(07-03-2019 09:34 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Screw ESPN+.
Just put us on Stadium and Stadium Plus.

You guys are looking at MySpace and a some local UHF stations at this point.

I’m not keen to Facebook games. But being on digital TV and streaming on our digital network via Stadium’s platform is fine with me being a true cord cutter.
I really hope Stadium will be able to show MW football games OTA in the 2020 season.

(07-03-2019 09:34 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Screw ESPN+.
Just put us on Stadium and Stadium Plus.

You guys are looking at MySpace and a some local UHF stations at this point.

Tom turned them down

(07-03-2019 09:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:34 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Screw ESPN+.
Just put us on Stadium and Stadium Plus.

You guys are looking at MySpace and a some local UHF stations at this point.

Tom turned them down

Because Spatula City refused to pay for advertising during any MWC games....

Article is full of misinformation.

The AAC production costs will not be millions of dollars, the old Texas guy is thinking what it cost for ESPN to show up for a football game broadcast, the trucks, crew, etc for a temporary set up.

Also doesn't understand how the plus part of our deal works i.e. we have many more linear games for football and basketball.

(07-04-2019 01:10 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Article is full of misinformation.

The AAC production costs will not be millions of dollars, the old Texas guy is thinking what it cost for ESPN to show up for a football game broadcast, the trucks, crew, etc for a temporary set up.

Also doesn't understand how the plus part of our deal works i.e. we have many more linear games for football and basketball.

All these articles and people are simply regurgitating the same info contained in that San Diego article a month or so ago. There are FCS schools who produce every basketball and football game for ESPN+. Two million would represent almost 25% of the total athletic budget for some of those schools. No way the expenses are that high. I think the issue there was the author misunderstood the source. My guess is the source was giving an extreme high end estimate of the one time up front infrastructure costs and not the typical annual recurring costs of actually producing the content.

I recently went ahead and purchased a subscription to the "Athletic". One interesting article there talked about where the AAC might go for new members. One thing that was a little disturbing was the article indicated that the realignment weary AAC might look at a more stable middle of the road candidate that would be a more stable long term member of the conference (as in, an unlikely candidate to get poached by a P5 anytime soon). Didnt like the sound of that at all. Hopefully that view was not really from a source within the conference, but more the opinion of the writer. Frankly---it wasnt clear if it was opinion or background info from sources.

(07-03-2019 06:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So we now know at least one reason a MW front range school might reach out to the AAC. The expert in this article suggests that the next MW deal will probably fall somewhere between $2.8 million and $666K. Now, I suspect it will be above $666K because I think ESPN+ will be interested. The question really is "How interested?"



“They’re currently between the CBS deal and the ESPN deal somewhere in the $16, $17 million-a-year range. If ESPN-Plus is interested, they could double that easily. If ESPN is not interested, they could be looking at a 50 percent haircut.”


https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unl...e-1700826/

If this is accurate I wouldn’t be surprised if they all reach out. I mean it just goes to show how shortsighted Boise was backing out. Sure they got a great deal but those terms are very likely to change with the new tv deals and be more equal to all members. Now that they pissed off the American they have very few options to alter that narrative so their power is greatly diminished. Guess we will see how things play out.

(07-03-2019 08:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Yikes... Doesn't look good at all for the MWC... If I am a mwc member I'll get the AAC on the horn asap... One huge problem though, majority of their members don't bring much to the table.

Look at the bottom-right corner of this page and looks like MW brings just as much to the table as AAC...
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

(07-04-2019 08:23 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Yikes... Doesn't look good at all for the MWC... If I am a mwc member I'll get the AAC on the horn asap... One huge problem though, majority of their members don't bring much to the table.

Look at the bottom-right corner of this page and looks like MW brings just as much to the table as AAC...
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

The discussion is about the tv money and expansion. If a team can get a raise from $1.1 million to $6 million just for fb only you take it. Not to mention the ny6 money and more exposure.

(07-04-2019 08:23 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Yikes... Doesn't look good at all for the MWC... If I am a mwc member I'll get the AAC on the horn asap... One huge problem though, majority of their members don't bring much to the table.

Look at the bottom-right corner of this page and looks like MW brings just as much to the table as AAC...
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

The AAC looks for more money for its members. Performance, unfortunately IMO, is an underlying consideration only.

Also, the AAC finished higher than the MWC in the Massey Index for three out of the past four years. Over the past four years, the MWC averages 8th place while the AAC averages 7th place.

(07-04-2019 08:48 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 08:23 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Yikes... Doesn't look good at all for the MWC... If I am a mwc member I'll get the AAC on the horn asap... One huge problem though, majority of their members don't bring much to the table.

Look at the bottom-right corner of this page and looks like MW brings just as much to the table as AAC...
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

The AAC looks for more money for its members. Performance, unfortunately IMO, is an underlying consideration only.

Also, the AAC finished higher than the MWC in the Massey Index for three out of the past four years. Over the past four years, the MWC averages 8th place while the AAC averages 7th place.

After this season no more UConn pulling down the conference rankings too.

(07-04-2019 01:10 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Article is full of misinformation.

The AAC production costs will not be millions of dollars, the old Texas guy is thinking what it cost for ESPN to show up for a football game broadcast, the trucks, crew, etc for a temporary set up.

Also doesn't understand how the plus part of our deal works i.e. we have many more linear games for football and basketball.

According to this article, it costs Pac 12 schools 15-25k to put on a live olympic sporting event. It will be less to put on ESPN + but when you factor in the amount of events school will have to produce, it will be add up. That guy's numbers are accurate.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...Pac12.aspx

(07-04-2019 08:23 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Yikes... Doesn't look good at all for the MWC... If I am a mwc member I'll get the AAC on the horn asap... One huge problem though, majority of their members don't bring much to the table.

Look at the bottom-right corner of this page and looks like MW brings just as much to the table as AAC...
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

TV Networks want eyeballs...something AAC has delivered to them over and over again...from ABC to ESPN especially.

If MWC and AAC were really equal in value...then ESPN would be offering the MWC a $1 Billion Deal just like they gave the AAC.

(07-04-2019 08:23 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  Yikes... Doesn't look good at all for the MWC... If I am a mwc member I'll get the AAC on the horn asap... One huge problem though, majority of their members don't bring much to the table.

Look at the bottom-right corner of this page and looks like MW brings just as much to the table as AAC...
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Once in 5 years. Big deal. Now subtract the boat anchor UConn football program and I bet the MW finishes behind the AAC in every year since the AAC started play on 2013. Besides, the Massey rating arent the ratings ESPN cares about.

(07-04-2019 09:39 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  According to this article, it costs Pac 12 schools 15-25k to put on a live olympic sporting event.

And that was 4 years ago...

(07-04-2019 09:39 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 01:10 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Article is full of misinformation.

The AAC production costs will not be millions of dollars, the old Texas guy is thinking what it cost for ESPN to show up for a football game broadcast, the trucks, crew, etc for a temporary set up.

Also doesn't understand how the plus part of our deal works i.e. we have many more linear games for football and basketball.

According to this article, it costs Pac 12 schools 15-25k to put on a live olympic sporting event. It will be less to put on ESPN + but when you factor in the amount of events school will have to produce, it will be add up. That guy's numbers are accurate.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...Pac12.aspx

Let's start at the beginning, you just sighted a 4 year old article.

Running all the equipment for a full on network production (which is what the PAC network is) is quite a bit different than sending the stream to ESPN who does the vast majority of the actual broadcasting.

Further considering the MAC and CUSA get paid something like 500k a year and do this is a strong indicator that the costs are in the 100ks a year tops. Unless you think they signed a deal that cost them 2m for a 400k pay off?

(07-04-2019 09:39 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 01:10 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Article is full of misinformation.

The AAC production costs will not be millions of dollars, the old Texas guy is thinking what it cost for ESPN to show up for a football game broadcast, the trucks, crew, etc for a temporary set up.

Also doesn't understand how the plus part of our deal works i.e. we have many more linear games for football and basketball.

According to this article, it costs Pac 12 schools 15-25k to put on a live olympic sporting event. It will be less to put on ESPN + but when you factor in the amount of events school will have to produce, it will be add up. That guy's numbers are accurate.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...Pac12.aspx

production people are going to be on staff..so they wont cost anymore or less..and 99% chance they hire college students and dont pay them or very little

after the production equipment is already built (which is the only major cost)... do you think its is going to cost millions to carry the camera equiment from the tennis field to the soccer field

anyone thinking it will cost 7mill has a crazy bias..which you as a uconn fan probably do

1) the aac by choice is putting so many Olympics on espn+.. if it cost that much why would we agree to it, especially when we are the ones that likely wanted it..espn doesnt care about aac golf...

2) 70% of it is already broadcast on the aac digital network..we werent losing money on broadcast before on 2 mil each before

3)it is already confirmed espn will be helping with the production costs on espn+ outside of the tv money especially for the revenue sports

(07-04-2019 10:10 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:39 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 01:10 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  Article is full of misinformation.

The AAC production costs will not be millions of dollars, the old Texas guy is thinking what it cost for ESPN to show up for a football game broadcast, the trucks, crew, etc for a temporary set up.

Also doesn't understand how the plus part of our deal works i.e. we have many more linear games for football and basketball.

According to this article, it costs Pac 12 schools 15-25k to put on a live olympic sporting event. It will be less to put on ESPN + but when you factor in the amount of events school will have to produce, it will be add up. That guy's numbers are accurate.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...Pac12.aspx

Let's start at the beginning, you just sighted a 4 year old article.

Running all the equipment for a full on network production (which is what the PAC network is) is quite a bit different than sending the stream to ESPN who does the vast majority of the actual broadcasting.

Further considering the MAC and CUSA get paid something like 500k a year and do this is a strong indicator that the costs are in the 100ks a year tops. Unless you think they signed a deal that cost them 2m for a 400k pay off?

Nailed it ^^^

Glad uconn will soon no longer appear on our football schedule... That I like.

There are rumors James Madison interested in American.

What kind of school are they? I'd stay 11 if no can't-resist-candidate

(07-04-2019 10:32 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  There are rumors James Madison interested in American.

What kind of school are they? I'd stay 11 if no can't-resist-candidate

Not a national university

Terrible basketball

2 year transition to FBS

There were times when Boise and SDSU joining American. What is going on this time around? Circumstances changed?

If geography is the issue, it wasn't last time. MWC sucks in TV $$. Why not extend to the western timezone and new market?

What is the narrative this time? BYU Football only and SDSU or Boise?