(03-15-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:17 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 04:07 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 04:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If it is only $500K, that gives me serious pause about CBS Sports and Facebook putting up a competitive bid for the AAC media deal next year. The AAC needs bidders to throw up significant offers in order to get ESPN to increase what we are getting on the current deal. Yes, I expects CBS Sports/Facebook to put more money for the AAC services, and I expect other bidders such as NBC and Fox to jump in as well. That being said I think it is fair to gauge whether CBS Sports is all in by what they are throwing out to CUSA.

This is what I've been saying since day one when everyone keeps throwing out these ridiculous numbers. The financial fall from grace of the media hogs along with the lack of competitive bids is not a landscape that will net us 8-figure per team contracts...it just isn't.

They just gave a conference with basically zero ratings a raise. How that supports the view the AAC is getting almost nothing is beyond me. This article claims CUSA DOUBLED their payout.

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...fcc22.html

I think some non AAC fans (not those quoted above) just want it to happen so badly that no amount of reasoning will resonate. It was speculated that since CUSA was the first to renegotiate, all nonpower conferences were doomed. (Even though it was proven false as the contracts were initially cut when teams left for the AAC, and the MAC re-upped for more money beforehand.) Now, it seems to be due to economic pressures even though that hasn't seemed to hinder rights growth with other conferences.

I don't think the AAC is going to make huge money and some will be disappointed, but there isn't anything in the macro environment screaming that it'll be a decrease either. Honestly, it'd be more of a concern if ESPN and CBSSN were locking up large volumes of content at cheaper prices elsewhere. As it stands, there's still plenty of slots available, and they both have shown a preference in the past for airing AAC games over other available content. Right fees will come down to ratings, and those have been better than expected compared to when the contract was first signed.

Rights values actually come down to how much money a network can make off the property. The ratings are sort of a proxy for that. Here's what I see---the AAC currently offers 50-75% of P5 ratings for less than 10% of the current going price for a P5 conference. Thats still a screaming bargain at 20% or 30% of the cost of a P5. At 40% of the cost, its still a good deal--but not a screaming bargain. At 50% of P5 cost---its arguably in the lower range of fully priced.


So, back of the napkin calculations---

If a P5 was available today---value probably would be about 25-30 million a school

20% of 25 million is 5 million
30% of 25 million 7.5 million
20% of 30 million is 6 million
30% of 30 million is 9 million

I think that's the range we are going to be looking at. The same range fits with the values that we have seen for MLS Soccer (which has lower ratings than the AAC and gets 75 million a year) and the US rights to Premier Soccer (which have ratings that are fairly similar to the AAC, but gets 160 million a year). The final indicator is other G5 contracts. The MAC scored a 10 fold increase on a 6 year old deal. The Sunbelt got 2.5 times their old value on a 6 year old deal. CUSA doubled their value from 2 years ago.

2 mil x 2.5 =5 million per team
2 mil x 6 =12 million per team (bassed on the CUSA rate of a double every 2 years)
2 mil x 10=20 mil per team

The MAC's an outlier indication, but the Sunbelt and CUSA contract seem to fall generally in the same range as the other indications I noted. Only time will tell---but I think we are going to score a nice raise on the next deal.

Anything close to $10m, spike the football.

(03-15-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:17 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 04:07 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 04:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If it is only $500K, that gives me serious pause about CBS Sports and Facebook putting up a competitive bid for the AAC media deal next year. The AAC needs bidders to throw up significant offers in order to get ESPN to increase what we are getting on the current deal. Yes, I expects CBS Sports/Facebook to put more money for the AAC services, and I expect other bidders such as NBC and Fox to jump in as well. That being said I think it is fair to gauge whether CBS Sports is all in by what they are throwing out to CUSA.

This is what I've been saying since day one when everyone keeps throwing out these ridiculous numbers. The financial fall from grace of the media hogs along with the lack of competitive bids is not a landscape that will net us 8-figure per team contracts...it just isn't.

They just gave a conference with basically zero ratings a raise. How that supports the view the AAC is getting almost nothing is beyond me. This article claims CUSA DOUBLED their payout.

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...fcc22.html

I think some non AAC fans (not those quoted above) just want it to happen so badly that no amount of reasoning will resonate. It was speculated that since CUSA was the first to renegotiate, all nonpower conferences were doomed. (Even though it was proven false as the contracts were initially cut when teams left for the AAC, and the MAC re-upped for more money beforehand.) Now, it seems to be due to economic pressures even though that hasn't seemed to hinder rights growth with other conferences.

I don't think the AAC is going to make huge money and some will be disappointed, but there isn't anything in the macro environment screaming that it'll be a decrease either. Honestly, it'd be more of a concern if ESPN and CBSSN were locking up large volumes of content at cheaper prices elsewhere. As it stands, there's still plenty of slots available, and they both have shown a preference in the past for airing AAC games over other available content. Right fees will come down to ratings, and those have been better than expected compared to when the contract was first signed.

Rights values actually come down to how much money a network can make off the property. The ratings are sort of a proxy for that. Here's what I see---the AAC currently offers 50-75% of P5 ratings for less than 10% of the current going price for a P5 conference. Thats still a screaming bargain at 20% or 30% of the cost of a P5. At 40% of the cost, its still a good deal--but not a screaming bargain. At 50% of P5 cost---its arguably in the lower range of fully priced.


So, back of the napkin calculations---

If a P5 was available today---value probably would be about 25-30 million a school

20% of 25 million is 5 million
30% of 25 million 7.5 million
20% of 30 million is 6 million
30% of 30 million is 9 million

I think that's the range we are going to be looking at. The same range fits with the values that we have seen for MLS Soccer (which has lower ratings than the AAC and gets 75 million a year) and the US rights to Premier Soccer (which have ratings that are fairly similar to the AAC, but gets 160 million a year). The final indicator is other G5 contracts. The MAC scored a 10 fold increase on a 6 year old deal. The Sunbelt got 2.5 times their old value on a 6 year old deal. CUSA doubled their value from 2 years ago.

2 mil x 2.5 =5 million per team
2 mil x 6 =12 million per team (bassed on the CUSA rate of a double every 2 years)
2 mil x 10=20 mil per team

The MAC's an outlier indication, but the Sunbelt and CUSA contract seem to fall generally in the same range as the other indications I noted. Only time will tell---but I think we are going to score a nice raise on the next deal.

Are you sure about the math on that? If you take all of our games over a weekend, and all (PAC12 as an example) games over the same weekend, our games are drawing 50-75%??

Or are you using some weird logic like two of our highest rated teams (or even one of our teams vs. a P5) during one particular timeslot vs. something like Oregon State - Cal in the same timeslot?

Shorter version, top to bottom are we really drawing 50-75%?

(03-15-2018 01:07 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 11:10 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:25 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:11 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:52 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Maybe the WAC will take you back

42-3 second quarter

We have regular season basketball games with more viewers then your championship football game and make 4x what you do with the raise on our current trash contract.

By the way we'll have OTA bidders for our next contract and ESPN will be paying more for our third tier then you get for your entire media deal.

Of course you were talking trash to an SMU fan on football. That 42-3 and 4 dollars will get you some coffee . . .

B1G signed a HUGE increase
Sun Belt reportedly doubles their deal
CUSA reportedly doubles their deal

AAC is worth far more than those latter two. Regular season football ratings, for all games, conference controlled games, and intra conference games:
CUSA: 4.5 million (251K per rated game), 2.7 M (177K), 717K (71.7K)
SunBelt: 5.2M (400K), 2.3M (253K), 1.3M (164K)
mwc: 16 M (616K), 7.7M (407K), 5.4M (357K)
AAC: 40.7M (992K), 21.9M (728K), 17 M (631K)

That's football. Basketball numbers being discussed at length in other threads.

So, the mwc should be worth 3-4 times CUSA/SunBelt...which is around the same value as present deal...which is what they reportedly were offered early.

AAC should be at least twice the MWC, and roughly ten times CUSA/SunBelt. Depends on competitive bidding requirement, good negotiating on part of the AAC and tiered structure with multiple partners.

Do your numbers include the added value of rolling in Navy football rights into the media deal?

That does not add in any notional viewers for the additional AAC inventory of Navy NMCMS home games. Navy's home games, all on CBSSN which doesn't subscribe to the Nielsen system, aren't accounted for anywhere. If you REALLY wanted to, you could look at the four Navy away AAC games from '17 -- which will be four of the five Navy NMCMS home games this year (and I would expect the Lehigh game 15 Sept to be on ESPN3) and add 2 million more viewers to the AAC viewer numbers.
But that's not solid ground to be on - that is counting 699k for Navy at Houston '17 when Navy at Houston '15 had 3M viewers.

It will be interesting to see which networks and timeslots ESPN gives to those Navy home games. Maybe they promote the heck out of Memphis-Navy or maybe they think of it as just in the middle of the pack of AAC games that week, much less other inventory.

(03-15-2018 03:33 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:17 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 04:07 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  This is what I've been saying since day one when everyone keeps throwing out these ridiculous numbers. The financial fall from grace of the media hogs along with the lack of competitive bids is not a landscape that will net us 8-figure per team contracts...it just isn't.

They just gave a conference with basically zero ratings a raise. How that supports the view the AAC is getting almost nothing is beyond me. This article claims CUSA DOUBLED their payout.

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...fcc22.html

I think some non AAC fans (not those quoted above) just want it to happen so badly that no amount of reasoning will resonate. It was speculated that since CUSA was the first to renegotiate, all nonpower conferences were doomed. (Even though it was proven false as the contracts were initially cut when teams left for the AAC, and the MAC re-upped for more money beforehand.) Now, it seems to be due to economic pressures even though that hasn't seemed to hinder rights growth with other conferences.

I don't think the AAC is going to make huge money and some will be disappointed, but there isn't anything in the macro environment screaming that it'll be a decrease either. Honestly, it'd be more of a concern if ESPN and CBSSN were locking up large volumes of content at cheaper prices elsewhere. As it stands, there's still plenty of slots available, and they both have shown a preference in the past for airing AAC games over other available content. Right fees will come down to ratings, and those have been better than expected compared to when the contract was first signed.

Rights values actually come down to how much money a network can make off the property. The ratings are sort of a proxy for that. Here's what I see---the AAC currently offers 50-75% of P5 ratings for less than 10% of the current going price for a P5 conference. Thats still a screaming bargain at 20% or 30% of the cost of a P5. At 40% of the cost, its still a good deal--but not a screaming bargain. At 50% of P5 cost---its arguably in the lower range of fully priced.


So, back of the napkin calculations---

If a P5 was available today---value probably would be about 25-30 million a school

20% of 25 million is 5 million
30% of 25 million 7.5 million
20% of 30 million is 6 million
30% of 30 million is 9 million

I think that's the range we are going to be looking at. The same range fits with the values that we have seen for MLS Soccer (which has lower ratings than the AAC and gets 75 million a year) and the US rights to Premier Soccer (which have ratings that are fairly similar to the AAC, but gets 160 million a year). The final indicator is other G5 contracts. The MAC scored a 10 fold increase on a 6 year old deal. The Sunbelt got 2.5 times their old value on a 6 year old deal. CUSA doubled their value from 2 years ago.

2 mil x 2.5 =5 million per team
2 mil x 6 =12 million per team (bassed on the CUSA rate of a double every 2 years)
2 mil x 10=20 mil per team

The MAC's an outlier indication, but the Sunbelt and CUSA contract seem to fall generally in the same range as the other indications I noted. Only time will tell---but I think we are going to score a nice raise on the next deal.

Are you sure about the math on that? If you take all of our games over a weekend, and all (PAC12 as an example) games over the same weekend, our games are drawing 50-75%??

Or are you using some weird logic like two of our highest rated teams (or even one of our teams vs. a P5) during one particular timeslot vs. something like Oregon State - Cal in the same timeslot?

Shorter version, top to bottom are we really drawing 50-75%?

Bottom line up front: AAC draws 30-40% of PAC12 viewers is safer ground.

In earlier discussions, numbers from 2016 regular season ratings for all games involving the conferences, AAC averaged 1.4 million viewers per rated game and PAC12 1.7 million viewers per rated game.

2017 numbers we weren't as good as that.

In an earlier post, I compared the 2017 data for AAC and the G4s, looking at viewers for all games, conference controlled games, and intra-conference games

AAC 40.7 Million (992K per game), 21.9M (728K), 17M(631K)
PAC12 95.3M (1.763M), 85.9M (1.789M), 61.1M (1.65M)
Percentages are 42.7% (56.3%), 25.4% (40%), 27.9% (38.2%)

So you could still say 56% for per game average for all games - but that includes away games that are someone else's and unique events like Army-Navy. Nay sayers will always claim that the appeal is the OTHER team. Comparing ONLY intraconference games, total viewers or per rated game gives you 30-40% of PAC12.

That's the full dataset for each - so not any picking of top two etc. I like the average per rated game as an additional datapoint to total viewers. Some here don't like it ("If you only have 10-15 games worth showing, they'll average better than a P5 conference with a comprehensive deal and a larger slate of games.") but we're talking about 27conference games vs 37 conference games - in BOTH cases you get the OTA down to the ESPNU.

I would expect that trying to compare games in the same week, network, and timeslot would give you too small a data set, even using multiple years.

(03-15-2018 11:10 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:25 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:11 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:52 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:50 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  You are right. These people are clueless about financials and economics. They haven’t listened to DIS earnings call every quarter. ESPN will not be increasing the AAC contract that much is guaranteed, maybe some form of increase from second tier rights but it is not coming from ESPN.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecul...5daa1262f7

https://nypost.com/2017/08/08/espn-is-dr...eys-stock/

Maybe the WAC will take you back

42-3 second quarter

We have regular season basketball games with more viewers then your championship football game and make 4x what you do with the raise on our current trash contract.

By the way we'll have OTA bidders for our next contract and ESPN will be paying more for our third tier then you get for your entire media deal.

Of course you were talking trash to an SMU fan on football. That 42-3 and 4 dollars will get you some coffee . . .

B1G signed a HUGE increase
Sun Belt reportedly doubles their deal
CUSA reportedly doubles their deal

AAC is worth far more than those latter two. Regular season football ratings, for all games, conference controlled games, and intra conference games:
CUSA: 4.5 million (251K per rated game), 2.7 M (177K), 717K (71.7K)
SunBelt: 5.2M (400K), 2.3M (253K), 1.3M (164K)
mwc: 16 M (616K), 7.7M (407K), 5.4M (357K)
AAC: 40.7M (992K), 21.9M (728K), 17 M (631K)

That's football. Basketball numbers being discussed at length in other threads.

So, the mwc should be worth 3-4 times CUSA/SunBelt...which is around the same value as present deal...which is what they reportedly were offered early.

AAC should be at least twice the MWC, and roughly ten times CUSA/SunBelt. Depends on competitive bidding requirement, good negotiating on part of the AAC and tiered structure with multiple partners.

You do realize ESPN acquired FOX sports a few months ago, so where is the competitive bidding?

In the DIS earnings call this move was heralded to investors as a move to provide more affordable programming, not good for AAC.

If you want to hear about the landscape of sports programming listen to a DIS earnings call. Not only are they losing subscriber revenue but ad revenue is declining big time


"lower advertising revenue, higher programming costs and lower operating income from program sales.

The year-over-year decline in advertising revenue reflects lower political advertising at our owned stations and lower ad revenue at the ABC Network"

DIS Earnings call

(03-15-2018 11:29 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I'm hearing whisper numbers of $32 million each.

You do realize that is annually for the whole conference, 2.6 million per school. That is the word on the DIS street

This thread is comical, very little understanding of financials, economics and negotiation in this thread.
Who do you think is going to be bidding up a deal with ESPN? They just bought Fox so they won't have to negotiate. So you think CBS or Stadium is going to pay $120 million per year for the AAC

(03-15-2018 07:16 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 11:10 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:25 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:11 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:52 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Maybe the WAC will take you back

42-3 second quarter

We have regular season basketball games with more viewers then your championship football game and make 4x what you do with the raise on our current trash contract.

By the way we'll have OTA bidders for our next contract and ESPN will be paying more for our third tier then you get for your entire media deal.

Of course you were talking trash to an SMU fan on football. That 42-3 and 4 dollars will get you some coffee . . .

B1G signed a HUGE increase
Sun Belt reportedly doubles their deal
CUSA reportedly doubles their deal

AAC is worth far more than those latter two. Regular season football ratings, for all games, conference controlled games, and intra conference games:
CUSA: 4.5 million (251K per rated game), 2.7 M (177K), 717K (71.7K)
SunBelt: 5.2M (400K), 2.3M (253K), 1.3M (164K)
mwc: 16 M (616K), 7.7M (407K), 5.4M (357K)
AAC: 40.7M (992K), 21.9M (728K), 17 M (631K)

That's football. Basketball numbers being discussed at length in other threads.

So, the mwc should be worth 3-4 times CUSA/SunBelt...which is around the same value as present deal...which is what they reportedly were offered early.

AAC should be at least twice the MWC, and roughly ten times CUSA/SunBelt. Depends on competitive bidding requirement, good negotiating on part of the AAC and tiered structure with multiple partners.

You do realize ESPN acquired FOX sports a few months ago, so where is the competitive bidding?

In the DIS earnings call this move was heralded to investors as a move to provide more affordable programming, not good for AAC.

If you want to hear about the landscape of sports programming listen to a DIS earnings call. Not only are they losing subscriber revenue but ad revenue is declining big time


"lower advertising revenue, higher programming costs and lower operating income from program sales.

The year-over-year decline in advertising revenue reflects lower political advertising at our owned stations and lower ad revenue at the ABC Network"

DIS Earnings call

Fox didn’t sell fox sports at all. They sold everything they didn’t want to go all in on news and fox sports. FS1 is still and will always be owned by fox. To execute their plan they will need more content. They sold of some regional sports channels which weren’t part of their mission and were a headache to operate.

(03-15-2018 07:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  This thread is comical, very little understanding of financials, economics and negotiation in this thread.
Who do you think is going to be bidding up a deal with ESPN? They just bought Fox so they won't have to negotiate. So you think CBS or Stadium is going to pay $120 million per year for the AAC

Well thank God we have the Disney insider from community college in Louisiana here to spell things out for us.

(03-15-2018 07:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  This thread is comical, very little understanding of financials, economics and negotiation in this thread.
Who do you think is going to be bidding up a deal with ESPN? They just bought Fox so they won't have to negotiate. So you think CBS or Stadium is going to pay $120 million per year for the AAC

Brah still mad about that $500 dollar per team, 5 year deal they got with Toys R Us.

(03-15-2018 07:37 PM)zdiddy513 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 07:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  This thread is comical, very little understanding of financials, economics and negotiation in this thread.
Who do you think is going to be bidding up a deal with ESPN? They just bought Fox so they won't have to negotiate. So you think CBS or Stadium is going to pay $120 million per year for the AAC

Well thank God we have the Disney insider from community college in Louisiana here to spell things out for us.

Well golly gee, no problem. I'm just a hick from a junior college whose graduates earn more than University of Cincinnati graduates

356 (tie)
Louisiana Tech University
Research University, For Sports Fans, State School $50,300 $93,200 59% 20%

367 (tie)
University of Cincinnati-Main Campus
Research University, For Sports Fans, State School $50,700 $92,800 49% 18%

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report

Pat Forde
The last group to beat SMU this badly was the NCAA Committee on Infractions in the late 80s. La Tech 42, SMU 3 ... in the first half.

Brett McMurphy
Live look at the SMU Mustangs

(03-15-2018 08:02 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Pat Forde
The last group to beat SMU this badly was the NCAA Committee on Infractions in the late 80s. La Tech 42, SMU 3 ... in the first half.

You act like that hurts - it doesn’t.

We’ve been warcrimed worse by Houston, Navy and Memphis

Who knew that SMU triggers La Tech fans as much as we do UNT fans

(03-15-2018 07:16 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 11:10 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:25 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:11 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:52 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Maybe the WAC will take you back

42-3 second quarter

We have regular season basketball games with more viewers then your championship football game and make 4x what you do with the raise on our current trash contract.

By the way we'll have OTA bidders for our next contract and ESPN will be paying more for our third tier then you get for your entire media deal.

Of course you were talking trash to an SMU fan on football. That 42-3 and 4 dollars will get you some coffee . . .

B1G signed a HUGE increase
Sun Belt reportedly doubles their deal
CUSA reportedly doubles their deal

AAC is worth far more than those latter two. Regular season football ratings, for all games, conference controlled games, and intra conference games:
CUSA: 4.5 million (251K per rated game), 2.7 M (177K), 717K (71.7K)
SunBelt: 5.2M (400K), 2.3M (253K), 1.3M (164K)
mwc: 16 M (616K), 7.7M (407K), 5.4M (357K)
AAC: 40.7M (992K), 21.9M (728K), 17 M (631K)

That's football. Basketball numbers being discussed at length in other threads.

So, the mwc should be worth 3-4 times CUSA/SunBelt...which is around the same value as present deal...which is what they reportedly were offered early.

AAC should be at least twice the MWC, and roughly ten times CUSA/SunBelt. Depends on competitive bidding requirement, good negotiating on part of the AAC and tiered structure with multiple partners.

You do realize ESPN acquired FOX sports a few months ago, so where is the competitive bidding?

In the DIS earnings call this move was heralded to investors as a move to provide more affordable programming, not good for AAC.

If you want to hear about the landscape of sports programming listen to a DIS earnings call. Not only are they losing subscriber revenue but ad revenue is declining big time


"lower advertising revenue, higher programming costs and lower operating income from program sales.

The year-over-year decline in advertising revenue reflects lower political advertising at our owned stations and lower ad revenue at the ABC Network"

DIS Earnings call

Should we just assume that you'll continue to ignore the fact that AAC has ten times the viewers of CUSA or Sun Belt? That would save us some time.

Others have addressed that Fox actually IS still in the sports business.
ESPN buying up the Fox regionals means they NEED CONTENT.
CBS as a bidder? Well, they do love them some Navy.
And in looking for bidders, you overlook NBC. You know the network that bid on AAC when it looked like a failing conference

But mostly, SunBelt and CUSA doubled their deals and the AAC has ten times the viewers.

Just ignore him all. He is a loser whose only joy in life is to come here and rile people up. He isnt worth anyones time.

(03-15-2018 10:32 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Just ignore him all. He is a loser whose only joy in life is to come here and rile people up. He isnt worth anyones time.

He’s too much fun though

(03-15-2018 07:16 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 11:10 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:25 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:11 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:52 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Maybe the WAC will take you back

42-3 second quarter

We have regular season basketball games with more viewers then your championship football game and make 4x what you do with the raise on our current trash contract.

By the way we'll have OTA bidders for our next contract and ESPN will be paying more for our third tier then you get for your entire media deal.

Of course you were talking trash to an SMU fan on football. That 42-3 and 4 dollars will get you some coffee . . .

B1G signed a HUGE increase
Sun Belt reportedly doubles their deal
CUSA reportedly doubles their deal

AAC is worth far more than those latter two. Regular season football ratings, for all games, conference controlled games, and intra conference games:
CUSA: 4.5 million (251K per rated game), 2.7 M (177K), 717K (71.7K)
SunBelt: 5.2M (400K), 2.3M (253K), 1.3M (164K)
mwc: 16 M (616K), 7.7M (407K), 5.4M (357K)
AAC: 40.7M (992K), 21.9M (728K), 17 M (631K)

That's football. Basketball numbers being discussed at length in other threads.

So, the mwc should be worth 3-4 times CUSA/SunBelt...which is around the same value as present deal...which is what they reportedly were offered early.

AAC should be at least twice the MWC, and roughly ten times CUSA/SunBelt. Depends on competitive bidding requirement, good negotiating on part of the AAC and tiered structure with multiple partners.

You do realize ESPN acquired FOX sports a few months ago, so where is the competitive bidding?

In the DIS earnings call this move was heralded to investors as a move to provide more affordable programming, not good for AAC.

If you want to hear about the landscape of sports programming listen to a DIS earnings call. Not only are they losing subscriber revenue but ad revenue is declining big time


"lower advertising revenue, higher programming costs and lower operating income from program sales.

The year-over-year decline in advertising revenue reflects lower political advertising at our owned stations and lower ad revenue at the ABC Network"

DIS Earnings call

This is what you don’t understand. Contracts that make you money aren’t where you cut your costs. You dump the stuff that doesn’t make money. That said, if you want to cut a contract that makes money, someone else will be happy to snap up that media property.

FOX was never going to be a player for the AAC. They have all the content they need. ESPN, NBC, CBS-Sports, and possibly Amazon are the entities I think will seriously be pursuing AAC content.