(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

(10-23-2018 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:12 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  Is there any sort of precedent for what a non-football member gets in these deals? Say 1/2 share; 2/3 share?

The old BE would have had some sort of a split like that, but really you guys split up at the very front edge of the modern TV money curve. The NBE (basketball-only, obviously) schools get $4M from the 2013 Fox Sports deal, so if WSU gets less than that (with WSU in the AAC being somewhat analogous) then the NBE ish talk will commence.

Back when UH and Boise were offered and invite by the Big East, the invitation documents indicated that for TV revenue, non-football members would receive a 30% of an all sports share.

I seem to remember an article out of Wichita that mentioned 30% as well

(10-23-2018 05:30 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:12 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  Is there any sort of precedent for what a non-football member gets in these deals? Say 1/2 share; 2/3 share?

The old BE would have had some sort of a split like that, but really you guys split up at the very front edge of the modern TV money curve. The NBE (basketball-only, obviously) schools get $4M from the 2013 Fox Sports deal, so if WSU gets less than that (with WSU in the AAC being somewhat analogous) then the NBE ish talk will commence.

Back when UH and Boise were offered and invite by the Big East, the invitation documents indicated that for TV revenue, non-football members would receive a 30% of an all sports share.

I seem to remember an article out of Wichita that mentioned 30% as well

Well 30% of something is greater than 100% of nothing. Glad to see MVC in our rearview mirror.

(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

Didn't Temple just whack Cinn in football.

Maybe they should swap out divisions.

(10-24-2018 02:16 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

Didn't Temple just whack Cinn in football.

Maybe they should swap out divisions.

Temple had a good win ... by one score ... at home ... in overtime. Whack is a strong word.

(10-23-2018 03:12 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  Is there any sort of precedent for what a non-football member gets in these deals? Say 1/2 share; 2/3 share?

Typically, football is responsible for 60-75% of the money and gets paid accordingly.

Pretty sure Wichita's cut was negotiated when they came in the league.

From this article:

WSU won’t participate in the American’s TV deal (or whatever form of media it takes) until after the current contracts expire in 2020. Even then, WSU will not share equally in money that should largely be generated by football.

(10-22-2018 10:45 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Rumors are tv votes are taking place

If this is true and a new deal is to be voted on, there is a chance that the new deal will be in place for 2019-20, which is the last year of the current deal . . .

(10-24-2018 11:38 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:45 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Rumors are tv votes are taking place

If this is true and a new deal is to be voted on, there is a chance that the new deal will be in place for 2019-20, which is the last year of the current deal . . .

Well, replacing the previous deal prior to the end of it with a new deal is certainly not without precedent. I think both the MW and MAC did that most recently.

The thing that worries me is the "first right of refusal" deal with ESPN. For instance, what if:

ESPN offers us $4MM per team per year, with %s of our games as 10%ESPN/20%ESPN2/20%ESPNU and the rest of the 50% on WatchESPN.

Then NBCSports offers us $10MM for whatever OVA and cable exposure they can give. ESPN has the right to match that offer and keep up per our current contract, BUT....

What if ESPN says okay, we're gonna see their $10MM per year, but you're gonna all need to start playing all your games on Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays so that we can get all the exposure we can out of you to recoup our money, and all of that WatchESPN content now goes to ESPN+... or whatever ridiculous requirement they have that would be detrimental to us. They still have matched the $10MM by NBC, but we as fans would get screwed. And I'm sure the ADs and HCs would not appreciate it either.

So my question is, could we argue (in court if necessary) that ESPN $10MM does not = NBC $10MM due to these other aspects?

(10-24-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:38 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:45 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Rumors are tv votes are taking place

If this is true and a new deal is to be voted on, there is a chance that the new deal will be in place for 2019-20, which is the last year of the current deal . . .

Well, replacing the previous deal prior to the end of it with a new deal is certainly not without precedent. I think both the MW and MAC did that most recently.

The thing that worries me is the "first right of refusal" deal with ESPN. For instance, what if:


ESPN offers us $4MM per team per year, with %s of our games as 10%ESPN/20%ESPN2/20%ESPNU and the rest of the 50% on WatchESPN.

Then NBCSports offers us $10MM for whatever OVA and cable exposure they can give. ESPN has the right to match that offer and keep up per our current contract, BUT....

What if ESPN says okay, we're gonna see their $10MM per year, but you're gonna all need to start playing all your games on Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays so that we can get all the exposure we can out of you to recoup our money, and all of that WatchESPN content now goes to ESPN+... or whatever ridiculous requirement they have that would be detrimental to us. They still have matched the $10MM by NBC, but we as fans would get screwed. And I'm sure the ADs and HCs would not appreciate it either.

So my question is, could we argue (in court if necessary) that ESPN $10MM does not = NBC $10MM due to these other aspects?

They can easily argue the value of viewership based on date.
Ratings are significantly larger on certain days of the week.

Who is "they"? Can you be a little more deliberate in your response, because I could take your post both for and against the AAC.

(10-24-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:38 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:45 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Rumors are tv votes are taking place

If this is true and a new deal is to be voted on, there is a chance that the new deal will be in place for 2019-20, which is the last year of the current deal . . .

Well, replacing the previous deal prior to the end of it with a new deal is certainly not without precedent. I think both the MW and MAC did that most recently.

The thing that worries me is the "first right of refusal" deal with ESPN. For instance, what if:

ESPN offers us $4MM per team per year, with %s of our games as 10%ESPN/20%ESPN2/20%ESPNU and the rest of the 50% on WatchESPN.

Then NBCSports offers us $10MM for whatever OVA and cable exposure they can give. ESPN has the right to match that offer and keep up per our current contract, BUT....

What if ESPN says okay, we're gonna see their $10MM per year, but you're gonna all need to start playing all your games on Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays so that we can get all the exposure we can out of you to recoup our money, and all of that WatchESPN content now goes to ESPN+... or whatever ridiculous requirement they have that would be detrimental to us. They still have matched the $10MM by NBC, but we as fans would get screwed. And I'm sure the ADs and HCs would not appreciate it either.

So my question is, could we argue (in court if necessary) that ESPN $10MM does not = NBC $10MM due to these other aspects?

I know of no source that has reported that ESPN has a right to match clause in the existing contract. Remember, this is not a deal negotiated by ESPN. It is actually a contractual "matching" of the exact terms Aresco negotiated with NBC in early 2013. While I dont believe the current deal contains a "right to match"---it does apparently contain a clause that prevents the AAC from taking a deal from another network that pays less than the amount offered by ESPN during their exclusive negotiating period. This is another reason I think its unlikely we will see ESPN use the "low ball" strategy some have suggested they might employ. That strategy wont be very effective without a right to match clause---not to mention, a low ball offer renders the one contractual advantage they do have (the competing offer must be higher) effectively worthless.

(10-24-2018 01:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:38 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:45 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Rumors are tv votes are taking place

If this is true and a new deal is to be voted on, there is a chance that the new deal will be in place for 2019-20, which is the last year of the current deal . . .

Well, replacing the previous deal prior to the end of it with a new deal is certainly not without precedent. I think both the MW and MAC did that most recently.

The thing that worries me is the "first right of refusal" deal with ESPN. For instance, what if:

ESPN offers us $4MM per team per year, with %s of our games as 10%ESPN/20%ESPN2/20%ESPNU and the rest of the 50% on WatchESPN.

Then NBCSports offers us $10MM for whatever OVA and cable exposure they can give. ESPN has the right to match that offer and keep up per our current contract, BUT....

What if ESPN says okay, we're gonna see their $10MM per year, but you're gonna all need to start playing all your games on Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays so that we can get all the exposure we can out of you to recoup our money, and all of that WatchESPN content now goes to ESPN+... or whatever ridiculous requirement they have that would be detrimental to us. They still have matched the $10MM by NBC, but we as fans would get screwed. And I'm sure the ADs and HCs would not appreciate it either.

So my question is, could we argue (in court if necessary) that ESPN $10MM does not = NBC $10MM due to these other aspects?

I know of no source that has reported that ESPN has a right to match clause in the existing contract. Remember, this is not a deal negotiated by ESPN. It is actually a contractual "matching" of the exact terms Aresco negotiated with NBC in early 2013. While I dont believe the current deal contains a "right to match"---it does apparently contain a clause that prevents the AAC from taking a deal from another network that pays less than the amount offered by ESPN during their exclusive negotiating period. This is another reason I think its its unlikely we will see ESPN use the "low ball" strategy some have suggested they might employ. That strategy wont be very effective without a right to match clause---not to mention, a low ball offer renders the one contractual advantage they do have (the competing offer must be higher) effectively worthless.

If what you say is true, that is truly truly good news. Because maybe I have read everybody's discussion of this wrong previously, but I would have sworn that people were saying ESPN has the right to just match anyone else's offer and we have to take it as long as it is a monetary match. In my opinion, that would be tantamount to indentured servitude.

(10-24-2018 01:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 11:38 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:45 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Rumors are tv votes are taking place

If this is true and a new deal is to be voted on, there is a chance that the new deal will be in place for 2019-20, which is the last year of the current deal . . .

Well, replacing the previous deal prior to the end of it with a new deal is certainly not without precedent. I think both the MW and MAC did that most recently.

The thing that worries me is the "first right of refusal" deal with ESPN. For instance, what if:

ESPN offers us $4MM per team per year, with %s of our games as 10%ESPN/20%ESPN2/20%ESPNU and the rest of the 50% on WatchESPN.

Then NBCSports offers us $10MM for whatever OVA and cable exposure they can give. ESPN has the right to match that offer and keep up per our current contract, BUT....

What if ESPN says okay, we're gonna see their $10MM per year, but you're gonna all need to start playing all your games on Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays so that we can get all the exposure we can out of you to recoup our money, and all of that WatchESPN content now goes to ESPN+... or whatever ridiculous requirement they have that would be detrimental to us. They still have matched the $10MM by NBC, but we as fans would get screwed. And I'm sure the ADs and HCs would not appreciate it either.

So my question is, could we argue (in court if necessary) that ESPN $10MM does not = NBC $10MM due to these other aspects?

I know of no source that has reported that ESPN has a right to match clause in the existing contract. Remember, this is not a deal negotiated by ESPN. It is actually a contractual "matching" of the exact terms Aresco negotiated with NBC in early 2013. While I dont believe the current deal contains a "right to match"---it does apparently contain a clause that prevents the AAC from taking a deal from another network that pays less than the amount offered by ESPN during their exclusive negotiating period. This is another reason I think its its unlikely we will see ESPN use the "low ball" strategy some have suggested they might employ. That strategy wont be very effective without a right to match clause---not to mention, a low ball offer renders the one contractual advantage they do have (the competing offer must be higher) effectively worthless.

Agreed. If ESPN wants to keep the inventory, it is in ESPN's best interest to give us close to their best shot as possible to prevent the AAC going out into the market in February. Once the AAC hits the market, ESPN will be forced to increase their bid and improve the terms of the contract if they want to keep us.

Whisper number $7M???

The meeting notes..."what are we going to do with all this money"

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:16 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

Didn't Temple just whack Cinn in football.

Maybe they should swap out divisions.

Temple had a good win ... by one score ... at home ... in overtime. Whack is a strong word.

Didn’t Temple win an American Conference Championship two years ago?

(10-24-2018 02:16 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

Didn't Temple just whack Cinn in football.

Maybe they should swap out divisions.

Yeah, Cincy has failed to show any sustained results from the years of BCS welfare they collected. League should just get that money back and give to Georgia Southern so they'll join.

(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

Completely unfair! ECU has neither AD nor President. Taxation without representation.

Although we do have a chancellor.

(10-26-2018 03:29 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 02:16 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 04:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they are talking about a realignment within the AAC.

New Divisional Alignment:

Dead-Weight Division
Tulsa
Tulane
Temple
ECU
UCONN


Load Bearing Division
UC: hoops and now fb coming back
UCF: fb and hoops coming on
USF: fb
UH: fb and hoops
Memphis: fb and hoops
SMU: hoops
Navy: army/navy game...I guess


Teams in the Load Bearing Division get all the TV money in the next TV deal.

Teams in the Dead-Weight Division pay to be here.

Didn't Temple just whack Cinn in football.

Maybe they should swap out divisions.

Temple had a good win ... by one score ... at home ... in overtime. Whack is a strong word.

Didn’t Temple win an American Conference Championship two years ago?

And they were in the championship game against Houston the year before that.

(10-23-2018 05:30 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:12 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  Is there any sort of precedent for what a non-football member gets in these deals? Say 1/2 share; 2/3 share?

The old BE would have had some sort of a split like that, but really you guys split up at the very front edge of the modern TV money curve. The NBE (basketball-only, obviously) schools get $4M from the 2013 Fox Sports deal, so if WSU gets less than that (with WSU in the AAC being somewhat analogous) then the NBE ish talk will commence.

Back when UH and Boise were offered and invite by the Big East, the invitation documents indicated that for TV revenue, non-football members would receive a 30% of an all sports share.

I seem to remember an article out of Wichita that mentioned 30% as well

I know one of the reasons why some VCU fans (at least the one on their main board) have been so resistant about joining a football-sponsoring conference like the AAC is that they won't get enough of a share to make it worth the move. Plus football indirectly cost them their spot in the Metro in 96.