(07-04-2018 08:51 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 04:59 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 08:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  At no point did I say that nobody wants the college football demographic. That's an inference of your creation. What I pointed out was that golf's demographic is very upper class and very willing to spend on high-end merchandise, so that makes them super attractive to advertisers, which means networks are willing to pay more for broadcast rights than their raw ratings would indicate otherwise. In response to this:


Ratings matter, but so do demographics. Are you expecting a better deal than the leagues/organizations that you quoted there?

Didn't you say you do media contracts? How are you so unaware of how advertising, the buying and selling of it, work in broadcasting? I'm not giving you a marketing course but if you don't understand that a million viewers equates to ad buys then it wouldn't matter if I did teach you the course.

Umm better? No. Those deals are all roughly a 100 million plus. Their numbers in comparison are equal to ours. I expect we will see a 100 million plus or 8-12 million a team.

I've never "did" a media contract, myself, but I'll take your word for it: "a million viewers equates to ad buys." That's one factor. Now consider that the competing programming is the same product, college football; in the same time slots, Sat. afternoon & evening; same target demographic; but generally featuring teams that have a much larger national following and receive better promotion from the media companies who are critically invested in them.

If you are one of those ad buyers, you would prefer to appear in the more highly visible program. That doesn't mean that the lesser program won't sell ads. But the price will not be in the same universe. One million viewers vs. five million viewers may represent a price difference for an ad that is greater than the simple factor of five. I don't know that for a fact 'cause I never did a media deal. But it seems likely to me.

I haven't read a post here that addresses the question of how much profit ESPN made on their AAC package. That matters A BUNCH. When they make their next bid it will matter not so much how good or bad the ratings were, or how exciting the games were. They will calculate in advance: "How little can we bid and still secure the media rights, and how high can we bid before the profit margin becomes uninteresting." And the smaller the profit, the more likely they concede these rights to a less risk-averse bidder.

Anybody got P&L data for the AAC/ESPN deal?

Lets say you are a major 3-letter TV network and you are currently fighting those big 5 million plus football games on other networks with a 3 hour car auction (that was literally what was on one Saturday on NBC opposite college football). A million plus football game sounds pretty darn good. Truth is--that AAC game that garners a million viewers on ESPN might well become a 3 million viewer game on a platform like NBC

Secondly, the networks ARE paying more for those P5 ratings---a lot more. Nobody sane is suggesting the AAC is really going to get an SEC sized pay check. However, if your offering up say--40-60% of typical P5 ratings----maybe getting 20-25% of a P5 pay check makes some economic sense.

Your point is exactly right. I would not dispute it in theory. The important factor is whether or not ESPN (or whomever) can get a price on the AAC game ads that is low enough to attract ad buyers away from the P5 game and high enough to make a profit, if the rights fees go way up. Some big advertisers may buy both games. But some (I'm guessing many) will decide that getting their message on the P5 game is sufficient.

We , that is I, don't know what the money part of this business looks like. My point has been: Improving viewer ratings are great, and they will help sell the deal. But making a big profit isn't guaranteed to the ACC just because they are a really good conference. The media companies want big, ugly, emabarassing profits. They get that by promoting their golden geese in the P5 and trying to steal bargains from the others.

No factor in the negotiations will have a greater impact than the presence of mutiple bidders. Just my opinion

Unlike TU, you understand economics. Broadcasting is an oligopoly. Those networks have limited capacity. The value can't be looked at in isolation of those factors. Its really the value of marginal football inventory that matters. And without more bidders, there's not much space (and therefore not much value) for that marginal inventory that the AAC represents.

Now if more networks want to get seriously involved, then you now have an advantage to the suppliers like the AAC, not to the consumers, the networks. Then the intrinsic value of the AAC may be more reflected in their TV contract than it is now.

(07-04-2018 11:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 10:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, the low end of the price range for college football ads has to be far lower than that.

This article, https://variety.com/2016/tv/news/tv-ad-p...201890660/ ...

... says in 2016, a 30 second ad on an ABC prime time Saturday CFB game cost $92,251.

ABC prime time Saturday games last season ranged from 3 million to just under 7 million viewers, excluding the Labor Day Bama-FSU game that pulled in 12 million viewers. Probably averaged about 4.5 million viewers per game not counting that first week.

Every week of the regular season there are about 10 games, sometimes more, with one-tenth that many viewers (ie 450,000) or less. And that's just on the metered networks (OTA plus ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FS1). Doesn't include CBS Sports Network who doesn't subscribe to Nielsen, probably because their ratings are even lower and they don't want them ever becoming public.

How much would you pay for a 30 second spot on a game that has one-tenth as many viewers as the games that charge $92,000 per spot? Probably less than $10,000.

Well—-use your own figures. If the lower end games sell for $10K—-then $10,000 x 100 spots per game is 1 million dollars for the worst games. The better games would be worth more. Don’t forget—advertising is just one revenue stream. Carriage fees make up the biggest part of the ESPN revenue model. And also don’t forget—basketball makes ESPN plenty of money as well. The Big East gets 4 million a year per team just for basketball.

So—here is probably the one thing you should think about. The AAC commissioner, Mike Aresco, is an ex president of the CBS Sports Division and a former long time executive of ESPN. He is going to have an extremely good idea of EXACTLY how much money the AAC makes for ESPN. That’s pretty good information to have. Given that knowledge base—if he is confident enough to be publicly optimistic about a big raise—then I’m pretty confident he knows we make lots of money for ESPN and there will be plenty of other bidders interested in making money off AAC content.

But not everyone wants to be in that business. Maybe some of them prefer counter-programming. Rather than going head to head in college football, they will look to do UFC or skateboarding or golf or tennis. And the non-sports specific networks may want to do non-sports programming. They may get better ratings and more money than doing the same thing ABC & Fox are doing.

(07-05-2018 05:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 11:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 10:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, the low end of the price range for college football ads has to be far lower than that.

This article, https://variety.com/2016/tv/news/tv-ad-p...201890660/ ...

... says in 2016, a 30 second ad on an ABC prime time Saturday CFB game cost $92,251.

ABC prime time Saturday games last season ranged from 3 million to just under 7 million viewers, excluding the Labor Day Bama-FSU game that pulled in 12 million viewers. Probably averaged about 4.5 million viewers per game not counting that first week.

Every week of the regular season there are about 10 games, sometimes more, with one-tenth that many viewers (ie 450,000) or less. And that's just on the metered networks (OTA plus ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FS1). Doesn't include CBS Sports Network who doesn't subscribe to Nielsen, probably because their ratings are even lower and they don't want them ever becoming public.

How much would you pay for a 30 second spot on a game that has one-tenth as many viewers as the games that charge $92,000 per spot? Probably less than $10,000.

Well—-use your own figures. If the lower end games sell for $10K—-then $10,000 x 100 spots per game is 1 million dollars for the worst games. The better games would be worth more. Don’t forget—advertising is just one revenue stream. Carriage fees make up the biggest part of the ESPN revenue model. And also don’t forget—basketball makes ESPN plenty of money as well. The Big East gets 4 million a year per team just for basketball.

So—here is probably the one thing you should think about. The AAC commissioner, Mike Aresco, is an ex president of the CBS Sports Division and a former long time executive of ESPN. He is going to have an extremely good idea of EXACTLY how much money the AAC makes for ESPN. That’s pretty good information to have. Given that knowledge base—if he is confident enough to be publicly optimistic about a big raise—then I’m pretty confident he knows we make lots of money for ESPN and there will be plenty of other bidders interested in making money off AAC content.

But not everyone wants to be in that business. Maybe some of them prefer counter-programming. Rather than going head to head in college football, they will look to do UFC or skateboarding or golf or tennis. And the non-sports specific networks may want to do non-sports programming. They may get better ratings and more money than doing the same thing ABC & Fox are doing.

They aren’t getting better ratings with counter programming. They are getting crushed.

(07-05-2018 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:51 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 04:59 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 08:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Didn't you say you do media contracts? How are you so unaware of how advertising, the buying and selling of it, work in broadcasting? I'm not giving you a marketing course but if you don't understand that a million viewers equates to ad buys then it wouldn't matter if I did teach you the course.

Umm better? No. Those deals are all roughly a 100 million plus. Their numbers in comparison are equal to ours. I expect we will see a 100 million plus or 8-12 million a team.

I've never "did" a media contract, myself, but I'll take your word for it: "a million viewers equates to ad buys." That's one factor. Now consider that the competing programming is the same product, college football; in the same time slots, Sat. afternoon & evening; same target demographic; but generally featuring teams that have a much larger national following and receive better promotion from the media companies who are critically invested in them.

If you are one of those ad buyers, you would prefer to appear in the more highly visible program. That doesn't mean that the lesser program won't sell ads. But the price will not be in the same universe. One million viewers vs. five million viewers may represent a price difference for an ad that is greater than the simple factor of five. I don't know that for a fact 'cause I never did a media deal. But it seems likely to me.

I haven't read a post here that addresses the question of how much profit ESPN made on their AAC package. That matters A BUNCH. When they make their next bid it will matter not so much how good or bad the ratings were, or how exciting the games were. They will calculate in advance: "How little can we bid and still secure the media rights, and how high can we bid before the profit margin becomes uninteresting." And the smaller the profit, the more likely they concede these rights to a less risk-averse bidder.

Anybody got P&L data for the AAC/ESPN deal?

Lets say you are a major 3-letter TV network and you are currently fighting those big 5 million plus football games on other networks with a 3 hour car auction (that was literally what was on one Saturday on NBC opposite college football). A million plus football game sounds pretty darn good. Truth is--that AAC game that garners a million viewers on ESPN might well become a 3 million viewer game on a platform like NBC

Secondly, the networks ARE paying more for those P5 ratings---a lot more. Nobody sane is suggesting the AAC is really going to get an SEC sized pay check. However, if your offering up say--40-60% of typical P5 ratings----maybe getting 20-25% of a P5 pay check makes some economic sense.

Your point is exactly right. I would not dispute it in theory. The important factor is whether or not ESPN (or whomever) can get a price on the AAC game ads that is low enough to attract ad buyers away from the P5 game and high enough to make a profit, if the rights fees go way up. Some big advertisers may buy both games. But some (I'm guessing many) will decide that getting their message on the P5 game is sufficient.

We , that is I, don't know what the money part of this business looks like. My point has been: Improving viewer ratings are great, and they will help sell the deal. But making a big profit isn't guaranteed to the ACC just because they are a really good conference. The media companies want big, ugly, emabarassing profits. They get that by promoting their golden geese in the P5 and trying to steal bargains from the others.

No factor in the negotiations will have a greater impact than the presence of mutiple bidders. Just my opinion

Unlike TU, you understand economics. Broadcasting is an oligopoly. Those networks have limited capacity. The value can't be looked at in isolation of those factors. Its really the value of marginal football inventory that matters. And without more bidders, there's not much space (and therefore not much value) for that marginal inventory that the AAC represents.

Now if more networks want to get seriously involved, then you now have an advantage to the suppliers like the AAC, not to the consumers, the networks. Then the intrinsic value of the AAC may be more reflected in their TV contract than it is now.

Like a brick wall. We already occupy that capacity. These numbers are not in isolation but rather are already part of the over all sphere. Another words we aren't a new product trying to compete in a new setting. We are already established and performing. We're not Uber trying to steal taxi fares. We're the yellow cab competing with checker taxi, and airport shuttle.

We get these ratings already against the big 10/PAC 10/Big 12 on Fox or ESPN, the SEC on CBS/ESPN, and the ACC/Notre Dame on ESPN/ABC/NBC. We have at least two buyers CBS/CBSsports and ESPN. In reality we most likely have three with NBC who offered in the past and appears to be making a spot for us with recent decisions.

You're literally on step one. All those things you mentioned we're handled by our first media contract in which we took exposure over money to prove all the things you are asking. We have the numbers back from a huge sample. This is not a once a week maction Tuesday games. These are across the entire ESPN platform Saturdays day time/prime time, and weekday night games. This also includes multiple games every year OTA on ABC, CBS, and Fox, as well as Navy/Notre Dame on NBC. This goes for basketball too.

The ratings wins are clear. The value of live viewers are clear. The bidders are there. Doing the math is pretty easy.

(07-05-2018 06:23 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:51 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 04:59 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  I've never "did" a media contract, myself, but I'll take your word for it: "a million viewers equates to ad buys." That's one factor. Now consider that the competing programming is the same product, college football; in the same time slots, Sat. afternoon & evening; same target demographic; but generally featuring teams that have a much larger national following and receive better promotion from the media companies who are critically invested in them.

If you are one of those ad buyers, you would prefer to appear in the more highly visible program. That doesn't mean that the lesser program won't sell ads. But the price will not be in the same universe. One million viewers vs. five million viewers may represent a price difference for an ad that is greater than the simple factor of five. I don't know that for a fact 'cause I never did a media deal. But it seems likely to me.

I haven't read a post here that addresses the question of how much profit ESPN made on their AAC package. That matters A BUNCH. When they make their next bid it will matter not so much how good or bad the ratings were, or how exciting the games were. They will calculate in advance: "How little can we bid and still secure the media rights, and how high can we bid before the profit margin becomes uninteresting." And the smaller the profit, the more likely they concede these rights to a less risk-averse bidder.

Anybody got P&L data for the AAC/ESPN deal?

Lets say you are a major 3-letter TV network and you are currently fighting those big 5 million plus football games on other networks with a 3 hour car auction (that was literally what was on one Saturday on NBC opposite college football). A million plus football game sounds pretty darn good. Truth is--that AAC game that garners a million viewers on ESPN might well become a 3 million viewer game on a platform like NBC

Secondly, the networks ARE paying more for those P5 ratings---a lot more. Nobody sane is suggesting the AAC is really going to get an SEC sized pay check. However, if your offering up say--40-60% of typical P5 ratings----maybe getting 20-25% of a P5 pay check makes some economic sense.

Your point is exactly right. I would not dispute it in theory. The important factor is whether or not ESPN (or whomever) can get a price on the AAC game ads that is low enough to attract ad buyers away from the P5 game and high enough to make a profit, if the rights fees go way up. Some big advertisers may buy both games. But some (I'm guessing many) will decide that getting their message on the P5 game is sufficient.

We , that is I, don't know what the money part of this business looks like. My point has been: Improving viewer ratings are great, and they will help sell the deal. But making a big profit isn't guaranteed to the ACC just because they are a really good conference. The media companies want big, ugly, emabarassing profits. They get that by promoting their golden geese in the P5 and trying to steal bargains from the others.

No factor in the negotiations will have a greater impact than the presence of mutiple bidders. Just my opinion

Unlike TU, you understand economics. Broadcasting is an oligopoly. Those networks have limited capacity. The value can't be looked at in isolation of those factors. Its really the value of marginal football inventory that matters. And without more bidders, there's not much space (and therefore not much value) for that marginal inventory that the AAC represents.

Now if more networks want to get seriously involved, then you now have an advantage to the suppliers like the AAC, not to the consumers, the networks. Then the intrinsic value of the AAC may be more reflected in their TV contract than it is now.

Like a brick wall. We already occupy that capacity. These numbers are not in isolation but rather are already part of the over all sphere. Another words we aren't a new product trying to compete in a new setting. We are already established and performing. We're not Uber trying to steal taxi fares. We're the yellow cab competing with checker taxi, and airport shuttle.

We get these ratings already against the big 10/PAC 10/Big 12 on Fox or ESPN, the SEC on CBS/ESPN, and the ACC/Notre Dame on ESPN/ABC/NBC. We have at least two buyers CBS/CBSsports and ESPN. In reality we most likely have three with NBC who offered in the past and appears to be making a spot for us with recent decisions.

You're literally on step one. All those things you mentioned we're handled by our first media contract in which we took exposure over money to prove all the things you are asking. We have the numbers back from a huge sample. This is not a once a week maction Tuesday games. These are across the entire ESPN platform Saturdays day time/prime time, and weekday night games. This also includes multiple games every year OTA on ABC, CBS, and Fox, as well as Navy/Notre Dame on NBC. This goes for basketball too.

The ratings wins are clear. The value of live viewers are clear. The bidders are there. Doing the math is pretty easy.

But where are they going to put more than a half dozen or so games? And a half dozen games doesn't get you big overall numbers.

Here's the reality. ESPN gave UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, UH, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, UCF, ECU, Navy and Memphis a $20 million contract, just over $1.5 million per school.

They offered $$130-$150 million to the Big East just a short time before which came to between $11 and $13 million per school to the football schools. That group included UConn, Cincinnati and USF also, along with WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and TCU. Does that group seem to be worth 8-9 times the value of the current AAC group? It sure doesn't to me. But it happened because ESPN didn't have much competition for the contract. Fox was filling their inventory with the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12. And the P5 started insisting on national telecasts, which reduced the number of available time slots.

The AAC needs more serious bidders.

(07-05-2018 07:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 06:23 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:51 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lets say you are a major 3-letter TV network and you are currently fighting those big 5 million plus football games on other networks with a 3 hour car auction (that was literally what was on one Saturday on NBC opposite college football). A million plus football game sounds pretty darn good. Truth is--that AAC game that garners a million viewers on ESPN might well become a 3 million viewer game on a platform like NBC

Secondly, the networks ARE paying more for those P5 ratings---a lot more. Nobody sane is suggesting the AAC is really going to get an SEC sized pay check. However, if your offering up say--40-60% of typical P5 ratings----maybe getting 20-25% of a P5 pay check makes some economic sense.

Your point is exactly right. I would not dispute it in theory. The important factor is whether or not ESPN (or whomever) can get a price on the AAC game ads that is low enough to attract ad buyers away from the P5 game and high enough to make a profit, if the rights fees go way up. Some big advertisers may buy both games. But some (I'm guessing many) will decide that getting their message on the P5 game is sufficient.

We , that is I, don't know what the money part of this business looks like. My point has been: Improving viewer ratings are great, and they will help sell the deal. But making a big profit isn't guaranteed to the ACC just because they are a really good conference. The media companies want big, ugly, emabarassing profits. They get that by promoting their golden geese in the P5 and trying to steal bargains from the others.

No factor in the negotiations will have a greater impact than the presence of mutiple bidders. Just my opinion

Unlike TU, you understand economics. Broadcasting is an oligopoly. Those networks have limited capacity. The value can't be looked at in isolation of those factors. Its really the value of marginal football inventory that matters. And without more bidders, there's not much space (and therefore not much value) for that marginal inventory that the AAC represents.

Now if more networks want to get seriously involved, then you now have an advantage to the suppliers like the AAC, not to the consumers, the networks. Then the intrinsic value of the AAC may be more reflected in their TV contract than it is now.

Like a brick wall. We already occupy that capacity. These numbers are not in isolation but rather are already part of the over all sphere. Another words we aren't a new product trying to compete in a new setting. We are already established and performing. We're not Uber trying to steal taxi fares. We're the yellow cab competing with checker taxi, and airport shuttle.

We get these ratings already against the big 10/PAC 10/Big 12 on Fox or ESPN, the SEC on CBS/ESPN, and the ACC/Notre Dame on ESPN/ABC/NBC. We have at least two buyers CBS/CBSsports and ESPN. In reality we most likely have three with NBC who offered in the past and appears to be making a spot for us with recent decisions.

You're literally on step one. All those things you mentioned we're handled by our first media contract in which we took exposure over money to prove all the things you are asking. We have the numbers back from a huge sample. This is not a once a week maction Tuesday games. These are across the entire ESPN platform Saturdays day time/prime time, and weekday night games. This also includes multiple games every year OTA on ABC, CBS, and Fox, as well as Navy/Notre Dame on NBC. This goes for basketball too.

The ratings wins are clear. The value of live viewers are clear. The bidders are there. Doing the math is pretty easy.

But where are they going to put more than a half dozen or so games? And a half dozen games doesn't get you big overall numbers.

Where is "who" going to put more than a half dozen or so games? NBC? Where ever they want. They have Premier League early in the day which ends around the second broadcast window. They have NBC-Sports as well as the NBC-OTA. The AAC only has 5-6 games a week during the regular season. I fully expect some Thursday and Friday night slots. So thats 3 games on 2 networks for Saturday---and thats assuming you sell all your inventory to NBC and sell nothing to ESPN or CBS-Sports. My feeling is we will split the package in half between NBC and ESPN. Frankly, thats all either really needs. Much better if they both pay 60% of what they were going to pay to fill thier slots and we maximize our income. Sell of the 3rd tier to either CBS-Sports or ESPN-Plus. Eazy Peazy--everyone is happy.

(07-05-2018 07:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Here's the reality. ESPN gave UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, UH, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, UCF, ECU, Navy and Memphis a $20 million contract, just over $1.5 million per school.

They offered $$130-$150 million to the Big East just a short time before which came to between $11 and $13 million per school to the football schools. That group included UConn, Cincinnati and USF also, along with WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and TCU. Does that group seem to be worth 8-9 times the value of the current AAC group? It sure doesn't to me. But it happened because ESPN didn't have much competition for the contract. Fox was filling their inventory with the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12. And the P5 started insisting on national telecasts, which reduced the number of available time slots.

The AAC needs more serious bidders.

A) Navy wasnt included in the AAC contract (they were finishing out thier CBS-Sports deal). So, the 20 million was for 11 teams.

B) When the Navy deal came up for renewal this year, ESPN didnt win the bid---CBS Sports did.

C) I think the primary reason Aresco is so confident is the ratings numbers the AAC has posted during the last 5 years (and the ratings growth) has created significant interest in the AAC from competing networks. So, he knows it wont be a one or two network affair this time around.

(07-04-2018 10:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, the low end of the price range for college football ads has to be far lower than that.

This article, https://variety.com/2016/tv/news/tv-ad-p...201890660/ ...

... says in 2016, a 30 second ad on an ABC prime time Saturday CFB game cost $92,251.

ABC prime time Saturday games last season ranged from 3 million to just under 7 million viewers, excluding the Labor Day Bama-FSU game that pulled in 12 million viewers. Probably averaged about 4.5 million viewers per game not counting that first week.

Every week of the regular season there are about 10 games, sometimes more, with one-tenth that many viewers (ie 450,000) or less. And that's just on the metered networks (OTA plus ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FS1). Doesn't include CBS Sports Network who doesn't subscribe to Nielsen, probably because their ratings are even lower and they don't want them ever becoming public.

How much would you pay for a 30 second spot on a game that has one-tenth as many viewers as the games that charge $92,000 per spot? Probably less than $10,000.

There is value in scale and of course value in demographics. If I can reach 700,000 potential customers for my product on a game that will draw 7 million viewers that is worth a lot more than reaching 35,000 potential customers on a game drawing 350,000 viewers. I WANT to reach the 1 2 million potential customers I have and doing bits and pieces on telecasts drawing a smaller audience is of less value, many advertisers won't bother unless selling nibble around the edges products like pillows, exercise equipment, and the potions and tonics for manhood enhancement.

ESPN also has to keep the providers happy.

If I am a car dealer in Arkansas I'll pay more to get an ad inserted on the local CBS affiliate when the Hogs are the CBS game, I want to be on the local insert for ESPN Hog telecasts and AState telecasts because I'm getting local eyeballs. I don't give a damn about being on any Sun Belt game that doesn't involve an Arkansas school but I'll take an SEC game that doesn't include Arkansas.

That local insert is a big reason cable companies will pay what ESPN demands in carriage fee. They are making a lot of it back on local inserts.

(07-05-2018 07:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Here's the reality. ESPN gave UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, UH, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, UCF, ECU, Navy and Memphis a $20 million contract, just over $1.5 million per school.

They offered $$130-$150 million to the Big East just a short time before which came to between $11 and $13 million per school to the football schools. That group included UConn, Cincinnati and USF also, along with WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and TCU. Does that group seem to be worth 8-9 times the value of the current AAC group? It sure doesn't to me. But it happened because ESPN didn't have much competition for the contract. Fox was filling their inventory with the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12. And the P5 started insisting on national telecasts, which reduced the number of available time slots.

The AAC needs more serious bidders.

Rewriting history now?

The only reason the offer was so low was conference instability. Many people predicted the conference would fall apart and their was no established record for ratings or performance.

The conference is stable till at least 2025.
We have performed on the field.
We have the ratings.
There are again multiple bidders.

I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. One intangible that I think is greatly overlooked is the ability for a network like NBC to be able to legitimately have pre and post game shows all day long that can realistically create hours of strong ratings for the network at studio production only costs while slyly promoting their content at a P6 level. Can anyone say win-win. A power conference is merely conference that a major network is willing to pay for and promote that way as Frank the Tank says "the NBE was valuable because someone was willing to pay for them to be ". Well same principle different conference

(07-06-2018 12:17 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. One intangible that I think is greatly overlooked is the ability for a network like NBC to be able to legitimately have pre and post game shows all day long that can realistically create hours of strong ratings for the network at studio production only costs while slyly promoting their content at a P6 level. Can anyone say win-win. A power conference is merely conference that a major network is willing to pay for and promote that way as Frank the Tank says "the NBE was valuable because someone was willing to pay for them to be ". Well same principle different conference

My first reaction is skepticism, and I was going to clap back by counting up the Final Fours the 10 NBE schools had racked up in the 10 years before the split. But, y'all will have a bunch of Access Bowls. You don't have Alabama/Texas/Ohio State/Penn State/USC, or even Miami/Oregon/Wisconsin/Virginia Tech though.

I still don't see NBC laying out big money for the AAC, and Fox doesn't have room OTA or on FS1. But good luck. Maybe CBS and NBC with a combined bid? SEC-AAC doubleheaders, AAC-Notre Dame doubleheaders?

(07-06-2018 06:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 12:17 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. One intangible that I think is greatly overlooked is the ability for a network like NBC to be able to legitimately have pre and post game shows all day long that can realistically create hours of strong ratings for the network at studio production only costs while slyly promoting their content at a P6 level. Can anyone say win-win. A power conference is merely conference that a major network is willing to pay for and promote that way as Frank the Tank says "the NBE was valuable because someone was willing to pay for them to be ". Well same principle different conference

My first reaction is skepticism, and I was going to clap back by counting up the Final Fours the 10 NBE schools had racked up in the 10 years before the split. But, y'all will have a bunch of Access Bowls. You don't have Alabama/Texas/Ohio State/Penn State/USC, or even Miami/Oregon/Wisconsin/Virginia Tech though.

I still don't see NBC laying out big money for the AAC, and Fox doesn't have room OTA or on FS1. But good luck. Maybe CBS and NBC with a combined bid? SEC-AAC doubleheaders, AAC-Notre Dame doubleheaders?

See no one has to pay a lot for everything. Would it be worth 60-72 mil to have 1/3 of the season filled with UH vs Arizona or GTech vs UCF or Cincy vs Michigan. Now add in an extra Notre Dame game vs Navy then during the regular season you'll have the best conference matchups to pick from USF vs UCF or Memphis vs Houston as the early game priming the audience for a later Notre Dame game of the week. The American doesn't have to beat the sec game on ABC or the big10 game on CBS. They only have to be competitive while NBC sandwiches pre/post game shows around an entire day of fall to promote the AAC but most importantly Notre Dame. Would ESPN be willing to pay 60 mil for a 2tier pkg of games to air on Thursday, fri. With the occasional ESPN or espn2 game. At that point we haven't even gotten into the men bball deals yet. Split tiers packaging is filled with win win situations for all involved while minimizing risk. Maybe this is why Aresco is so openly optimistic right now

(07-02-2018 12:15 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  I don't know where people get the idea that ESPN has the first right to the AAC. All they have is an exclusive negociations period of 30 days. After those 30 days are up, the AAC can do as they like.

There is one other stipulation. Whatever ESPN bids during the exclusive period, the AAC is not allowed to take a lower bid from somebody else, so it, in effect, sets the floor.

(07-06-2018 12:17 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. One intangible that I think is greatly overlooked is the ability for a network like NBC to be able to legitimately have pre and post game shows all day long that can realistically create hours of strong ratings for the network at studio production only costs while slyly promoting their content at a P6 level. Can anyone say win-win. A power conference is merely conference that a major network is willing to pay for and promote that way as Frank the Tank says "the NBE was valuable because someone was willing to pay for them to be ". Well same principle different conference

Actually it's USF that plays GT, not UCF. Get your facts strait.

This page has 7 pages and no ACTUAL deal to speak of.
This is all just guessing
Can we rename it?

(07-11-2018 02:26 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  This page has 7 pages and no ACTUAL deal to speak of.
This is all just guessing
Can we rename it?

Read my first post. Several facts listed.