets that the MW got, without the extra exposure that the actual 2013 AAC deal has been described as having, then in 2019 its money would have still tripled in its new deal. Because the MW had that actual deal and its money tripled.

FWIW, I'm not saying exposure doesn't matter at all. Imagine if neither the AAC or MW had any games at all on TV between 2013-2019. They got paid $2m a year and the media company shelved their inventory. Would I expect their money to triple in 2019? No. Not being on TV at all would have hurt.

But that's not the issue I am addressing, which is whether the AAC's "extra exposure" paid off compared to the MW's "normal exposure", or however you want to describe it. Did the AAC get a 2019 payout boost due to the exposure advantage it is claimed to have had during that time, during what has been called its "trading money for extra exposure" deal? IMO, the evidence doesn't support that. Because the MW tripled its money too, without that extra exposure.

(08-16-2022 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 08:06 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:55 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-15-2022 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sure, $7m is more than $4.3m. But the issue here, at least in my mind, was the value of the exposure to the AAC in the 2013 AAC deal. Did that exposure help our deal triple between 2013 and 2020?

IMO, the MW experience suggests no, because they too signed a deal in 2013 that IIRC has tripled under their new 2020 deal as well.

If the AAC and MW had been making the same media money in 2013 but now the AAC was making a lot more, then that would be something. But the AAC started at a higher baseline than the MW, before any exposure benefits of that deal kicked in.

Couldn't one say the MW had less exposure and metrics to present when negotiating their contract, hence the lower payout? The MWC did in fact get more exposure over the past 10 years as well, so everything is relative. their exposure increase just was not as high as the AAC, so they had less metrics to present, so their new contract is less.

Lets flip roles here. MWC had the AAC exposure during the past 8 years with similar AAC ratings and they go into a new contract. You think they only go up to 4.3 million or do they get closer to 7 million?

As far as I can tell, both the MW and AAC about tripled their payout from their 2013 deals, so I would expect that had the numbers been reversed, the payouts would have too - meaning an MW that was at $2m would be at $7m, an AAC that was at $1.2m would be at $4.4m now. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but that's what I would expect.

IMO, there is no evidence that the better exposure of the 2013 AAC deal led to more money for the AAC compared to the MW.

Ok, how about another exercise.

AAC had the MWC deal the past 8 years as far as exposure. How much do you think this new contract gets negotiated for?

How about if AAC had a deal for only CBSN weekends, espn+, and one game on ESPN 2? How much is this new contract negotiated for?

Granted, we are assuming the hypothetical 1st time contract scenario above paid the same as the initial AAC contract.

IMO it is likely that if in 2013 the AAC had signed the same deal the MW signed at that time, the same level of exposure that the MW ended up getting, with the same networks and TV outlets that the MW got, without the extra exposure that the actual 2013 AAC deal has been described as having, then in 2019 its money would have still tripled in its new deal. Because the MW had that actual deal and its money tripled.

FWIW, I'm not saying exposure doesn't matter at all. Imagine if neither the AAC or MW had any games at all on TV between 2013-2019. They got paid $2m a year and the media company shelved their inventory. Would I expect their money to triple in 2019? No. Not being on TV at all would have hurt.

But that's not the issue I am addressing, which is whether the AAC's "extra exposure" paid off compared to the MW's "normal exposure", or however you want to describe it. Did the AAC get a 2019 payout boost due to the exposure advantage it is claimed to have had during that time, during what has been called its "trading money for extra exposure" deal? IMO, the evidence doesn't support that. Because the MW tripled its money too, without that extra exposure.

IMHO, the exposure of the ESPN Platform helped create larger viewership which in turn increased AAC media rights. Using the analogy of tripling income isn't proportionate between the MWC & AAC because the AAC's base was larger to begin with. In other words it took more actual dollars to triple. This was accomplished in spite of the fact the MWC had a longevity advantage of being formed in 1999. Our exposure concerns our competitors as sited by the AFA AD so it's apparent industry competitors are concerned by it. His view not mine.