I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

(08-21-2013 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

I just don't buy that. I know you hate him. I understand that.

But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

There is more to this story. It appears so far only 4-7 football games fall into this conflict.

(08-21-2013 09:56 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

I just don't buy that. I know you hate him. I understand that.

But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

There is more to this story. It appears so far only 4-7 football games fall into this conflict.

There's not more to this story. Either he's an idiot and thought it was subscribers or a liar and tried to make people think it was. There's no third option.

(08-21-2013 09:56 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

I just don't buy that. I know you hate him. I understand that.

But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

There is more to this story. It appears so far only 4-7 football games fall into this conflict.

I suppose its possible that we are letting them do it. They may not have the shelf space for all the games (due to prior contractual obligations) and perhaps no network over 74 million was willing to take the excess games. When a deal couldn't be worked out with Fox or NBC-Sports (the only sports networks with more than 74 million subs), we allowed the deal to be struck with CBS-Sports (perhaps in exchange for the movement of some of tier 3 regional games to CBS-Sports as part of the package). Its a plausible scenario.

...buts its also possible he just lied. You know what they say about the simplest explanation.

(08-21-2013 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:56 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

I just don't buy that. I know you hate him. I understand that.

But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

There is more to this story. It appears so far only 4-7 football games fall into this conflict.

I suppose its possible that we are letting them do it. They may not have the shelf space for all the games (due to prior contractual obligations) and perhaps no network over 74 million was willing to take the excess games. When a deal couldn't be worked out with Fox or NBC-Sports (the only sports networks with more than 74 million subs), we allowed the deal to be struck with CBS-Sports (perhaps in exchange for the movement of some of tier 3 regional games to CBS-Sports as part of the package). Its a plausible scenario.

...buts its also possible he just lied. You know what they say about the simplest explanation.

You'll know when the basketball TV schedule comes out--are the majority of the games on the ESPN Family, or are there great heaping helpings of ESPN3 and syndication.

(08-21-2013 09:56 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

Think about it like this: how many fans actually care enough to know the difference? Sure posters on message boards like this care and are upset about it, but message board posters are the extreme minority. Most fans probably aren't going to care enough to even find out about this type of thing and still won't care even if what Aresco said was incorrect (or care enough to write the university president complaining).

That is why it wouldn't be a big deal for Aresco to lie about it. It gave the conference positive press at the time (when the conference desperately needed it after signing such a low value contract) and the potential fallout from exaggerating the truth would be small. Now that assumes he was honest with the university president's about all of this since lying to your employers is a bit different than spinning facts for fans.

I'm not saying that he did lie about all of this either. I'm just saying that it is conceivable that he could have done so without fear of many negative consequences.

(08-21-2013 10:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 10:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:56 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

I just don't buy that. I know you hate him. I understand that.

But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

There is more to this story. It appears so far only 4-7 football games fall into this conflict.

I suppose its possible that we are letting them do it. They may not have the shelf space for all the games (due to prior contractual obligations) and perhaps no network over 74 million was willing to take the excess games. When a deal couldn't be worked out with Fox or NBC-Sports (the only sports networks with more than 74 million subs), we allowed the deal to be struck with CBS-Sports (perhaps in exchange for the movement of some of tier 3 regional games to CBS-Sports as part of the package). Its a plausible scenario.

...buts its also possible he just lied. You know what they say about the simplest explanation.

You'll know when the basketball TV schedule comes out--are the majority of the games on the ESPN Family, or are there great heaping helpings of ESPN3 and syndication.

There was always going to be about a third of the basketball games on ESPN3/Regional. The real question--where do the other 66% actually end up?

Aresco was the Executive Vice President of CBS Sports before he accepted the Big East position. He knows the true number of households.

I think this was his plan the whole time. He wanted the deal to go to CBS so we, large metropolitan markets, would complain to our service providers and make CBSSN more valuable.

If enough fuss is made by us to our service provider, it becomes a win-win for Aresco. Service Providers will be forced to elevate CBSSN and make it apart of Basic. In turn AAC gets the exposure it originally wanted.

Aresco's been in bed with CBS the whole time, we are just finding out how true that is.

(08-21-2013 11:00 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Aresco was the Executive Vice President of CBS Sports before he accepted the Big East position. He knows the true number of households.

I think this was his plan the whole time. He wanted the deal to go to CBS so we, large metropolitan markets, would complain to our service providers and make CBSSN more valuable.

If enough fuss is made by us to our service provider, it becomes a win-win for Aresco. Service Providers will be forced to elevate CBSSN and make it apart of Basic. In turn AAC gets the exposure it originally wanted.

Aresco's been in bed with CBS the whole time, we are just finding out how true that is.

You can't be serious? Our commissioner is a CBS plant? Lol. That is the funniest thing I have heard since someone tried to convince me that President Obama was an Al Queda plant.

From the American website: A form of press release about the TV Dea

"ABOUT AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE TELEVISION AGREEMENTS
The American Athletic Conference is proud of its association with two of the most prestigious media organizations in sports – ESPN and CBS Sports. Those agreements will give the newly branded conference and its members unprecedented exposure on the nation’s leading sports platforms.

ESPN PARTNERSHIP


The American Athletic Conference has entered into a multiyear, wide-ranging television contract with ESPN to telecast its football, basketball and Olympic sports. The contract will run through 2019-20.

The contract includes comprehensive national exposure via the acknowledged leader in college sports television, the ESPN networks.

In football, the new contract will provide unprecedented national coverage for the league. In essence, the extensive national television coverage replaces previous syndication and local telecasts. All conference controlled games, which are conference games and non-conference home games, will be televised.

Nearly 90 percent of the games will be carried on national broadcast or national cable.
The minimum number of telecasts collectively on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU will be higher than the number of telecasts in the former contract, which expires at the end of the 2013 season.
The conference championship game, which is expected to begin in 2015, will be carried by ABC or ESPN on Championship Saturday.
In men’s basketball, all conference controlled games will be televised.

More than 63 percent of the games will be carried on national broadcast or national cable, which will be a minimum of 107 games.
The entire conference postseason basketball tournament will be on national television. The championship game will be televised on ABC or ESPN.
In women’s basketball, there is tremendous national and regional coverage.
Nearly 60 games will be televised on national cable, regional sports networks and ESPN3, including the entire women’s basketball postseason tournament. Eighteen regular-season games will be televised nationally.
The women’s basketball tournament championship game will be on ESPN or ESPN2. The semifinals also will be on national cable.
In Olympic sports, numerous championship contests will be televised nationally.

CBS SPORTS PARTNERSHIP


The American Athletic Conference, demonstrating the continuing vitality of its basketball programs, has entered into an agreement with long-time partner CBS Sports to telecast men’s basketball games through the 2019-20 season
.
The contract includes up to 12 appearances per season. Half of the appearances each season will be conference games. CBS Sports retains the right to have the first selections among conference, non-conference and neutral site games. Financial terms of the agreement were not announced."


I am currently looking for the exact quotes back when the deal was signed about the number of households we would be in.

I want to make sure that it wasn't "us" the fans who didn't catch the "available in" or whether it was actually said that we would be seen in $74 million households or more.

(08-21-2013 11:06 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 11:00 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Aresco was the Executive Vice President of CBS Sports before he accepted the Big East position. He knows the true number of households.

I think this was his plan the whole time. He wanted the deal to go to CBS so we, large metropolitan markets, would complain to our service providers and make CBSSN more valuable.

If enough fuss is made by us to our service provider, it becomes a win-win for Aresco. Service Providers will be forced to elevate CBSSN and make it apart of Basic. In turn AAC gets the exposure it originally wanted.

Aresco's been in bed with CBS the whole time, we are just finding out how true that is.

You can't be serious? Our commissioner is a CBS plant? Lol. That is the funniest thing I have heard since someone tried to convince me that President Obama was an Al Queda plant.

Not a plant...

Aresco believes CBS has potential, just like the American. We aren't the leaders of our respected business platforms but there is a strong foundation to grow.

Actually, Aresco may be helping support CBS but the bottom line is, ESpin Sucks and many of you wanted ESpin over everyone else for "Exposure!!!". Well bend over and kiss your selves good because you're getting the treatment that I've always said Espin would give you, (This Conference).

http://articles.courant.com/2013-05-19/s...-xl-center

Q & A from recent interview:

Q: The money from the contract wasn't great; the exposure you're getting, however, is. You have to make it work for you, right, and win big nonconference games?

A: I don't think people have focused enough on how good the exposure is that they're giving us in football and basketball. For instance in basketball, I think it's 113 games of the 170 games in 2014 will be on national ESPN platforms or a few of them sub-licensed to national platforms. In addition, we're going to do our tournament. All the games will be televised. These are great deals for exposure and that is how you build your conference. In football we'll have Thursday, Friday and Saturday. We are unique in terms of doing a lot of Thursdays and Fridays, but we think since every team isn't asked to do it all the time, it works well for us. We'll do an occasional Wednesday.

Q: Was the exposure through ESPN more of a lure for you than, say, NBC Sports, which was also interested in having the conference?

A: ESPN matched their deal and overmatched with even more exposure then they had to do.

Honest question......did the university representatives have to approve the negotiated contract, or was that entirely in the conference administration's hands?

I'm always in the camp that says we should know all of the facts before over-reacting and this seems like an appropriate time to wait for all of the facts.

(08-21-2013 09:56 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:49 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I sure as hell hope that Aresco and our attorneys who drafted this deal knew the difference when it was negotiated and signed.

Otherwise, this TV deal is a complete disaster, and **** up.

Regardless, ESPN seems to think they have the trump card......

For as stupid as I think Aresco is he knows the difference and I just think he was trying to pull a fast one on fans of this league.

I just don't buy that. I know you hate him. I understand that.

But he is also smart enough to know the cat would be out of the bag within months once ESPN started selling of the games.

There is more to this story. It appears so far only 4-7 football games fall into this conflict.

Or it could be as much as 13-15. Nobody has said definitively that the non-ESPN games would be part of it. In fact, the Director of Communications for the American only said games from the pool involving ESPN/2/U/News was being drawn from. He did not mention ESPN3 or regionals.

(08-21-2013 12:18 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Honest question......did the university representatives have to approve the negotiated contract, or was that entirely in the conference administration's hands?

I'm always in the camp that says we should know all of the facts before over-reacting and this seems like an appropriate time to wait for all of the facts.

The presidents approved the contract.

The league's presidents could vote as early as Monday, when they are expected to approve the deal, sources said. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ights-deal

That could just mean the presidents of UConn, USF, Cincinnati and Temple, of course.

Not sure exactly what would have happened legally if the presidents said "No." I remember that the presidents had the option of taking the ESPN contract, or saying no, it doesn't match, we're signing the NBC contract.

(08-21-2013 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:18 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Honest question......did the university representatives have to approve the negotiated contract, or was that entirely in the conference administration's hands?

I'm always in the camp that says we should know all of the facts before over-reacting and this seems like an appropriate time to wait for all of the facts.

The presidents approved the contract.

The league's presidents could vote as early as Monday, when they are expected to approve the deal, sources said. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ights-deal

That could just mean the presidents of UConn, USF, Cincinnati and Temple, of course.

Not sure exactly what would have happened legally if the presidents said "No." I remember that the presidents had the option of taking the ESPN contract, or saying no, it doesn't match, we're signing the NBC contract.

My understanding from Memphis is that all the incoming 2013 schools got a vote for this particular issue. Not sure about ECU, Tulane, Tulsa or Navy. I'm sure they had input, if not a vote.

(08-21-2013 01:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:18 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Honest question......did the university representatives have to approve the negotiated contract, or was that entirely in the conference administration's hands?

I'm always in the camp that says we should know all of the facts before over-reacting and this seems like an appropriate time to wait for all of the facts.

The presidents approved the contract.

The league's presidents could vote as early as Monday, when they are expected to approve the deal, sources said. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ights-deal

That could just mean the presidents of UConn, USF, Cincinnati and Temple, of course.

Not sure exactly what would have happened legally if the presidents said "No." I remember that the presidents had the option of taking the ESPN contract, or saying no, it doesn't match, we're signing the NBC contract.

My understanding from Memphis is that all the incoming 2013 schools got a vote for this particular issue. Not sure about ECU, Tulane, Tulsa or Navy. I'm sure they had input, if not a vote.

Thank you. It makes sense that something that important would be put in front of the presidents for approval, or at least their designated representatives. Perhaps there are multiple directions that wrath, if any is indeed deserved, should be directed.

Frankly, my perception is that something inherently weird has happened to this conference regarding governance/negotiations/realignment since its inception....at least from my afar perspective.

...just one fan's view.