On Feb. 24 of this year . . . UC Athletic Director Mike Bohn wrote a letter to Aresco on behalf of the AAC Finance Committee and Television Committee, which also included Patrick Kraft of Temple and Danny White of UCF. . . laid out two specific points of contention with the then unfinalized agreement with ESPN. The first was “the assignment of production costs associated with increased ESPN+ digital streaming content.” The second was “a model of media rights payouts that includes a merit-based distribution component,” which Aresco has since stated is not something he felt was in the league’s best interest. In the letter, Bohn also stressed that “in addition to consulting with the presidents of our member institutions, we believe it is also important in your role as commissioner to engage our conference’s athletic directors directly prior to any official votes, especially on subjects that would benefit greatly from our expertise and input, such as the budgeting and operational requirements of the agreement.”
In Aresco’s response to Bohn two days later . . .“Please be assured that the internal items you mention should and will be discussed with the athletic directors. However, these matters can be addressed after the ESPN negotiation is completed and should not slow down that process. We have good reason to want to conclude the ESPN negotiation and announce a new deal as soon as possible. Neither of the items you reference has an impact on whether we accept and conclude the ESPN deal that is on the table. As I mentioned, these are matters we can take up later because the new deal will not start until 2020-21 and we will have no ESPN+ obligations until then. We will have ample time to discuss them.”
That time still exists, but at least some degree of a plan is in place regarding the ESPN+ productions. “Whatever football is on ESPN+, we’ll produce through the conference. It won’t have a huge effect on allocations from distribution. We’re going to do that internally,” Aresco told The Athletic. “(The member schools are) likely to be responsible for their men’s and women’s basketball on ESPN+, but it’s a marginal cost relative to what they’re getting in rights fees. It’s a fraction. We’re getting more, and that factored in the cost of what we’re doing.”
Just how marginal the cost, and how steady and manageable it remains through the life of the deal, is still unknown.
I cut up some of it and there's a lot more, but this an excerpt of the relevant points.