a few more details on NBC offer

[upstater]

I suspect that UConn's games might get picked up first, so we may get the worst of all possible worlds of having it's content picked up on the cheap without much product to shop to other vendors. Still there are opportunities to mitigate the sucktacular nature of this deal.

The cash from any product sold to other vendors would go to to the conference.

 

[Vuce]

The question is if ESPN wants the league, how much more do they have to bid than NBC for the Big East to say yes? At what point dollar wise does the league think it is worth staying at ESPN?

 

[zls44]

I suspect that UConn's games might get picked up first, so we may get the worst of all possible worlds of having it's content picked up on the cheap without much product to shop to other vendors. Still there are opportunities to mitigate the sucktacular nature of this deal.

I'm selfish in that I care more about ability/ways to watch the games. At this point, the money is so much less than everyone else, I just care about getting to watch it.

 

[joey3$trike$]

I think the exposure of the Uconn program or brand is good with the NBC deal. I personally don't think they should accept any offer from ESPN. NBC will have the huskies as the top dog in the NBE. I'd rather be #1 then 5-6-or 7th like they currently are. Only competition would be Cincy as far as football and MBB is concerned. ESPN coddles to the ACC, they can care less about the NBE as we have seen in the past. History repeats itself, NBE won't make the same mistake. Plus if Uconn can get SNY or CBS deals extra $$$ for them. It's also only for 6 years, who knows what happens with CR then.

 

[upstater]

Obligatory banked 3 pointer

 

[ZooCougar]

Look at the TLC NBC gives to nothing burger sports like curling. Once they get some legit sports with a bona fine Division I conference, they are going to promote the crap out of it.

I would ignore Blauds. He's a crank and he doesn't have the full picture.

 

[RioDog]

We should become the Texas of the nnnnnBE. Form DBN (the Dog Bone Network) and lord our hoops prowess

I think the exposure of the Uconn program or brand is good with the NBC deal. I personally don't think they should accept any offer from ESPN. NBC will have the huskies as the top dog in the NBE. I'd rather be #1 then 5-6-or 7th like they currently are. Only competition would be Cincy as far as football and MBB is concerned. ESPN coddles to the ACC, they can care less about the NBE as we have seen in the past. History repeats itself, NBE won't make the same mistake. Plus if Uconn can get SNY or CBS deals extra $ for them. It's also only for 6 years, who knows what happens with CR then.

Given the above I think UCOnn should become the Texas of the NNNNNNBE. Form the DBN (dog bone network), lord our hoops prowess over the rest of the league and dictate our terms. I have spoken.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

The Big East can reject ESPN's offer. The Big East decides. Not ESPN.

Not according to this article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...-east-tv-negotiations/?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp


ESPN will have a chance to match NBC Sports' offer, which a source confirmed is between $20 and $23 million per year for six years. ESPN is the current Big East rights holder and has the contractual option to match any offer that the league gets.

This allows ESPN a chance to stock up live programming inventory at a cheap rate and keep it off the air of one of its competitors. ESPN has seven days to respond to the terms the Big East presented it with.

 

[Fishy]

Yes, they get a window to match any offer. But that doesn't meant the BE has to take it.

How can that be?

A right to match is a right to match. If they BE is not obligated to accept it, then it's not any sort of right - doesn't add up.

 

[metsfan2323]

How can that be?

A right to match is a right to match. If they BE is not obligated to accept it, then it's not any sort of right - doesn't add up.

But we are out from under their contract no? Is the right to match eternal? Did the C7 have the Pope sign this contract for us? I read on other boards that the Big East is not obligated to ESPN if they match.

 

[UConnDan97]

If I can play "Devil's Advocate" for a second, let's assume that a match by ESPN means that they automatically get the contract. But my question would be: How does one define "a match" in this case? Is there actual paperwork saying that the match is only monetary? We've constantly heard Aresco say that we wanted to go with a network that would "promote us properly" (whatever that might mean is up for interpretation, I'm sure). In other words, does ESPN have to also match the amount of games on their main channel during favorable Saturday timeslots, as well as other perks that NBC is offering?

Simply put, I don't know if a monetary match is all that is required to meet the standard of "matching the contract", even if that term is present in our current contract language...

 

[metsfan2323]

If I can play "Devil's Advocate" for a second, let's assume that a match by ESPN means that they automatically get the contract. But my question would be: How does one define "a match" in this case? Is there actual paperwork saying that the match is only monetary? We've constantly heard Aresco say that we wanted to go with a network that would "promote us properly" (whatever that might mean is up for interpretation, I'm sure). In other words, does ESPN have to also match the amount of games on their main channel during favorable Saturday timeslots, as well as other perks that NBC is offering?

Simply put, I don't know if a monetary match is all that is required to meet the standard of "matching the contract", even if that term is present in our current contract language...

My take on it is ESPN has the right to review the details of our contract for one week which would then give them one week to make a counter offer while everyone's cards were on the table, but I doubt the Big East would be legally bound to sign with ESPN because, you are right this is more than just money. If NBC guarantee's us games on NBC's main channel that would be something that ESPN cannot match. (a game on NBC)

 

[upstater]

How can that be?

A right to match is a right to match. If they BE is not obligated to accept it, then it's not any sort of right - doesn't add up.

It's the poison pill concept. Every contract has different parameters. In this case, the option simply guarantees by contract the former rights holder the right to beat the other offer. In sports, the right to match is regulated for precisely this reason. For instance, Aaron Rodgers gets an offer from Seattle that says, Rodgers gets $20 million per year if he plays 8 games in Seattle, and if he doesn't, his contract is $30 million a year. It's a poison pill, the parameters favor Seattle. For this reason, these options simply give ESPN a window to beat NBC's offer.

 

[upstater]

Not according to this article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...-east-tv-negotiations/?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp


ESPN will have a chance to match NBC Sports' offer, which a source confirmed is between $20 and $23 million per year for six years. ESPN is the current Big East rights holder and has the contractual option to match any offer that the league gets.

This allows ESPN a chance to stock up live programming inventory at a cheap rate and keep it off the air of one of its competitors. ESPN has seven days to respond to the terms the Big East presented it with.

How many times can Thamel get things wrong?

Blaudschun is correct on this.

 

[upstater]

I remember the time Bill Parcells put a poison pill in Curtis Martin's contract that made it impossible for the Patriots to sign him. The NFL had to ban such contracts.

 

[Vuce]

McMurphy tweeted an hour ago that if ESPN matches the NBC offer then the Big East stays with ESPN. If NBC really wanted the league they would have made a better bid.

 

[ZooCougar]

Can NBC make a counter offer? What knd of stupid arrangement is this?

 

[RS9999X]

Doesn't matter except for money;

Here's all the BE has to sell
Tier I content to CBS: 1 Navy game and 1 UConn Women's game.
Tier II Content to ESPN2: 1 game a week from October 15th to March 10th. End of season matchups of football leaders and the Conference game. One good women's top 25 head-to-head matchup. One weekly men's basketball head-to-head natchup between top 25 teams OOC and in conference.
Tier III Regional: 99% of BE games

 

[Vuce]

Can NBC make a counter offer? What knd of stupid arrangement is this?

According to McMurphy's tweet if ESPN matches or beats the NBC offer the package is theirs.

 

[metsfan2323]

Can NBC make a counter offer? What kind of stupid arrangement is this?

I agree, none of this makes sense. The Big East has no choice but to go with ESPN if they match, what kind of Bizarro contract got The Big East into this arrangement of indentured servitude.

 

[upstater]

Doesn't matter except for money;

Here's all the BE has to sell
Tier I content to CBS: 1 Navy game and 1 UConn Women's game.
Tier II Content to ESPN2: 1 game a week from October 15th to March 10th. End of season matchups of football leaders and the Conference game. One good women's top 25 head-to-head matchup. One weekly men's basketball head-to-head natchup between top 25 teams OOC and in conference.
Tier III Regional: 99% of BE games

Why are the women involved? This is for men's basketball and football. UConn makes money off selling the women's rights on its own.

 

[upstater]

Showdown on this issue between McMurphy and Blaudschun.

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5184

On the other hand, if ESPN offers nada, we may never know.

 

[CL82]

Wait, so if ESPN matches then the NBC contract is the new BE/ESPN contract but the NBC contract doesn't cover all that many many games. Since this is the right to match is already executed does that mean that NBC could now buy the rest of our games? It's genius. Clearly NBC and Aresco low balled to make it too good to refuse. The "real" offer will be when they buy the rest of the contract.

 

[Fishy]

It sounds to me like a straight right of first refusal.

They wouldn't get away with throwing something idiotic in there like "ten games must be on an NBC network" in hopes of precluding ESPN from matching.

First, the Big East wouldn't gain anything from those sort of shenanigans and second, the initial contract wasn't written by monkeys...I'm sure it lays out a level playing field.

 

[RS9999X]

Must I point out that Aresco is like a one man wrecking crew? He wants to back the Big 12's move for a championship game with 10 teams to bring stability to expansion (and guarantee himself a job)? Maybe he could openly politic for FSU to stay in the ACC forever and vote to sanction the BiG if they ever expand again.

Sent from my Lumia 920 via Windows 8. Now bite me Apple Droids.

 

[UCHuskies08]

I remember the time Bill Parcells put a poison pill in Curtis Martin's contract that made it impossible for the Patriots to sign him. The NFL had to ban such contracts.

That's actually not correct - there was famously a poison pill put in a RFA offer to Steve Hutchinson by the Vikings when he was an RFA of the Seahawks. It said if he was not the highest paid lineman on his team, that his entire contract became fully guaranteed - making it not signable by the Seahawks because of Walter Jones. Later, the Seahawks did the exact same thing in reverse for Nate Burleson - with a contract saying that if he played a season in which 5 of the games were in the state of Minnesota his contract was fully guaranteed. This obviously worked out far more for the Vikings than Seahawks.

I'm 99% certain they were never made illegal, though there was discussion to do so amongst the league and PA.

Source that partially backs up my claim:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/03/03/tender/index.html

Poison pills are a completely legal and acceptable way to acquire tendered players in the NFL. An arbitrator ruled so in a grievance the Seahawks filed in 2006 after the Minnesota Vikings snuck a fast one past Seattle to secure All-Pro left guardSteve Hutchinson. The Seahawks quickly returned the favor by inserting their own poison pill to stealNate Burlesonfrom the Vikings. Yet amazingly, even though two players of that caliber were acquired in such a manner, there has not been another poison pill acquisition.

Read More:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/03/03/tender/index.html#ixzz2L7iOLTSt

 

[RS9999X]

the Big East will also close a deal which could include, CBS, TBS and Fox as well, which will bring in additional revenue.


Seems Aresco would have been quick to point out that NBC was one of several moving parts. He did so earlier but failed to communicate that revenue potential the last two weeks.

Sent from my Lumia 920 via Windows 8. Now bite me Apple Droids.

 

[upstater]

That's actually not correct - there was famously a poison pill put in a RFA offer to Steve Hutchinson by the Vikings when he was an RFA of the Seahawks. It said if he was not the highest paid lineman on his team, that his entire contract became fully guaranteed - making it not signable by the Seahawks because of Walter Jones. Later, the Seahawks did the exact same thing in reverse for Nate Burleson - with a contract saying that if he played a season in which 5 of the games were in the state of Minnesota his contract was fully guaranteed. This obviously worked out far more for the Vikings than Seahawks.

I'm 99% certain they were never made illegal, though there was discussion to do so amongst the league and PA.

Source that partially backs up my claim:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/03/03/tender/index.html

In terms of what I'm arguing, poison pills show effectively that matching an offer requires the matcher to take on the entire terms of the contract, not just the money.

But, indeed, some poison pill contracts are banned by the NFL.

"That was what I call borderline attorney ... you know, ambulance-chaser, attorney kind of stuff," he said. "It was something where they took advantage. ... It was not the intent of the deal. It was clever lawyer stuff. It's not in the spirit of what the whole agreement was, and that loophole was plugged."
The following year, the league banned the poison pill. Too late for the Patriots.
"That's now how we do business," Kraft said. "It was unfortunate. We probably should've found a way to get him signed before that. We didn't. It's one of our many mistakes."
By rule, the Patriots had one week to make a decision. They contacted Martin to feel him out, telling him they'd probably decline to match unless he promised to stay long term. His response: No promises, do what you have to do, according to Parker.

 

[Fishy]

Must I point out that Aresco is like a one man wrecking crew? He wants to back the Big 12's move for a championship game with 10 teams to bring stability to expansion (and guarantee himself a job)? Maybe he could openly politic for FSU to stay in the ACC forever and vote to sanction the BiG if they ever expand again.

Sent from my Lumia 920 via Windows 8. Now bite me Apple Droids.

I now want him dead.

 

[ZooCougar]

I now want him dead.

Don't worry Businesslawyer will be here soon to tell us how he is doing such a great job given the circumstances.