Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #61
RE: ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
(11-20-2018 08:30 AM)whittx Wrote:  
(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?

Army gets a courtesy phone call but they probably aren't interested.

San Diego St is the best target. Fresno St is a solid back up choice.

Quad scheduling gets you pods of:
Quad 1: San Diego St, Boise St, BYU, AFA
Quad 2: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane
Quad 3: UCF, USF, ECU, Memphis
Quad 4: Cincy, Navy, UCONN, Temple

I think there is a lot of appeal in picking up the rights of a conference that has a presence in lots of different regions.
11-20-2018 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #62
RE: ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
(11-20-2018 05:52 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Correct. Last year (using the last full year of games), there were 14 games on the ACC Syndicated network (OTA), 17 that were on the ACC Syndicated network (RSN), and 15 games that were on ACC Extra (ESPN 3 exclusive for a lack of a better term). That is 46 games. There were exactly 46 football games on the SEC Network last year, both teams with 14 teams. Now you may see a case where 3-4 games that were on ESPN 2 this year and 1-2 games that were on ESPN are on the ACC Network, replaced by 4-6 games that were syndicated this year, being swapped out, to help sell the network.

Also, look for ACC Network to use ACC home games against ND on the ACC network as well.
Next three years of ACC home games against ND
2019 @Louisville @Duke
2020 @Pitt and @Ga Tech
2021 @FSU @VT @UVA

I doubt that. Espn barely lets Notre dame game fall to espn and nearly always are on ABC. It may happen once, in the first year just to help sell the network (similar to nbc putting one game on nbc sports net), but after that i don’t see that happening again.

(11-20-2018 06:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

I suspect that Aresco lobbied ESPN hard to get them to allow the contract to be broken up, but there was no "meeting of the minds" on what ESPN would get first dibs on for what price (price in terms of money, in terms of exposure window guarantees, and in terms of how much Big Monday/Big East Tournament dessert ESPN would get for each serving of Big East football spinach). And then Big Ten expansion and ACC backfilling knocked over the entire half-built house of cards.

Without the right-to-match, Aresco can do something like (as an example) separately auction
Package A football picks 1, 3, 5....29
Package B football picks 2, 4, 6.....30
Package C football picks 31+
Package D all basketball

I'm not saying this is the ideal setup, I'm saying that right-to-match was a set of handcuffs that stopped Aresco from trying this in 2012.

Thats not accurate. The conference gets to decide what they are selling. So, splitting thier rights into smaller packages was fine. You would simply have to give ESPN the right to match whatever offer they got on each package. The problem with slicing and dicing the package in 2013 was NBC wanted it all because they wanted the AAC to be an exclusively NBC property. They pushed that idea and sold the AAC on their willingness to aggressively promote the league.

From what I understood at the time, the AAC did not have to accept the ESPN matching offer---they merely had to give ESPN the chance to match the offer before signing with another network. In this case, NBC declined to counter offer once ESPN matched---so the original NBC offer and ESPN match were basically the 2 best deals on the table. ESPN was the better sports platform for a new conference--so the AAC went with ESPN. That said, Ive seen reporting that claims the AAC was legally bound to accept the ESPN match (I believe McMurphy said as much)---so I really cant say for sure. So, while I admittedly dont know for sure---I DO think its is very unlikely that any contract with a "right to match" clause that denied the "right to reject" would be found to be enforceable on the question of specific performance of sports teams. Such a provision would amount to a never ending contract if ESPN always matched. When you're dealing with people rather than things, courts generally tend to limit that type of clause tying one to an employer forever and generally find clauses like that unenforceable (sort of like an excessive non-compete clause). So, I seriously doubt that the AAC had no right to reject the ESPN match. I think the AAC could reject it----but they accepted it----not because they had to, but because it was the better deal.

The AAC actually signed with nbd: it wasn’t just an offer. The right to march allowed espn to match nbc’s best offer, and then allow the AAC to get out of their kHC contract to take the espn contract. The aac was then committed to espn: nbc contractually did not have an option to increase their offer from they point. That’s how the “right to match” works. It’s a benefit not a obstacle. Now it’s conceivable to view it as a way to allow espn to sit out of the bidding process and just come in and match the best offer, but they would much prefer to set their own terms and not have to match someone else’s poison pill. Matching the last deal forced espn to show games on espn news and make deals with cbs sports, something the probably didn’t want to do. Granted now they have espn+ and all, but again they’d rather set the deal, then match someone else’s. So it gives a new suitor incentive to make a bigger or more creative deal if they want the aac, which is a win win.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2018 12:46 AM by adcorbett.)
11-21-2018 12:44 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Renandpat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Central State
Location:
Post: #63
RE: ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
(11-20-2018 05:45 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 05:38 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

That is not really true though. they could have offered multiple packages: they simply didn't have enough bidders to make it worthwhile to over multiple packages. Their best bet was to put everything together, and since NBC promised them national TV for all games essentially, that is how they got Aresco to agree. Note ESPN had a right to match with the Big ten, and they still split up their packages, but I believe Fox's offer was higher than the right to match threshold. .

There is a reason people agree to the right to match. They don't have to allow that in the deal (it's considered a mutually beneficial clause). It often gets you a slightly better deal, when the new suitor knows the original network can match, and allow them out of the contract signed. Sometimes they are unilateral, sometimes there are caps on when the right to match kicks in - one reason Fox got WWE Smackdown from USA, was USA's right to match was capped at $200 million per year: so Fox offered $205 million per year, so NBC Universal had no chance to match the offer.

If I had to guess, I don't see a scenario in which the AAC offers more than one package, unless it is a situation where football and basketball are broken up. Just my opinion. They could, and essentially try to seperate the national TV package vs., what is sublicensed, but I think in order to get maximum money, they will have to let the the network reap those benefits in exhange for a premium on the marquee games. Just my guess though.

Do we all assume that ESPN is earning huge profits from AAC football? How much? We seem to assume that the value of this content depends solely on the quality of the games on the field. Not so. ESPN uses this content to sell TV ads. Maybe they are making zillions of dollars from those ad sales, maybe not.

Whatever ESPN bids to renew this contract will be based on how much profit they expect to make, not how thrilling the action is. If there is no other serious suitor for the AAC games, ESPN may offer little or no increase. Even if the current deal returns a fat profit, they would not make a deal that diminishes the status quo. Without a second, or multiple, bidders the impetus for a pay raise would only be that ESPN can't fill their airtime without the AAC, or defensively, they fear this content would benefit a competitor who could get it for peanuts. Perhaps the airtime could be filled with ACC games or with something other than college football. Possible?

The AAC is guaranteed nothing. Competing bidders is the only way that the AAC should expect a big payday. So far we have only speculation for that case.

Just saw the news that Amazon has bid to buy the 22 Fox Regional Sports channels. Cheer up AAC, you may have gotten the break you needed.
Let's hde and watch how hard they go after it.
Damn. The WWE is basically a weekly soap opera which may be financially disguised under a "sports division". New FOX has really not be as diverse as the budgets of the current 20th Century Fox and News Corp.

As far as Amazon, they're looking at the revenues from the local MLB contracts as those are which drive local RSNs. MLB, NBA and to a much less degree the NHL drive their revenue.
11-21-2018 02:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #64
RE: ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
(11-21-2018 12:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 05:52 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Correct. Last year (using the last full year of games), there were 14 games on the ACC Syndicated network (OTA), 17 that were on the ACC Syndicated network (RSN), and 15 games that were on ACC Extra (ESPN 3 exclusive for a lack of a better term). That is 46 games. There were exactly 46 football games on the SEC Network last year, both teams with 14 teams. Now you may see a case where 3-4 games that were on ESPN 2 this year and 1-2 games that were on ESPN are on the ACC Network, replaced by 4-6 games that were syndicated this year, being swapped out, to help sell the network.

Also, look for ACC Network to use ACC home games against ND on the ACC network as well.
Next three years of ACC home games against ND
2019 @Louisville @Duke
2020 @Pitt and @Ga Tech
2021 @FSU @VT @UVA

I doubt that. Espn barely lets Notre dame game fall to espn and nearly always are on ABC. It may happen once, in the first year just to help sell the network (similar to nbc putting one game on nbc sports net), but after that i don’t see that happening again.

(11-20-2018 06:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 04:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(11-20-2018 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Last time ESPN had a right to match: the AAC did NOT have to take it. They chose too because it was a better option in their opinon. The right to match is a good thing.

It has advantages and disadvantages. The right-to-match provision that the Marinatto-ESPN contract had let the AAC stay with ESPN over NBC, which was a benefit.

But the structure of the right-to-match meant that, effectively, Aresco couldn't parcel out or slice-and-dice the AAC rights without ESPN's say-so--that would run crosswise of ESPN's right-to-match.

I suspect that Aresco lobbied ESPN hard to get them to allow the contract to be broken up, but there was no "meeting of the minds" on what ESPN would get first dibs on for what price (price in terms of money, in terms of exposure window guarantees, and in terms of how much Big Monday/Big East Tournament dessert ESPN would get for each serving of Big East football spinach). And then Big Ten expansion and ACC backfilling knocked over the entire half-built house of cards.

Without the right-to-match, Aresco can do something like (as an example) separately auction
Package A football picks 1, 3, 5....29
Package B football picks 2, 4, 6.....30
Package C football picks 31+
Package D all basketball

I'm not saying this is the ideal setup, I'm saying that right-to-match was a set of handcuffs that stopped Aresco from trying this in 2012.

Thats not accurate. The conference gets to decide what they are selling. So, splitting thier rights into smaller packages was fine. You would simply have to give ESPN the right to match whatever offer they got on each package. The problem with slicing and dicing the package in 2013 was NBC wanted it all because they wanted the AAC to be an exclusively NBC property. They pushed that idea and sold the AAC on their willingness to aggressively promote the league.

From what I understood at the time, the AAC did not have to accept the ESPN matching offer---they merely had to give ESPN the chance to match the offer before signing with another network. In this case, NBC declined to counter offer once ESPN matched---so the original NBC offer and ESPN match were basically the 2 best deals on the table. ESPN was the better sports platform for a new conference--so the AAC went with ESPN. That said, Ive seen reporting that claims the AAC was legally bound to accept the ESPN match (I believe McMurphy said as much)---so I really cant say for sure. So, while I admittedly dont know for sure---I DO think its is very unlikely that any contract with a "right to match" clause that denied the "right to reject" would be found to be enforceable on the question of specific performance of sports teams. Such a provision would amount to a never ending contract if ESPN always matched. When you're dealing with people rather than things, courts generally tend to limit that type of clause tying one to an employer forever and generally find clauses like that unenforceable (sort of like an excessive non-compete clause). So, I seriously doubt that the AAC had no right to reject the ESPN match. I think the AAC could reject it----but they accepted it----not because they had to, but because it was the better deal.

The AAC actually signed with nbd: it wasn’t just an offer. The right to march allowed espn to match nbc’s best offer, and then allow the AAC to get out of their kHC contract to take the espn contract. The aac was then committed to espn: nbc contractually did not have an option to increase their offer from they point. That’s how the “right to match” works. It’s a benefit not a obstacle. Now it’s conceivable to view it as a way to allow espn to sit out of the bidding process and just come in and match the best offer, but they would much prefer to set their own terms and not have to match someone else’s poison pill. Matching the last deal forced espn to show games on espn news and make deals with cbs sports, something the probably didn’t want to do. Granted now they have espn+ and all, but again they’d rather set the deal, then match someone else’s. So it gives a new suitor incentive to make a bigger or more creative deal if they want the aac, which is a win win.

True---but the "right to match" is also a disincentive for other bidders to bother bidding because they know ESPN automatically will get last crack at it with every detail of their bid in hand. In other words--ESPN always knows what they have to beat---but no other bidder has that advantage. In a blind bidding process--no bidder knows exactly what anyone else is bidding--or in auction type bidding process--everyone knows what everyone else is bidding. While completely different---Both tend to create a more equal bidding landscape where the other bidders all feel like they get a fair shake.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2018 11:34 AM by Attackcoog.)
11-21-2018 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #65
RE: ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
(11-21-2018 12:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The AAC actually signed with nbd

Perhaps my favorite typo since KnightLight talked about how UCF's female fans did their animal mascot instead of dig.

USFFan
11-21-2018 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #66
RE: ESPN vs American in its "contract year"
(11-21-2018 11:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2018 12:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The AAC actually signed with NBC: it wasn’t just an offer. The right to march allowed ESPN to match NBC’s best offer, and then allow the AAC to get out of their NBC contract to take the ESPN contract. The AAC was then committed to ESPN: NBC contractually did not have an option to increase their offer from they point. That’s how the “right to match” works. It’s a benefit not a obstacle. Now it’s conceivable to view it as a way to allow ESPN to sit out of the bidding process and just come in and match the best offer, but they would much prefer to set their own terms and not have to match someone else’s poison pill. Matching the last deal forced ESPN to show games on ESPNNews and make deals with CBSsports, something the probably didn’t want to do. Granted now they have ESPN+ and all, but again they’d rather set the deal, then match someone else’s. So it gives a new suitor incentive to make a bigger or more creative deal if they want the aac, which is a win win.

True---but the "right to match" is also a disincentive for other bidders to bother bidding because they know ESPN automatically will get last crack at it with every detail of their bid in hand. In other words--ESPN always knows what they have to beat---but no other bidder has that advantage. In a blind bidding process--no bidder knows exactly what anyone else is bidding--or in auction type bidding process--everyone knows what everyone else is bidding. While completely different---Both tend to create a more equal bidding landscape where the other bidders all feel like they get a fair shake.

It can be, but that's with any entity who has a long term relationship with a current network or other entity. It can be a disincentive if there are only two options: ESPN and one other, since they can sit back and wait. If there are more than two, then no it really doesn't matter. Also remember it's not just about the dollars: the last contract bit ESPN in the ass a bit with the timeslot guarantees, that I don't think ESPN had wanted to do (they lucked out with the AAC "accepting" CBS Sports net as a reasonable substitution). They don't want that to happen again, if they plan to keep them. They want to set the terms. For example, with the ACC forming their own network next year, the SEC already having one, and the Big XII doing their own thing with third tier rights, ESPN may decide they want the ACC to help fill in for the ACC in their syndication network, of which they no longer have anything to sell.

In most cases that I have seen, the right to match has lead to the new suitors making aggressive bids above and beyond what they may have normally done, because of the previous network having the right to match. The Pac 12 and the aggressive bid by Comcast. The Big Ten and Fox's massive deal. The Big East and Fox, who worded a deal with so much guaranteed national coverage ESPN could not even remotely attempt to match. The WWE and how Fox bid so high it made the right to match null and void. And the American deal with ESPN, to get the coverage guarantees they were seeking.



(11-21-2018 11:37 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(11-21-2018 12:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The AAC actually signed with nbd

Perhaps my favorite typo since KnightLight talked about how UCF's female fans did their animal mascot instead of dig.

USFFan


I try 04-cheers
11-21-2018 11:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.