(11-19-2018 11:52 AM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  with the accn starting up next august someone will get more games on espn 2, u and abc

Actually no, those games are being taken from the Fox Regional and Raycom OTA. Not ESPN.

(11-19-2018 04:39 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  I still wouldn't put it past espn to encourage a p5 conference to take 2 teams to gut our value and kill off our p6 narrative for good. Wouldn't be the first time they did it.

I mentioned this in another thread, but this is almost certainly not going to happen. To entice, say, the Big XII to take on two more teams without dropping the amount each of the other schools gets would cost roughly $70MM/year (Big XII current payout = $35MM/team/year). The same amount of money would allow them to pay the AAC roughly $6MM/year/team ($72MM) for WAY more inventory.

If, however, they keep the AAC afloat in that manner and synchronize their contract with the Big XII's, then they can convince, say, the B1G to take Texas and Kansas and the SEC to take Oklahoma and somebody else (let's just say Okie State), then they could create a Power 4 and save themselves far more money in the long run by not paying Kansas State, Texas Tech, WVU, Iowa State, Baylor and TCU $35MM a year (yes, that's a roughly $200MM/year savings that they can lavish on the SEC and B1G).

[/crystal ball]

USFFan

(11-19-2018 06:07 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 04:39 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  I still wouldn't put it past espn to encourage a p5 conference to take 2 teams to gut our value and kill off our p6 narrative for good. Wouldn't be the first time they did it.

Problem for them is the fork out 20 to 30 mil each to do that. They would be just as well off, taking the 40 or 50 mil n putting towards a new AAC deal. 48 mil per year and you are at 4 mil per team, which is likely 1/2 way to owning the whole package.

Not true. Take 2 of the hottest most consistent AAC programs for $40 million in a P5 conference. They can pay them half share for the first contract, which seems to be the standard for newly minted P5 teams. Then pay $20-30 million for the carcass of the AAC left behind.

Still $30-40 million cheaper than paying for the entire AAC as it stands.

(11-19-2018 06:07 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 04:39 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  I still wouldn't put it past espn to encourage a p5 conference to take 2 teams to gut our value and kill off our p6 narrative for good. Wouldn't be the first time they did it.

Problem for them is the fork out 20 to 30 mil each to do that. They would be just as well off, taking the 40 or 50 mil n putting towards a new AAC deal. 48 mil per year and you are at 4 mil per team, which is likely 1/2 way to owning the whole package.

It would cost more than that because extra members cause the CFP, NCAA credits, and bowl money to be divided more ways. A network actually has to pay the full conference payout for each team its adding. A network would essentially have to give a P5 about 35 million per team added just to keep it revenue neutral. Then, you have to also remember that ESPN only owns half of the rights to the Big10, Pac12, and Big12. Thus, they only get half the inventory resulting from teams added to those conference. The only conference where ESPN would even get all the extra games they are paying for is the ACC---who isnt adding anyone unless it includes Notre Dame. The most likely candidate to accept new members is the 10 team Big12---which would have to add 6 teams just to add the 32 games in inventory needed---but ESPN wouid only get half of those games (18) as the other half belong to FOX (FOX says thanks ESPN for the cool free stuff!!!). Adding 6 teams would cost ESPN $210 million.

They could give the AAC nearly 10 million per team and still come out paying 100 million less a year while getting tons more games for their inventory. Its a no brainer for ESPN to simply negotiate the best deal they can with the AAC rather than try to go all realignment grim reaper on the conference.

(11-19-2018 06:18 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:07 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 04:39 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  I still wouldn't put it past espn to encourage a p5 conference to take 2 teams to gut our value and kill off our p6 narrative for good. Wouldn't be the first time they did it.

Problem for them is the fork out 20 to 30 mil each to do that. They would be just as well off, taking the 40 or 50 mil n putting towards a new AAC deal. 48 mil per year and you are at 4 mil per team, which is likely 1/2 way to owning the whole package.

Not true. Take 2 of the hottest most consistent AAC programs for $40 million in a P5 conference. They can pay them half share for the first contract, which seems to be the standard for newly minted P5 teams. Then pay $20-30 million for the carcass of the AAC left behind.

Still $30-40 million cheaper than paying for the entire AAC as it stands.

And for 80 million--you'll net roughly 10 extra games of inventory once you subtract the third tier inventory ESPN has no right to. Oh, and dont forget---if its the Big10, Pac-12, SEC, or Big12---ESPN only owns half those rights---so ESPN just paid 80 million for 5 games. For that price--perhaps slghtly more or slighty less---you could end up with the entire AAC invetory (about 65 games of football and about 200 basketball games). The decision is a no brainer.

It's not a coincidence that ESPN's media deals with the AAC, MWC, and BYU are all up for renewal at the same time. FWIW, the current math supports AAC westward expansion.

(11-19-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They could give the AAC nearly 10 million per team and still come out paying 100 million less a year while getting tons more games for their inventory. Its a no brainer for ESPN to simply negotiate the best deal they can with the AAC rather than try to go all realignment grim reaper on the conference.

Key word above "could" but ESPN. I also see ESPN and the Mouse try to get the AAC for the least money possible. If AAC had a suitor such as NBC, I think it would give the AAC a stronger hand. I still think NBC and the AAC would be a great match. Only question is does NBC want the AAC. The question is always simple, who needs the other more?

Why even bicker about this? Let everyone put their prediction down and then apologize and recognize when they're wrong (without contingency).

(11-19-2018 06:43 PM)YNot Wrote:  It's not a coincidence that ESPN's media deals with the AAC, MWC, and BYU are all up for renewal at the same time. FWIW, the current math supports AAC westward expansion.

I think the ship has sailed on BYU getting into the AAC.

(11-19-2018 06:49 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They could give the AAC nearly 10 million per team and still come out paying 100 million less a year while getting tons more games for their inventory. Its a no brainer for ESPN to simply negotiate the best deal they can with the AAC rather than try to go all realignment grim reaper on the conference.

Key word above "could" but ESPN. I also see ESPN and the Mouse try to get the AAC for the least money possible. If AAC had a suitor such as NBC, I think it would give the AAC a stronger hand. I still think NBC and the AAC would be a great match. Only question is does NBC want the AAC. The question is always simple, who needs the other more?

Absoultely agree---ESPN will try to pay as little as possible. One caveat however---they dont want to risk losing too much of the package. They need about 30 games or so and would love to have another 15 or so for ESPN+. If they go too low ball--they could end up with either less than they need or less of the prime games they really want to use to fill those linear slots. So, there is a real risk to going too low. In 2013, that wasnt true. lol...I dont think ESPN gave a flying fig about the AAC back then. The AAC just fell into thier lap for nothing because NBC thought the low ball NBC bid would be enough as ESPN could never (or would never) match the NBC exposure. Instead, ESPN execs realized they could just stick a bunch of it on ESPN-News while decreasing the net cost of the deal to almost nothing by selling off the surplus to CBS-Sports.

Here's the thing. ESPN is probably the only buyer that really needs or wants the entire AAC rights package. So, if the AAC is going to get more for it--they will need to slice it up into smaller packages that would fit the needs of other potential buyers like NBC and CBS-Sports. If you try to sell the whole thing as a single slab of content---you'll probably only have one bidder. Nobody other than ESPN needs that much. Chop it up, and ESPN has to complete with multiple buyers in multiple bidding battles to get it all.

(11-19-2018 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:49 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They could give the AAC nearly 10 million per team and still come out paying 100 million less a year while getting tons more games for their inventory. Its a no brainer for ESPN to simply negotiate the best deal they can with the AAC rather than try to go all realignment grim reaper on the conference.

Key word above "could" but ESPN. I also see ESPN and the Mouse try to get the AAC for the least money possible. If AAC had a suitor such as NBC, I think it would give the AAC a stronger hand. I still think NBC and the AAC would be a great match. Only question is does NBC want the AAC. The question is always simple, who needs the other more?

Absoultely agree---ESPN will try to pay as little as possible. One caveat however---they dont want to risk losing too much of the package. They need about 30 games or so and would love to have another 15 or so for ESPN+. If they go too low ball--they could end up with either less than they need or less of the prime games they really want to use to fill those linear slots. So, there is a real risk to going too low. In 2013, that wasnt true. lol...I dont think ESPN gave a flying fig about the AAC back then. The AAC just fell into thier lap for nothing because NBC thought the low ball NBC bid would be enough as ESPN could never (or would never) match the NBC exposure. Instead, ESPN execs realized they could just stick a bunch of it on ESPN-News while decreasing the net cost of the deal to almost nothing by selling off the surplus to CBS-Sports.

Here's the thing. ESPN is probably the only buyer that really needs or wants the entire AAC rights package. So, if the AAC is going to get more for it--they will need to slice it up into smaller packages that would fit the needs of other potential buyers like NBC and CBS-Sports. If you try to sell the whole thing as a single slab of content---you'll probably only have one bidder. Nobody other than ESPN needs that much.

Serious question, what would be considered a low ball offer? If it were 5-6 Million per team, would that be considered a low ball?

(11-19-2018 08:08 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:49 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They could give the AAC nearly 10 million per team and still come out paying 100 million less a year while getting tons more games for their inventory. Its a no brainer for ESPN to simply negotiate the best deal they can with the AAC rather than try to go all realignment grim reaper on the conference.

Key word above "could" but ESPN. I also see ESPN and the Mouse try to get the AAC for the least money possible. If AAC had a suitor such as NBC, I think it would give the AAC a stronger hand. I still think NBC and the AAC would be a great match. Only question is does NBC want the AAC. The question is always simple, who needs the other more?

Absoultely agree---ESPN will try to pay as little as possible. One caveat however---they dont want to risk losing too much of the package. They need about 30 games or so and would love to have another 15 or so for ESPN+. If they go too low ball--they could end up with either less than they need or less of the prime games they really want to use to fill those linear slots. So, there is a real risk to going too low. In 2013, that wasnt true. lol...I dont think ESPN gave a flying fig about the AAC back then. The AAC just fell into thier lap for nothing because NBC thought the low ball NBC bid would be enough as ESPN could never (or would never) match the NBC exposure. Instead, ESPN execs realized they could just stick a bunch of it on ESPN-News while decreasing the net cost of the deal to almost nothing by selling off the surplus to CBS-Sports.

Here's the thing. ESPN is probably the only buyer that really needs or wants the entire AAC rights package. So, if the AAC is going to get more for it--they will need to slice it up into smaller packages that would fit the needs of other potential buyers like NBC and CBS-Sports. If you try to sell the whole thing as a single slab of content---you'll probably only have one bidder. Nobody other than ESPN needs that much.

Serious question, what would be considered a low ball offer? If it were 5-6 Million per team, would that be considered a low ball?

I know other AAC fans won't be happy. But I think $5-$6 million is realistic. We don't have a ton of other suitors and yea we have some good teams at the top, but top to bottom, our inventory isn't worth much more than that.

(11-19-2018 08:08 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:49 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They could give the AAC nearly 10 million per team and still come out paying 100 million less a year while getting tons more games for their inventory. Its a no brainer for ESPN to simply negotiate the best deal they can with the AAC rather than try to go all realignment grim reaper on the conference.

Key word above "could" but ESPN. I also see ESPN and the Mouse try to get the AAC for the least money possible. If AAC had a suitor such as NBC, I think it would give the AAC a stronger hand. I still think NBC and the AAC would be a great match. Only question is does NBC want the AAC. The question is always simple, who needs the other more?

Absoultely agree---ESPN will try to pay as little as possible. One caveat however---they dont want to risk losing too much of the package. They need about 30 games or so and would love to have another 15 or so for ESPN+. If they go too low ball--they could end up with either less than they need or less of the prime games they really want to use to fill those linear slots. So, there is a real risk to going too low. In 2013, that wasnt true. lol...I dont think ESPN gave a flying fig about the AAC back then. The AAC just fell into thier lap for nothing because NBC thought the low ball NBC bid would be enough as ESPN could never (or would never) match the NBC exposure. Instead, ESPN execs realized they could just stick a bunch of it on ESPN-News while decreasing the net cost of the deal to almost nothing by selling off the surplus to CBS-Sports.

Here's the thing. ESPN is probably the only buyer that really needs or wants the entire AAC rights package. So, if the AAC is going to get more for it--they will need to slice it up into smaller packages that would fit the needs of other potential buyers like NBC and CBS-Sports. If you try to sell the whole thing as a single slab of content---you'll probably only have one bidder. Nobody other than ESPN needs that much.

Serious question, what would be considered a low ball offer? If it were 5-6 Million per team, would that be considered a low ball?

Nah. 3-4 would be pretty low ball. IMHO--- 5 or 6 is where the deal would have to be to start some presidents worrying that they may not be able to get that much in the open market. I think they can pretty easily exceed 5-6 by just selling the 30 games ESPN actually needs for about that same price (5 million a team=60 million) and then selling off 2 other smaller packages for say 10-15ish million each. That gets you to a total of 80-90 million+whatever Navy got from CBS-Sports (So thats whatever Navy got plus 6.66 to 7.5 million a team). Toss in the third tier ESPN+ as part of the haul for ESPN to make 'em happy.

A 16 team coast to coast set up is not completely out of the question. Add 4 top rate Mountain/Pacific time zone schools and you have content you can place in 4 different timeslots not to mention a Friday night feature.

It's all about getting the right schools and BYU, Boise, and AFA could make that happen. At that point you are no longer a G5 conference, you're a P6 conference that has an annual NY6 berth except for years when your champ isn't that good (3+ losses) and a G4 goes undefeated.

I'd love to see NBC get the tier 1 piece of the package and air AAC games at noon and in prime time (and 3:30 when ND has an away game).

You sell the rest to ESPN for filler content, some Friday night games, and Tier 3 games that can go on ESPN+

The AAC has some great content and even at $8-10 million a school is still a bargain compared to paying $35M+ to schools like Oregon St, Wake, and Rutgers.

(11-19-2018 06:18 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 06:07 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 04:39 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

Problem for them is the fork out 20 to 30 mil each to do that. They would be just as well off, taking the 40 or 50 mil n putting towards a new AAC deal. 48 mil per year and you are at 4 mil per team, which is likely 1/2 way to owning the whole package.

Not true. Take 2 of the hottest most consistent AAC programs for $40 million in a P5 conference. They can pay them half share for the first contract, which seems to be the standard for newly minted P5 teams. Then pay $20-30 million for the carcass of the AAC left behind.

Still $30-40 million cheaper than paying for the entire AAC as it stands.

Teams make less, in year 1 thru ___ but the conf pocket that $$ not the TV people.

(11-19-2018 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A 16 team coast to coast set up is not completely out of the question. Add 4 top rate Mountain/Pacific time zone schools and you have content you can place in 4 different timeslots not to mention a Friday night feature.

It's all about getting the right schools and BYU, Boise, and AFA could make that happen. At that point you are no longer a G5 conference, you're a P6 conference that has an annual NY6 berth except for years when your champ isn't that good (3+ losses) and a G4 goes undefeated.

I'd love to see NBC get the tier 1 piece of the package and air AAC games at noon and in prime time (and 3:30 when ND has an away game).

You sell the rest to ESPN for filler content, some Friday night games, and Tier 3 games that can go on ESPN+

The AAC has some great content and even at $8-10 million a school is still a bargain compared to paying $35M+ to schools like Oregon St, Wake, and Rutgers.

In that scenario, who is team 16 for football? Do you bring in Army, add a Southern Miss, or do you go for a San Diego State or Colorado State?

If I understand the conference gets right at 2 million per team a year for the deal from ESPN at this time. Some posters are projecting that the new deal could net the conference up to 8 million per team a year. I just do not see the conference getting that much unless ESPN receives the entire package. I could see ESPN paying up to 4 million per team for the 30 game package but any more would have to be for the entire package.

(11-20-2018 08:37 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  If I understand the conference gets right at 2 million per team a year for the deal from ESPN at this time. Some posters are projecting that the new deal could net the conference up to 8 million per team a year. I just do not see the conference getting that much unless ESPN receives the entire package. I could see ESPN paying up to 4 million per team for the 30 game package but any more would have to be for the entire package.

I think ESPN sees more value for the entire package (the top 20-30 AAC games look better shuffled in with ESPN's P5 games than they do isolated on NBC-SN) AND for the bottom half of the package, they're worth as much to ESPN+ as they are to CBS-SN, and ESPN+ has deeper pockets than CBS-SN. (Not comparing Disney pockets to Viacom or whoever pockets, comparing the budgets available for ESPN+/CBS-SN level content.)

We should start a thread where everyone has until like day X to make their official prediction about the contract - single package to one network or split among multiple networks, and total value of package per school.

I’m sticking with $6m. The Memphis admin would consider that a win as that’s what they said a while back was needed to maintain a $50min budget.