Who actually brings value

[billybud]

UConn would have more value even than it now does if placed in a P5 conference...everyone has that fact right.

And so would Houston, or BYU..or..etc.



And...you can truly blame Wake Forest.

It was their President who Chaired the Division I Board of Directors and led the charge for autonomy for the P5.

 

[JeepCSC]

Why do you persist in ignoring what we are saying?

I can't say it again cause I've already said it numerous times and it doesn't get through your thick head.

You are wrong about the ratings, by the way. UNC-Duke last year did a 2.6, while last week's college football did 1.9 ABC and .5 on Fox in primetime, while ESPN's Gameday did a 1.0: Saturday cable ratings: College football, playoff baseball rise to the top

Mea culpa. I must have looked at the wrong numbers for GameDay. Still, the point stands. Something like Tulsa-Ohio State football gets better ratings than UNC/Duke. Go here, and you'll see like 30 football games already with better ratings than the 3 million or so that watched UNC-Duke. College Football TV Ratings — Sports Media Watch

And I still don't know what your point is. So UConn is shown 20 times vs Wake's 0. I'm sure ACC basketball is shown 100 times or so across ESPN's networks. And that's before you get to football games shown, where the real money is. ESPN is paying for the ACC collectively. Wake is getting subsidized by the ACC. UConn doesn't enter the picture, so leave weak Wake out of it. You are really mad at AAC's ESPN contract, so aim there, not at Winston-Salem.

 

[lne001]

This is the OPs whole point. my god, how did you miss that?

Wait a minute: do you not know how ratings work?

And you apparently don't understand that advertising dollars available per rating point vary widely by event and time slot. Thus revenues, the only important thing here, are not solely governed by ratings.

 

[JeepCSC]

You can kiss this idea goodbye when revenues stagnate or even start to contract. There's one thing Ohio State likes more than its conference, and that's money.

It isn't inconceivable that the top 40 or so schools pull away NFL style and recongregate, but it's hard to see a path there at this time. But who knows what the future will bring. We might all be soccer fans in 50 years.

 

[NYUConn]

I did not have an opinion about UConn (you read too fast)...I only state the fact that teams are valued as a collection in a conference...there is a conference value that is determined by the market.

This argument doesn't hold water when the majority of AAC basketball games shown on ESPN or ESPN2 feature some combination of UConn.

@Fishy is right on the money here.

Here are the 2015-16 AAC conference games on ESPN or ESPN2. Notice a pattern?

Temple at Cincinnati, ESPN2
SMU at Tulsa, ESPN2
Memphis at Connecticut, ESPN2
Connecticut at Tulsa, ESPN
Cincinnati at Connecticut, ESPN
Connecticut at Memphis, ESPN2
Connecticut at Temple, ESPN
Tulsa at Connecticut, ESPN2
SMU at Connecticut, ESPN
Connecticut at Cincinnati, ESPN/2
Connecticut at SMU, ESPN

I mean this is comically transparent here. Of all the American conference games featured on ESPN or ESPN2 last season, 9 of the 11 featured UConn.

This doesn't even count the three OOC games we had on ESPN/2 (Maryland, Cuse and Texas) and the two national games we played on CBS (Ohio State and Georgetown).

We are criminally underpaid for the value we are bringing to that network.

 

[lne001]

Your totally missing the mark. Those 15 wbb games were on ESPN and ESPN2 not ESPN3 (which is the home network of BC)

Hardly makes a difference. They are not prime time on Saturday. Women's basketball games on weekday nights are filler, along with women's volleyball, soccer, softball, whatever. What are advertisers willing to pay for these "high ratings"? That's the only question.

 

[JeepCSC]

This argument doesn't hold water when the majority of AAC basketball games shown on ESPN or ESPN2 feature some combination of UConn.

@Fishy is right on the money here.

Here are the 2015-16 AAC conference games on ESPN or ESPN2. Notice a pattern?

Temple at Cincinnati, ESPN2
SMU at Tulsa, ESPN2
Memphis at Connecticut, ESPN2
Connecticut at Tulsa, ESPN
Cincinnati at Connecticut, ESPN
Connecticut at Memphis, ESPN2
Connecticut at Temple, ESPN
Tulsa at Connecticut, ESPN2
SMU at Connecticut, ESPN
Connecticut at Cincinnati, ESPN/2
Connecticut at SMU, ESPN

I mean this is comically transparent here. Of all the American conference games featured on ESPN or ESPN2 last season, 9 of the 11 featured UConn.

This doesn't even count the three OOC games we had on ESPN/2 (Maryland, Cuse and Texas) and the two national games we played on CBS (Ohio State and Georgetown).

We are criminally underpaid for the value we are bringing to that network.

You are criminally underpaid because no one in your conference is helping you carry the load. You are however much of your conference's value and then divvied up equally. Wake isn't in the equation. Tulane is.

 

[Exit 4]

Hardly makes a difference. They are not prime time on Saturday. Women's basketball games on weekday nights are filler, along with women's volleyball, soccer, softball, whatever. What are advertisers willing to pay for these "high ratings"? That's the only question.

BC doesn't even off content worthy of filler status.

Moreover, any talk about filler is misdirected as ESPN is always going to air what maximizes eye balls at any given hour. Filler or not, they put on what product they have in their inventory that offers the best chance at the most viewers. Period. Anything else leads directly to lower ad revenue and a weaken position bargaining with cable carriers over subscriber fees.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

That's a possibility obviously, but just as possible that the current model continues on. Alabama wants Vandy in their conference, and Ohio State wants Northwestern, not simply because of the money those two bring (or not as the case may be) but because it keeps their conference stable and their schedule tolerable.

It is clear that you are intentionally ignoring points that may be detrimental to the school your allegiance lies with (my guess is BC).

I did not include the B1G or the SEC in my statement as they both have far more secure footing than any other conference. Each also has been more discriminatory in adding members than the ACC has and appears to always have planned their moves better than has the ACC.

In contrast to what the B1G, SEC and P-12 have done with expansion, the ACC has been trying to build sufficient membership around their weak sisters that the conference could be viewed as a power conference. There is as much dead weight in the ACC as there is quality. That cannot be said about the B1G or SEC.

 

[Drumguy]

@billybud I'm pretty sure this conversation is over your head.

I just "ignored" him.

 

[NYUConn]

You are criminally underpaid because no one in your conference is helping you carry the load. You are however much of your conference's value and then divvied up equally. Wake isn't in the equation. Tulane is.

Thanks for explaining how contracts work.

When one school's games out of a conference are optioned to be broadcast on the flagship stations of a network 85% of the time, it's clear that school brings value above and beyond that of their conference peers. That combined with 30+ years of evidence that UConn is a ratings draw from it's time in the Big East, it's clear that UConn is being underpaid for what they are providing to ESPN.

 

[Excalibur]

The evidence is right there - who is ESPN featuring on their most valuable real estate?

Overwhelmingly, it's UConn.

Cheap labor built the pyramids. It's in ESPN's overwhelming interest to keep some schools trapped in no-revenue leagues to provide inventory at below market remuneration.

I mentioned this yesterday, but ESPN must realize that this strategy only works so long as the content that they are selling for peanuts actually has demand. As our games become less compelling, fewer people will watch, and ESPN loses the benefit of selling our games for next to nothing.

 

[JeepCSC]

You're nuts if you think an XFL product that grabs time from an NFL product wouldn't be paid bigtime. In any hypothetical, they would. Especially if the XFLs ratings were as high as the NFLs.

The point is the NFL isn't paid because of who watches the Browns. And a hypothetical league isn't paid as much as the NFL because one team beats non-existent ratings from the Browns.

 

[JeepCSC]

Thanks for explaining how contracts work.

When one school's games out of a conference are optioned to be broadcast on the flagship stations of a network 85% of the time, it's clear that school brings value above and beyond that of their conference peers. That combined with 30+ years of evidence that UConn is a ratings draw from it's time in the Big East, it's clear that UConn is being underpaid for what they are providing to ESPN.

But not because of Wake. You aren't subsidizing Wake.

 

[auror]

This argument doesn't hold water when the majority of AAC basketball games shown on ESPN or ESPN2 feature some combination of UConn.

@Fishy is right on the money here.

Here are the 2015-16 AAC conference games on ESPN or ESPN2. Notice a pattern?

Temple at Cincinnati, ESPN2
SMU at Tulsa, ESPN2
Memphis at Connecticut, ESPN2
Connecticut at Tulsa, ESPN
Cincinnati at Connecticut, ESPN
Connecticut at Memphis, ESPN2
Connecticut at Temple, ESPN
Tulsa at Connecticut, ESPN2
SMU at Connecticut, ESPN
Connecticut at Cincinnati, ESPN/2
Connecticut at SMU, ESPN

I mean this is comically transparent here. Of all the American conference games featured on ESPN or ESPN2 last season, 9 of the 11 featured UConn.

This doesn't even count the three OOC games we had on ESPN/2 (Maryland, Cuse and Texas) and the two national games we played on CBS (Ohio State and Georgetown).

We are criminally underpaid for the value we are bringing to that network.

Yes, we are criminally underpaid for the value we are bringing to that network. The fault of that is Aresco, the AAC, and with us.. 1) We shouldn't have taken an even share of the TV deal. 2) How were our ratings in those games? just because UConn draws better ratings than Tualen vs. Tulsa, doesn't mean we draw well enough to move the needle for ESPN. 3) Because of the contract, ESPN is required to show a number of AAC games. They will, of course, pick the shiniest apple each time, but how shiny is our apple compared to other schools? If it were shiny enough, we'd be in a P5 conference. 4) What is the actual value of 1 football game shown on ABC vs. 5 basketball games on ESPN2? Ad prices don't scale linearly with ratings. More efficient use of money draws exponentially higher prices and you need to weight the value of the schools bringing those games exponentially higher as well. UConn in the AAC championship had half the viewers of Kentucky vs. Tex A&M right before it, and that's on the basketball scale. One of the marquee UConn football games last year (UConn - BYU) drew a 0.4 on ESPN. Quantity doesn't necessarily mean .

 

[noeynox]

This is very true but aside from the overarching point (which you are either deliberately ignoring or unable to comprehend) the ultimate end result of what you stated (in this environment where pursuit of further dollars takes precedent) will be schools like FSU asking themselves why schools like Wake & BC are getting the benefit of FSU's success. The next domino to fall here will be the P-5 schools who can't carry their own weight. The move to a P-4 world will be through cherry picking the best of the ACC & B-12.

I don't think this happens in out lifetime. If it was gonna happen, I think you would have seen UVA and North Carolina bolt to the Big 10 when Maryland did. They would,be bathing in dollars if they had.

 

[noeynox]

Actually ESPN is in the business of making money. Thus they show their best properties on their best channels at the best time slots. This is what drives advertising revenue. Football is thus the king, with a nod to men's basketball. Women's basketball draws little and makes little money. Putting UConn women's basketball on ESPN3 at 7:00 PM EST with 10 other women's games is not a significant revenue generator, no matter how many times they are on.

Any analysis which does not show advertising dollars generated is meaningless to ESPN.

UConn womens,basketball is one espn and espn 2 more,than wake and BC combined for all sports., so who knows,what the hell your point is.

 

[HoopsFan21]

But not because of Wake. You aren't subsidizing Wake.

If you live and pay taxes in the state of Connecticut you are.

 

[NYUConn]

But not because of Wake. You aren't subsidizing Wake.

Not in the literal sense, but in the broader sense that ESPN is a network that needs content.

They have their choice in which content they choose to show on their flagship network. They choose to show UConn games consistently at a higher rate than Wake Forest, Boston College, Rutgers, Northwestern - take your pick of any P5 bottom feeder.

They are getting these games a pennies on the dollar compared to what they pay for the right to broadcast ACC, B1G, SEC, Big 12 and PAC 12 games. So to the extent that they can show UConn games on their flagship for next to nothing and ACC conference games on ESPNU, that's a huge win for them.

Because they can afford to show UConn games cheap that gives them highly-rated content to show in between Duke, UNC and Michigan State games, allowing them to relegate Wake and BC to ESPN News. Yet, because Wake and BC are ACC schools they can still collect their paycheck and not have to worry about it.

So no, in a contractual and legal sense UConn is not subsidizing Wake and BC, but our presence on the network a dozen times a year for cheap allows those bottom feeder schools to keep cashing their P5 paychecks while keeping their TV partner (ESPN) happy.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Does it matter? UConn is being screwed. .

Yes, I would think UConn fans would want to know why thy are being " screwed over ". Without knowing what the problems are with the P5 conferences, and now the networks on how they view UConn, then no steps can be taken to alter this apparent unfair screwing, and UConn's perception nationally and outside of Connecticut with this constant screwing of UConn by everybody outside the state.... and what appears now with ESPN, even " a screwing " inside the state now, and by one of the state's biggest Corporations.

 

[SubbaBub]

FB runs CR because,
FB money goes directly to the school's because,
FB money isn't run through the NCAA becuase,
FB money started with the Bowl Committees long before the NCAA was a thing so,

FB is run by the conferences becuase they control the money,

Value is based on perception, perception is based on winning big games, Big Bowl games are the most common way to see top intersectional matchups.

The bowls are aligned with certain conferences. The opportunity to be perceived as valuable is slanted towned the affiliated conferences. The TV money follows and th P5 is born.

The money allows the division to sustain itself.

Valuable teams play in these conferences, regardless of the individual schools value. Over time the success builds a following, this following amplifies perception which amplifies money which perpetuates the divide.

To be valuable you need to be in a conference with access to a contract bowl game, then you need to win enough to build a large following. Without the winning and a large following any school can be plugged into the P5 system and be compensated as if they were "valuable".

We are more valuable per media dollar earned than any school in the nation right now. If put into a P5 situation we become more valuable than half the current P5 schools.

 

[Marty Jackson]

I know there has been threads on Tier 1,2, and 3 rights in the passed... I'm not too savy on the searching for old threads.
can some explain what uconn's tier 2/3 rights are and where they are going today? If the AAC has a contract from ESPN that pays $x's, is the actual payout to each team increased because they are pooling everyone's Tier 3 funds? I'm assuming Uconn's Tier 3 rights are one of the highest in the AAC, hence they are subsidizing the other AAC schools.

Would that have been in the Uconn presentation as well? wouldn't that be an easy way to determine what a school is bringing to the table in terms of value? If that figure were known or more public wouldn't that debunk ESPN/Fox theory of $0 value for G5 schools. It would certainly start to formulate a view of Fishy's comments above about just how much Uconn is subsidizing both the AAC and ESPN while the university is consistently told they add $0 value.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Cheap labor built the pyramids. .

The Pyramids were built by a combo of unwilling forced indigenous labor and slave labor from captured peoples. The analogy here then is that UConn is " cheap labor" :.. or are forced " slaves " in P5 realignments, and in relationships to the Networks. If that is the case, UConn should have the right to quit being " slaves", and walk away altogether if the relationships are so slave like. Unlike the builders of the pyramids, UConn is not being forced to build ESPN even a water cooler there in Bristol, so they can cease any contracts they have with ESPN when their contract is up, and walk, if they believe in hindsight they were screwed over in the contracts they agreed too earlier with ESPN.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Damn ESPN. Trying to kill UConn using our own tax dollars. Then we the taxpayers have to give more tax dollars to make up the University's difference. Just so Wake Forest and BC are able to get a big enough cut of the ACC pie.

yes... and when that fact becomes more universally known, I think you'll have more congressional input. right now, CT is the only flagship university that was relegated. if that pool takes on Kansas or Iowa State, I think you'll start to see a backlash.
Was it a coincidence that Utah wound up in the Pac12? Their senator was the most outspoken about the BCS cartel at the time.
Suddenly he doesn't have a dog in the fight.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Yes, we are criminally underpaid for the value we are bringing to that network. The fault of that is Aresco, the AAC, and with us..

My memory is Swiss cheese and hit or miss so maybe I'm remembering wrong. Wasn't there essentially just one bidder for our product (NBCSN?)? ESPN had the right to match it and since the initial bid was so low, that's how ESPN got it for pennies. The one good thing we got that factors into this argument was that the initial bidder was going to televise every FB game (or maybe it was FB & BB), so ESPN had to match that too. So we are on TV all the time and getting great exposure but getting pennies on the dollar.
Now someone correct what I've remembered incorrectly.