(06-22-2018 03:21 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

Since people have already ripped apart your incorrect narrative on diminishing returns and game locations I'll just tidy up the last messy stuff.

All media trends indicate at least 4x. The ratings for cusa and the Sunbelt remained flat and the premier league ratings have been fairly consitant as have the WWE live events. All saw a multiple increase. The AAC ratings have grown year by year and we're heavily under valued to start. Even given that a 4x increase would put us at 8 million a piece. But would also require us to add in the value of the increased inventory of football (Navy and their cbssports deal) the extra value of Notre Dame, us selling the conference championship game seperately, and the added games from Wichita. Making 8-10 million the most likely number.

Add in we have multiple bidders and the actual value of the inventory as established by viewers and 10-12 million is certainly possible meaning 8-12 million is reasonable. I think third tier rights may be some of the strongest of the P6 with our Olympic sports all being high level. Baseball in particular provides a ton of filler games most involving strong programs.

When Aresco talks P6 money I am sure he is being a little over exuberent. But since this bidding will be like a silent auction I don't mind him priming the pump and he has the CBS sports Navy deal to use as support.

20 million is the bottom end of media rights for the A5. When he says p6 money I think 15 million or so. Can we get that much? I don't know. 12 seems workable with some aggressive bidding maybe higher.

Anything over 12 and solid third tier rights returned to the schools will let programs like UConn, Cincy, Memphis or the Florida twins sell the third tier and approach p6 money.

Ripped apart? Mess? lol. You're very aggressive and defensive over this when its simply just a couple fans talking about what they expect to see.

Lets be clear... I'd LOVE to get $12mil. And I'm not someone who's stubborn and would rather be right than get $12mil and be wrong, lol. I'll take being wrong all day on that, lol.

I just don't think everything scales linearly like that, and I think there is more supply than demand when talking about how much a network would be willing to pay vs. how much we could generate for a network that didn't already have P5 inventory. (sidenote, I dont know what network has what. Are there any major networks that don't have P5 inventory already? I'm not aware of one but if there is one that wants to start playing in the college football space, that would be great news)

I'm all in favor of Aresco and crew throwing out huge numbers trying to get some hype around the blind bidding process you're talking about. I encourage it...

I'm just keeping my expectations in that $6-$8mil range for the many reasons I stated. That's what I'm expecting. And I'll streak naked if I'm wrong, lol...

So I guess the fact that the UFC, MLS, and Premier league contracts fall in line with the Big X-ii is just accidental?

I'm being accurate not aggressive. Your argument is basically I just don't feel like we will get that much.

Never mind the mountain of actual facts that are raised.

6-8 million would be extremely low. You're original idea of 4 million (our current deal 2x) would be even worse considering UConn is making a nice little sum off women's basketball.

P6 money is 15 million. I don't know if we can expect that but 10-12 isn't unrealistic, although it may be on the high end.

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

4 Mill per team is awesome?

Can't see the AAC going with this as a total package. Especially UCF with the money spent.

If this is what you expect, you better have another school to follow.

(06-22-2018 03:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

4 Mill per team is awesome?

Can't see the AAC going with this as a total package. Especially UCF with the money spent.

If this is what you expect, you better have another school to follow.

Why would I need another school to be a fan of? lol. I’ve been a fan since the MAC days. I don’t need UCF to have a big TV contract to root for them, lol...

And ya, the $4mil would be good, but “awesome” is probably strong wording. It would still be 4x more than any G5 team not named Boise State.

I’d be happy with $6mil, and stoked with anything more than that...

I am sure the President and AD agree.

(06-22-2018 03:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:21 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

Since people have already ripped apart your incorrect narrative on diminishing returns and game locations I'll just tidy up the last messy stuff.

All media trends indicate at least 4x. The ratings for cusa and the Sunbelt remained flat and the premier league ratings have been fairly consitant as have the WWE live events. All saw a multiple increase. The AAC ratings have grown year by year and we're heavily under valued to start. Even given that a 4x increase would put us at 8 million a piece. But would also require us to add in the value of the increased inventory of football (Navy and their cbssports deal) the extra value of Notre Dame, us selling the conference championship game seperately, and the added games from Wichita. Making 8-10 million the most likely number.

Add in we have multiple bidders and the actual value of the inventory as established by viewers and 10-12 million is certainly possible meaning 8-12 million is reasonable. I think third tier rights may be some of the strongest of the P6 with our Olympic sports all being high level. Baseball in particular provides a ton of filler games most involving strong programs.

When Aresco talks P6 money I am sure he is being a little over exuberent. But since this bidding will be like a silent auction I don't mind him priming the pump and he has the CBS sports Navy deal to use as support.

20 million is the bottom end of media rights for the A5. When he says p6 money I think 15 million or so. Can we get that much? I don't know. 12 seems workable with some aggressive bidding maybe higher.

Anything over 12 and solid third tier rights returned to the schools will let programs like UConn, Cincy, Memphis or the Florida twins sell the third tier and approach p6 money.

Ripped apart? Mess? lol. You're very aggressive and defensive over this when its simply just a couple fans talking about what they expect to see.

Lets be clear... I'd LOVE to get $12mil. And I'm not someone who's stubborn and would rather be right than get $12mil and be wrong, lol. I'll take being wrong all day on that, lol.

I just don't think everything scales linearly like that, and I think there is more supply than demand when talking about how much a network would be willing to pay vs. how much we could generate for a network that didn't already have P5 inventory. (sidenote, I dont know what network has what. Are there any major networks that don't have P5 inventory already? I'm not aware of one but if there is one that wants to start playing in the college football space, that would be great news)

I'm all in favor of Aresco and crew throwing out huge numbers trying to get some hype around the blind bidding process you're talking about. I encourage it...

I'm just keeping my expectations in that $6-$8mil range for the many reasons I stated. That's what I'm expecting. And I'll streak naked if I'm wrong, lol...

So I guess the fact that the UFC, MLS, and Premier league contracts fall in line with the Big X-ii is just accidental?

I'm being accurate not aggressive. Your argument is basically I just don't feel like we will get that much.

Never mind the mountain of actual facts that are raised.

6-8 million would be extremely low. You're original idea of 4 million (our current deal 2x) would be even worse considering UConn is making a nice little sum off women's basketball.

P6 money is 15 million. I don't know if we can expect that but 10-12 isn't unrealistic, although it may be on the high end.

Things like UFC are their own individual forms of entertainment though. They are the only form of supply. There isn’t a ton of supply so the demand is higher. AAC just just one of the many offerings of college football. There’s a lot more supply of college football, and when we’re offering a 2nd rate product compared to the premier college football available... that’s tough.

I hope you’re right though...

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:58 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  Except for all of his talk about "in a vacuum" talk ignores that we have multiple bidders not named ESPN.

Or the fact that our coverage in the ESPN family of networks has increased and our games covered over the air fall in line with other P6 teams.

Once again that viewpoint doesn't match data points of media deal trends for college sports or live content in general.

He feels like this, what we have here is conformation bias. He's decided we aren't getting money, now he is finding evidence to support and ignoring contrary info.

No different than ESPN won't have money because the sorts bubble has burst, they fired on air talent, all while ignoring their generally aggressive business stance and all the places they are spending money.

No. There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

If we think linearly there's five networks for saturday games: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPNnews. You have slots starting at noon ET, then 3:30/4 ET, 7/8 ET. That's 15 slots, plus an additional 2 slots per channel on Thursdays and Fridays? that gets you to 19, so 20 slots will probably come with one west coast game a week on saturday nights (or even on Fridays at 10 PM Eastern).

As far as I'm concerned AAC has earned 6-8 million at a minimum. We won't get all all of our revenues because ESPN still needs us to help subsidize their big P5 contracts. We're like the 400 person marketing class-the money gets made, helps pays the bills for the rest of the university, but the teacher gets paid 60k a year while professors are making two-three times that.

(06-22-2018 04:24 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:21 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:52 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  ...and on that note, getting 2-4x more than we're currently getting would still be AWESOME. It would completely separate us from the other G4 conferences.

Since people have already ripped apart your incorrect narrative on diminishing returns and game locations I'll just tidy up the last messy stuff.

All media trends indicate at least 4x. The ratings for cusa and the Sunbelt remained flat and the premier league ratings have been fairly consitant as have the WWE live events. All saw a multiple increase. The AAC ratings have grown year by year and we're heavily under valued to start. Even given that a 4x increase would put us at 8 million a piece. But would also require us to add in the value of the increased inventory of football (Navy and their cbssports deal) the extra value of Notre Dame, us selling the conference championship game seperately, and the added games from Wichita. Making 8-10 million the most likely number.

Add in we have multiple bidders and the actual value of the inventory as established by viewers and 10-12 million is certainly possible meaning 8-12 million is reasonable. I think third tier rights may be some of the strongest of the P6 with our Olympic sports all being high level. Baseball in particular provides a ton of filler games most involving strong programs.

When Aresco talks P6 money I am sure he is being a little over exuberent. But since this bidding will be like a silent auction I don't mind him priming the pump and he has the CBS sports Navy deal to use as support.

20 million is the bottom end of media rights for the A5. When he says p6 money I think 15 million or so. Can we get that much? I don't know. 12 seems workable with some aggressive bidding maybe higher.

Anything over 12 and solid third tier rights returned to the schools will let programs like UConn, Cincy, Memphis or the Florida twins sell the third tier and approach p6 money.

Ripped apart? Mess? lol. You're very aggressive and defensive over this when its simply just a couple fans talking about what they expect to see.

Lets be clear... I'd LOVE to get $12mil. And I'm not someone who's stubborn and would rather be right than get $12mil and be wrong, lol. I'll take being wrong all day on that, lol.

I just don't think everything scales linearly like that, and I think there is more supply than demand when talking about how much a network would be willing to pay vs. how much we could generate for a network that didn't already have P5 inventory. (sidenote, I dont know what network has what. Are there any major networks that don't have P5 inventory already? I'm not aware of one but if there is one that wants to start playing in the college football space, that would be great news)

I'm all in favor of Aresco and crew throwing out huge numbers trying to get some hype around the blind bidding process you're talking about. I encourage it...

I'm just keeping my expectations in that $6-$8mil range for the many reasons I stated. That's what I'm expecting. And I'll streak naked if I'm wrong, lol...

So I guess the fact that the UFC, MLS, and Premier league contracts fall in line with the Big X-ii is just accidental?

I'm being accurate not aggressive. Your argument is basically I just don't feel like we will get that much.

Never mind the mountain of actual facts that are raised.

6-8 million would be extremely low. You're original idea of 4 million (our current deal 2x) would be even worse considering UConn is making a nice little sum off women's basketball.

P6 money is 15 million. I don't know if we can expect that but 10-12 isn't unrealistic, although it may be on the high end.

Things like UFC are their own individual forms of entertainment though. They are the only form of supply. There isn’t a ton of supply so the demand is higher. AAC just just one of the many offerings of college football. There’s a lot more supply of college football, and when we’re offering a 2nd rate product compared to the premier college football available... that’s tough.

I hope you’re right though...

All of those media deals fall in the same range. They pay per viewer roughly equal, which is true for conferences other than the big X-ii.


You still haven't shown any facts to support your theory, just a lot of I feel.

Nor is there a lot of inventory. The A5 is locked up till 2025 and as has been shown the group gets no where near our numbers. NBC shows infomercials on Saturdays in football season.

Our product isn't second rate. When compared to the other options right now (the group or nbe) our product is vastly better

Are you sure you're a UCF fan because this has troll written all over it.

(06-22-2018 01:52 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 11:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  There is simply a law of diminishing returns my man. I get your point about multiple bidders... and the bidder we present the most value to would be a bidder that doesnt currently have any inventory. That's where our "eyeballs generated" gets full value.

If say, NetworkXYZ has the Big10 just to use a random example... and they wanted to buy rights to the AAC as well. They now have the inventory of both leagues. They obviously aren't going to show our games over say, an Ohio State game in their prime slot. So, now we're looking at their secondary slot. NetworkXYZ now can either choose to broadcast a game from our inventory in that slot, or one from their Big10 inventory.

Lets say their top options from each set of inventory are between a great game like UCF vs. Memphis, or Nebraska vs. Iowa. And they think the AAC matchup will generate 3 million viewers vs. the Big10 matchup that will only generate say 2 million. So, they choose to broadcast our game instead of the the Big10 one.

NetworkXYZ now hasn't gained 3 million in viewers by now having our inventory to pull from. They've only gained 1 million b/c they already had something the could have broadcast in that slot that they had already paid for. Ours generates more viewership in that scenario... but what is that 1 million in additional viewership gained worth to them?

THATS what our value is to a network that already has plenty of inventory to pull from. Our max value is only recognized by a network that doesn't have any inventory to begin with... where they're gaining the 3 million viewers in that scenario that the wouldn't have previously had. If all the bidders already have inventory to pull from... the million dollar question is how much additional value are we bringing to the table for them?

This also operates under the condition that each network has a limited number of broadcast slots (aka - only a couple of channels and limited time slots) where they have to choose one game over another (or as a sport analogy... bench the Big10 game and make the AAC one the starter lol). If a network had infinite channels to broadcast on, and could broadcast all of their inventory, then you'd move closer to gaining full value... but that isnt the case unless talking about an internet based network. And even then... the games would start to cannibalize themselves in terms of viewership so you aren't getting full [i[potential[/i] viewership for every game b/c many are played at the same time and the total sum of college football viewers is now being distributed across a larger number of games.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

Right... so then you see them intentionally taking games off of linear TV that they would normally put on linear... and ONLY putting them on ESPN+ in order to create more value for that product.... which in then turn creates more open linear broadcast slots?

I'm still not convinced that they don't have enough inventory to backfill out of their current inventory, unless they are just intending to put a lot of their current inventory only on ESPN+, creating a much larger demand on their part for content to put on linear?

As far as week night games... yes, this is where we can create more value b/c the better P5's that generate good viewership aren't playing on weeknights... so among the G5, we have a significant advantage over our competition for those slots (CUSA, etc).

But... again, we'll have to play a lot of week night games to generate that value.... which many on here wont like.

No--thats not what Im saying. Lets assume, (since its what ESPN execs actually did), that the games ESPN had on linear TV were there because the decision makers at ESPN felt those were the best games in thier inventory for the network and time slot. Furthermore, I think we can infer that the ESPN inventory that was broadcast only on ESPN3 was there because it was deemed inferior to what was being aired on the linear networks.

So, if the AAC is filling 25-30 linear slots last season---then IF ESPN gets outbid for the AAC---then ESPN would be stuck filling those empty linear AAC slots with the same Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA inventory that was judged to be inferior "ESPN-3 only" material in 2017. Furthermore, with the hope that the new ESPN+ subscription service will be significant money maker---ESPN is forced to degrade the value of ESPN+ as the best of the newly added FBS inventory from the MAC/SB/CUSA will largely be available on the linear channels (no real need to subscribe to ESPN+ for many for whom seeing the top games is enough).

My point is---if they dont retain the AAC---the hole created effectively degrades both the linear and ESPN+ platforms. Thats why I can almost guarantee they will bid enough to insure that they get at least half of our 1rst and 2nd tier rights (about 20-30 games). They dont have to be the top bidder---but they cant finish lower than 2nd without it creating issues. Thats basically how they handed the Big10. They knew the top AAC games would be adequate to fill the lower/mid-tier Indiana vs Purdue type Big10 slots. So, they let the top tier and its 250 million price tag go and ended up snagging the second B10 package for $150 million.

The problem ESPN may have with the AAC is the price point is so much lower. They probably wont be looking at just one other big bidder. ESPN may find themselves bidding against far more smaller active bidders willing to offer competitive prices when your talking just 50 million a year and not 250 million a year. The more affordable price allows more networks to give it a shot in that more affordable arena. For instance---if Amazon is looking to try out the FBS broadcasting business---a 6 year 50 million dollar a yr deal is pretty cheap trial run. Much less risk than a 6 year Big10 1.5 billion dollar deal.

I just see the proven ratings track record and the competitive landscape providing a much more advantageous backdrop to the 2019 AAC negotiations than the armageddon like scenario that existed in 2013. We are a proven big bang for the buck property thats easy to make money on. Thats going to appeal to many more networks than a completely new unproven product on the verge of total collapse.

(06-18-2018 02:22 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:41 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 09:41 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:33 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 12:55 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  Ha, I wish, but t4he American is simply to young of a conference. If we can hit 10+ mil this go round and continue on the same trajectory that figure wouldn't be as impossible as it seems now on our 3rd Contract

Here are the facts...This is why the AAC is going to get paid.....

'15-'17 total games over 3 million viewers: AAC 21, mwc 3, MAC 3, BYU 4
'15-'17 total games over 2 million viewers: AAC 37, CUSA 6, MAC 9, mwc 11, SBC 2, BYU 6
'15-'17 total games over 1 million viewers: AAC 58, CUSA 23, MAC 21, mwc 31, SBC 3, BYU 13

'15-'17 non-bowl games over 3 million viewers: AAC 15, MAC 2, BYU 2
'15-'17 non-bowl games over 2 million viewers: AAC 25, CUSA 3, MAC 1, mwc 5, BYU 3
'15-'17 non-bowl games over 1 million viewers: AAC 39, CUSA 3, MAC 6, mwc 16, SBC 1, BYU 11,

'15-'17 conference controlled games over 3 million viewers: AAC 8, G4s 0, BYU 0
'15-'17 conference controlled games over 2 million viewers: AAC 14, mwc 1, BYU 2
'15-'17 conference controlled games over 1 million viewers: AAC 24, MAC 2, mwc 3, BYU 6

The AAC is looking for a total media payout of close to $12 million per year as per the Memphis AD who chairs the AAC Committee on Media. I think they get it... I also think in 2025 they get a tie in to a NY6 Bowl

Memphis prez is on the committee, not the Memphis AD. One of them said, months ago, $6 to 8M a year, and the other (I forget who said what) later said $8 to $10M a year, unless you have heard something more recent.

How much of this $8 to $10 million is leaked just to create the price environment?

Zero, and from the way Aresco is talking I would assume this is the bottom end.

There have been a bunch of breakdowns based on per viewer numbers that all say 10 million +.

Add in we have multiple bidders and you see pretty easily where Aresco's positive outlook is coming from.

Now the talk of p6 money is positioning for negotiation. Aresco is an Auctioneer right now. He has 3 bidders most likely and wants them to bid over each other. He's hoping to start the bidding right about 3/4 of what he thinks the max is and then see if he can get them to bid up to the max or over it.

Perfect storm would be for one of these monied new media companies (or several) to need/be looking for sports content for one of their new streaming services (of which there seem to be hundreds now) at the same time negotiations kick up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-22-2018 04:47 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 04:24 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:21 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Since people have already ripped apart your incorrect narrative on diminishing returns and game locations I'll just tidy up the last messy stuff.

All media trends indicate at least 4x. The ratings for cusa and the Sunbelt remained flat and the premier league ratings have been fairly consitant as have the WWE live events. All saw a multiple increase. The AAC ratings have grown year by year and we're heavily under valued to start. Even given that a 4x increase would put us at 8 million a piece. But would also require us to add in the value of the increased inventory of football (Navy and their cbssports deal) the extra value of Notre Dame, us selling the conference championship game seperately, and the added games from Wichita. Making 8-10 million the most likely number.

Add in we have multiple bidders and the actual value of the inventory as established by viewers and 10-12 million is certainly possible meaning 8-12 million is reasonable. I think third tier rights may be some of the strongest of the P6 with our Olympic sports all being high level. Baseball in particular provides a ton of filler games most involving strong programs.

When Aresco talks P6 money I am sure he is being a little over exuberent. But since this bidding will be like a silent auction I don't mind him priming the pump and he has the CBS sports Navy deal to use as support.

20 million is the bottom end of media rights for the A5. When he says p6 money I think 15 million or so. Can we get that much? I don't know. 12 seems workable with some aggressive bidding maybe higher.

Anything over 12 and solid third tier rights returned to the schools will let programs like UConn, Cincy, Memphis or the Florida twins sell the third tier and approach p6 money.

Ripped apart? Mess? lol. You're very aggressive and defensive over this when its simply just a couple fans talking about what they expect to see.

Lets be clear... I'd LOVE to get $12mil. And I'm not someone who's stubborn and would rather be right than get $12mil and be wrong, lol. I'll take being wrong all day on that, lol.

I just don't think everything scales linearly like that, and I think there is more supply than demand when talking about how much a network would be willing to pay vs. how much we could generate for a network that didn't already have P5 inventory. (sidenote, I dont know what network has what. Are there any major networks that don't have P5 inventory already? I'm not aware of one but if there is one that wants to start playing in the college football space, that would be great news)

I'm all in favor of Aresco and crew throwing out huge numbers trying to get some hype around the blind bidding process you're talking about. I encourage it...

I'm just keeping my expectations in that $6-$8mil range for the many reasons I stated. That's what I'm expecting. And I'll streak naked if I'm wrong, lol...

So I guess the fact that the UFC, MLS, and Premier league contracts fall in line with the Big X-ii is just accidental?

I'm being accurate not aggressive. Your argument is basically I just don't feel like we will get that much.

Never mind the mountain of actual facts that are raised.

6-8 million would be extremely low. You're original idea of 4 million (our current deal 2x) would be even worse considering UConn is making a nice little sum off women's basketball.

P6 money is 15 million. I don't know if we can expect that but 10-12 isn't unrealistic, although it may be on the high end.

Things like UFC are their own individual forms of entertainment though. They are the only form of supply. There isn’t a ton of supply so the demand is higher. AAC just just one of the many offerings of college football. There’s a lot more supply of college football, and when we’re offering a 2nd rate product compared to the premier college football available... that’s tough.

I hope you’re right though...

All of those media deals fall in the same range. They pay per viewer roughly equal, which is true for conferences other than the big X-ii.


You still haven't shown any facts to support your theory, just a lot of I feel.

Nor is there a lot of inventory. The A5 is locked up till 2025 and as has been shown the group gets no where near our numbers. NBC shows infomercials on Saturdays in football season.

Our product isn't second rate. When compared to the other options right now (the group or nbe) our product is vastly better

Are you sure you're a UCF fan because this has troll written all over it.

It makes sense though that they’re being paid on a per viewer basis... b/c in general, they’re the only ones that can generate those viewers b/c they’re relatively unique content (Bellator or whatever not withstanding for the MMA hardcores on here lol. The viewership gap with those is like high-end P5 vs FCS lol).

Regarding the “2nd rate” comment, that does come off with a negative connotation that I wasn’t intending. Secondary Tier maybe? I’m not going to pretend that our conference as a whole generates the same level of viewership content that say the SEC does. It doesn’t. But I didn’t mean that in a negative way.

Regarding the troll thing... I’m in a weird spot with that b/c I’m usually referred to among my fiends as the unapologetic homer lol. I think UCF could go undefeated again this year and get our crack at a playoff spot lol. But when you’re talking business and sales... that’s what I do for a living... and I think very differently on that. I’m always looking at the leverage. And while I hope you’re right, I’m not seeing significantly more demand than supply to drive up value of content. Being considered a troll for my take makes me want to back out of the thread entirely b/c I ain’t that guy lol.

I’ve openly pleaded ignorance in some aspects. So help educate me on some of my gaps that I may be filling in incorrectly.

Who are the networks that have content and what content do each of them have currently?

What networks are looking for more content, and why?

(06-22-2018 06:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:52 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes. But you fail to understand that the we are already filling 20-25 slots on BC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. They are trying to build FBS inventory for their new subscription ESPN+ service. ESPN also lost half the Big10 inventory they held at the time the AAC was originally was signed in 2013. Also---the ACC Network will soon begin brodcasting---which will likely pick absorb at least a bit of the available ESPN ACC inventory (not much though---because most of the inventory on the new network will be coming from Raycom).

So---unlike 2013, when the AAC wasnt really needed and was purchased simply because it was such a low cost high value deal---ESPN actually kinda needs that AAC inventory these days. Sure, they can easily stick Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA games in those vacated ACC slots----but those games (even when in similar slots) have posted VASTLY inferior ratings vs the AAC alternative. Not to mention there are alot of attractive basketball inventory now residing int he AAC.

So--if the AAC is not retained by ESPN---ESPN takes a double barrell hit. One--they are forced to put less attractive SB/CUSA/MAC games in the old AAC slots meaning fewer viewers and even lower ad revenue. Two---they are forced to canabalize their newly obtained ESPN+ FBS inventory to fill their linear networks causing both to be less valuable. If the strategy for ESPN+ is to build its Saturday appeal around FBS football---how does moving its top 25 games to the linear network help subscriber growth?

Clearly, ESPN probably doesnt need to lay out 100 million +/- to retain 100% of all AAC content---but they are almost forced to buy enough of the AAC's best programming to fill those 20-25 slots. My guess is you will see NBC and ESPN splitting the first and second tier AAC rights.

Frankly, even at higher cost, I think the AAC isnt really costing ESPN money. Its saving ESPN money. Essentially, the AAC inventory is replacing the 50% of the Big10 inventory ESPN lost to FOX. That would have cost ESPN 250-300 to keep. They can replace it for 50-100 million. So , even with a big raise---the AAC saved ESPN 150-250 million a year. Pretty sharp move by ESPN.

Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

Right... so then you see them intentionally taking games off of linear TV that they would normally put on linear... and ONLY putting them on ESPN+ in order to create more value for that product.... which in then turn creates more open linear broadcast slots?

I'm still not convinced that they don't have enough inventory to backfill out of their current inventory, unless they are just intending to put a lot of their current inventory only on ESPN+, creating a much larger demand on their part for content to put on linear?

As far as week night games... yes, this is where we can create more value b/c the better P5's that generate good viewership aren't playing on weeknights... so among the G5, we have a significant advantage over our competition for those slots (CUSA, etc).

But... again, we'll have to play a lot of week night games to generate that value.... which many on here wont like.

No--thats not what Im saying. Lets assume, (since its what ESPN execs actually did), that the games ESPN had on linear TV were there because the decision makers at ESPN felt those were the best games in thier inventory for the network and time slot. Furthermore, I think we can infer that the ESPN inventory that was broadcast only on ESPN3 was there because it was deemed inferior to what was being aired on the linear networks.

So, if the AAC is filling 25-30 linear slots last season---then IF ESPN gets outbid for the AAC---then ESPN would be stuck filling those empty linear AAC slots with the same Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA inventory that was judged to be inferior "ESPN-3 only" material in 2017. Furthermore, with the hope that the new ESPN+ subscription service will be significant money maker---ESPN is forced to degrade the value of ESPN+ as the best of the newly added FBS inventory from the MAC/SB/CUSA will largely be available on the linear channels (no real need to subscribe to ESPN+ for many for whom seeing the top games is enough).

My point is---if they dont retain the AAC---the hole created effectively degrades both the linear and ESPN+ platforms. Thats why I can almost guarantee they will bid enough to insure that they get at least half of our 1rst and 2nd tier rights (about 20-30 games). They dont have to be the top bidder---but they cant finish lower than 2nd without it creating issues. Thats basically how they handed the Big10. They knew the top AAC games would be adequate to fill the lower/mid-tier Indiana vs Purdue type Big10 slots. So, they let the top tier and its 250 million price tag go and ended up snagging the second B10 package for $150 million.

The problem ESPN may have with the AAC is the price point is so much lower. They probably wont be looking at just one other big bidder. ESPN may find themselves bidding against far more smaller active bidders willing to offer competitive prices when your talking just 50 million a year and not 250 million a year. The more affordable price allows more networks to give it a shot in that more affordable arena. For instance---if Amazon is looking to try out the FBS broadcasting business---a 6 year 50 million dollar a yr deal is pretty cheap trial run. Much less risk than a 6 year Big10 1.5 billion dollar deal.

I just see the proven ratings track record and the competitive landscape providing a much more advantageous backdrop to the 2019 AAC negotiations than the armageddon like scenario that existed in 2013. We are a proven big bang for the buck property thats easy to make money on. Thats going to appeal to many more networks than a completely new unproven product on the verge of total collapse.

Can you explain to me how the different tier rights work? What designates what a 1st tier right vs what a 2nd tier right is?

(06-22-2018 09:31 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 04:47 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 04:24 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 03:21 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  Ripped apart? Mess? lol. You're very aggressive and defensive over this when its simply just a couple fans talking about what they expect to see.

Lets be clear... I'd LOVE to get $12mil. And I'm not someone who's stubborn and would rather be right than get $12mil and be wrong, lol. I'll take being wrong all day on that, lol.

I just don't think everything scales linearly like that, and I think there is more supply than demand when talking about how much a network would be willing to pay vs. how much we could generate for a network that didn't already have P5 inventory. (sidenote, I dont know what network has what. Are there any major networks that don't have P5 inventory already? I'm not aware of one but if there is one that wants to start playing in the college football space, that would be great news)

I'm all in favor of Aresco and crew throwing out huge numbers trying to get some hype around the blind bidding process you're talking about. I encourage it...

I'm just keeping my expectations in that $6-$8mil range for the many reasons I stated. That's what I'm expecting. And I'll streak naked if I'm wrong, lol...

So I guess the fact that the UFC, MLS, and Premier league contracts fall in line with the Big X-ii is just accidental?

I'm being accurate not aggressive. Your argument is basically I just don't feel like we will get that much.

Never mind the mountain of actual facts that are raised.

6-8 million would be extremely low. You're original idea of 4 million (our current deal 2x) would be even worse considering UConn is making a nice little sum off women's basketball.

P6 money is 15 million. I don't know if we can expect that but 10-12 isn't unrealistic, although it may be on the high end.

Things like UFC are their own individual forms of entertainment though. They are the only form of supply. There isn’t a ton of supply so the demand is higher. AAC just just one of the many offerings of college football. There’s a lot more supply of college football, and when we’re offering a 2nd rate product compared to the premier college football available... that’s tough.

I hope you’re right though...

All of those media deals fall in the same range. They pay per viewer roughly equal, which is true for conferences other than the big X-ii.


You still haven't shown any facts to support your theory, just a lot of I feel.

Nor is there a lot of inventory. The A5 is locked up till 2025 and as has been shown the group gets no where near our numbers. NBC shows infomercials on Saturdays in football season.

Our product isn't second rate. When compared to the other options right now (the group or nbe) our product is vastly better

Are you sure you're a UCF fan because this has troll written all over it.

It makes sense though that they’re being paid on a per viewer basis... b/c in general, they’re the only ones that can generate those viewers b/c they’re relatively unique content (Bellator or whatever not withstanding for the MMA hardcores on here lol. The viewership gap with those is like high-end P5 vs FCS lol).

Regarding the “2nd rate” comment, that does come off with a negative connotation that I wasn’t intending. Secondary Tier maybe? I’m not going to pretend that our conference as a whole generates the same level of viewership content that say the SEC does. It doesn’t. But I didn’t mean that in a negative way.

Regarding the troll thing... I’m in a weird spot with that b/c I’m usually referred to among my fiends as the unapologetic homer lol. I think UCF could go undefeated again this year and get our crack at a playoff spot lol. But when you’re talking business and sales... that’s what I do for a living... and I think very differently on that. I’m always looking at the leverage. And while I hope you’re right, I’m not seeing significantly more demand than supply to drive up value of content. Being considered a troll for my take makes me want to back out of the thread entirely b/c I ain’t that guy lol.

I’ve openly pleaded ignorance in some aspects. So help educate me on some of my gaps that I may be filling in incorrectly.

Who are the networks that have content and what content do each of them have currently?

What networks are looking for more content, and why?

The rate for the mls, priemier, ufc and other college football conferences is all about the same. That indicates that media companies view most live content on the same level and pay roughly the same rate for each live viewer.

I hope this will help you out. If we are both running from a hungry bear I don't have to be faster than the bear to escape, I just have to be faster than you. The A5 (PAC, sec, big 1G, big x-ii, ACC) are locked into contracts till 2025. So we aren't competing with the SEC for time slots or money. We're competing with MW, cusa, Mac, Sunbelt. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King. We are far superior to them.

There are a ton of numbers in here explaining our ratings in comparison to other conferences. Also there have been people who have brought up availability so for actual details I'll let you look there but here is a rough overview of the current system.

Supply, we have the market cornered here. The A5 is locked up. The Sunbelt, Mac, and cusa just reupped for more money 2-4x but lots of ESPN+. The MW is up for media rights as well but their numbers are way behind ours in ratings. BYU and Army just signed extensions, but as individual teams have limited inventory anyway and have had lower numbers than the AAC ratings. We have added and sold already Navy home game inventory from the original deal. We also added Wichita bball inventory which is a smaller added value than Navy football. We still have Navy away games, 1st pick of any home game not Air Force or Army and the Notre Dame navy game every other year.

Now demand:

Fox/FS1: not expected to currently be involved bought up a lot of big 1G and PAC. Have the new big east for bball and olympic sports as well. Fox, Fox news, and FS1 will remain with the Murdoch's. I believe FS2 as well.

*Currently own fox sport regional and a controlling portion of Hulu. Both are being sold. Disney/abc/ESPN have put in a bid. Comcast/NBC/NBC sports did as well but have been overbid so far by Disney. Currently Fox sports regional carries third tier rights for some schools and could be viable for that to continue as extra revenue on a school by school basis. Currently sny is paying a nice sum for UConn women's basketball games to broadcast, sweetening their media deal

ABC/ESPN: like fox they have an assortment of conferences to draw from. Currently selling some of our inventory to CBS sports and CBS for profit. See attack coog's post on open time slots still available. Our weeknight games are probably a target. Our Saturday games and OTA abc broadcasts have done well. Considering the money they paid they have gotten a steal. Will definitely be involved for at least filler content for ESPN+.

CBS/CBS sports: currently they buy our inventory from ESPN. Have Navy as a flagpole for Saturday afternoon. They have highlighted our basketball games on CBS road to the final four including having us fill in for the big 1G last year in conference tournament broadcasts. CBS also has a deal with the SEC and shows the Note Dame Navy and Army Navy games. While the OTA channel space is probably filled for football, they need content for CBS sports and I could see the deal including OTA basketball games but not football.

NBC/NBC sports: they bid on us originally and are the reason we got OTA games. They currently have a contract with Notre Dame but no one else meaning 6 or 7 games on Saturday a year max. They have let some other sports go and have room to offer a nice combo deal with OTA paired as a lead in or night cap to Notre Dame games and stand outs on non Notre Dame home games. This would also add another Notre Dame game to the schedule for them every other year. Currently lack any college conference to anchor their sports.

FAANG/unknown streamers: live content is extremely valuable and the AAC is cheap in comparison to the A5 or pro sports making us a good trial run and virtually the only available conference to try.

Our content will be divided up into tiers. Generally speaking tiers are divided by value. Tier one will have the most desirable inventory or equates to the first games picked for telivision each week. Second tier gets the second or third pick of available games and so on. Basically a way for us to divide up the 50+games we have to sell each season.

We already grouped together Navy home games and sold them to CBS sports. This indicates that the groupings will be flexible to maximize value.

So we could end up with a tier of games sold to ESPN for week night games say 10 a year and our Olympic sports. Plus what ever basketball content not picked up by CBS. (40 million a year)

CBS could get 20 football games as the third and fourth picks each week for CBS sports and the majority of our basketball games for CBS and CBS sports. (30 million a year)

NBC could offer OTA broadcast a week for first pick in football and a game or two each week for NBC sports. As well as our championship game for football. (35 million)

Total: 105 million a year or just less than 10 million a team per year.

Any games not sold as part of the national tiers return to the school and can be sold for each school to make extra cash.

(06-22-2018 10:10 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 06:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:52 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 01:09 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  Some good info in here. Help me with a few bits of it.

- Where do you see 20-25 slots among their linear networks during Saturday Football? Between the 4 channels of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU... and timeslots of noon, 4pm, and 8pm... I'm counting 12 total slots? I'm missing something there but not seeing where I'm missing it?

- ESPN+. You are under the belief that they are intending to instead put games on ESPN+ that they'd normally put in one of the above slots (and not duel broadcasted on both). With the intention to put some of their "good inventory" only on ESPN+ to incentivize people to buy it b/c that's the only place to see those games? There for, not putting their best games in the best TV slots? I didn't think that was their intention. I figured they would double broadcast anything on their TV broadcasts, while being able to show a lot more on their ESPN+... similar to the way ESPN3 has worked. Is that not how its going down? Did you read something different?

A)---I never said they were all Saturday slots. We fill some Thursday/Friday slots and some ESPN-News Saturday slots as well.

B) Doesnt matter if they are available on both ESPN+ AND linear. If I know I can see a big chunk of my games on linear TV---Im less likely to ante up for the additional cost of the ESPN+ subscripton fee---which is the whole point of building the ESPN+ FBS inventory.

Right... so then you see them intentionally taking games off of linear TV that they would normally put on linear... and ONLY putting them on ESPN+ in order to create more value for that product.... which in then turn creates more open linear broadcast slots?

I'm still not convinced that they don't have enough inventory to backfill out of their current inventory, unless they are just intending to put a lot of their current inventory only on ESPN+, creating a much larger demand on their part for content to put on linear?

As far as week night games... yes, this is where we can create more value b/c the better P5's that generate good viewership aren't playing on weeknights... so among the G5, we have a significant advantage over our competition for those slots (CUSA, etc).

But... again, we'll have to play a lot of week night games to generate that value.... which many on here wont like.

No--thats not what Im saying. Lets assume, (since its what ESPN execs actually did), that the games ESPN had on linear TV were there because the decision makers at ESPN felt those were the best games in thier inventory for the network and time slot. Furthermore, I think we can infer that the ESPN inventory that was broadcast only on ESPN3 was there because it was deemed inferior to what was being aired on the linear networks.

So, if the AAC is filling 25-30 linear slots last season---then IF ESPN gets outbid for the AAC---then ESPN would be stuck filling those empty linear AAC slots with the same Sunbelt/MAC/CUSA inventory that was judged to be inferior "ESPN-3 only" material in 2017. Furthermore, with the hope that the new ESPN+ subscription service will be significant money maker---ESPN is forced to degrade the value of ESPN+ as the best of the newly added FBS inventory from the MAC/SB/CUSA will largely be available on the linear channels (no real need to subscribe to ESPN+ for many for whom seeing the top games is enough).

My point is---if they dont retain the AAC---the hole created effectively degrades both the linear and ESPN+ platforms. Thats why I can almost guarantee they will bid enough to insure that they get at least half of our 1rst and 2nd tier rights (about 20-30 games). They dont have to be the top bidder---but they cant finish lower than 2nd without it creating issues. Thats basically how they handed the Big10. They knew the top AAC games would be adequate to fill the lower/mid-tier Indiana vs Purdue type Big10 slots. So, they let the top tier and its 250 million price tag go and ended up snagging the second B10 package for $150 million.

The problem ESPN may have with the AAC is the price point is so much lower. They probably wont be looking at just one other big bidder. ESPN may find themselves bidding against far more smaller active bidders willing to offer competitive prices when your talking just 50 million a year and not 250 million a year. The more affordable price allows more networks to give it a shot in that more affordable arena. For instance---if Amazon is looking to try out the FBS broadcasting business---a 6 year 50 million dollar a yr deal is pretty cheap trial run. Much less risk than a 6 year Big10 1.5 billion dollar deal.

I just see the proven ratings track record and the competitive landscape providing a much more advantageous backdrop to the 2019 AAC negotiations than the armageddon like scenario that existed in 2013. We are a proven big bang for the buck property thats easy to make money on. Thats going to appeal to many more networks than a completely new unproven product on the verge of total collapse.

Can you explain to me how the different tier rights work? What designates what a 1st tier right vs what a 2nd tier right is?

lol...who knows. These days it means whatever the contract says it means. Years ago---first tier was national distribution, second was regional, and 3rd was everything else. As national distribution slots became more plentiful with cable TV---it morphed more into first tier meaning "first selection" and second tier meaning "second selection". Today, if a conference's TV rights are held by more than one network---the rights agreements have fairly complex selection systems that really amount more to a sharing of 1rst/2nd tier rights than individual rights tiers. Though the terminology remains--it really doesn't mean much anymore.

In our case, first and second tiers would probably be the top 50 games. First tier would mean first pick of games from each week. That doesnt typically mean you get to pick the best 3 game each week and leave the ther network with crap. It means you get claim one game first for each week. Then, the second tier network gets to pick the next best game from that week. They continue to pick until each has selected all the games they will be picking from a given week.

However, to maximize interest and value, we'd probably make our tiers more equal. So, you'd have the tiers alternate first picks each week of the season. So, tier one would get the first pick of which week it would like to have the first selection from. The second tier network would then select the week they wish to have the first pick from. This process would go on until all the weeks were selected. Then, they'd go back and name their selections (again alternating picks within each week). Thats basically how Fox and ESPN divvy up Big12 and Pac12 games.

(06-29-2018 01:19 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:42 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:19 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

You right. 9.