AAC Media Contract | Page 5 | The Boneyard

AAC Media Contract

Hurleyman216 said:
It makes sense if you're the commissioner of a conference and trying to keep a conference together (you sign a long-term media deal). It also makes sense if you're ESPN because there are a handful of programs in the AAC (UConn, Cincy, UCF, Memphis, Houston) that are likely worth more like $25-30 M/year in a P5 conference. So, for example if the AAC gets broken apart and 2 teams go to the ACC, ESPN will be paying almost as much for those 2 teams as they pay for the entire AAC right now. It's all about brand value and eyeballs. Now, if the conference continues to break through and improve in football and bball then this contract is a steal for ESPN.
Expand ...
Of course it makes sense for ESPN. I was referring to your post not making any sense.
 
When it says a majority of basketball games will be on ESPN+, does it mean the AAC as a whole or UConn will also be on ESPN+ a lot?
 
whaler11 said:
Anyone who reads these threads can see I’ve forgotten more than 90% of those here know.

Kind of a bad spot for you to keep attacking me when you called for at least $10 million a team.

I pointed out the league was going to plus since the day ESPN launched it while you were talking about Amazon or some other insane babbling of multiple fantasy bidders.

You should stop popping off and read and learn something.
Expand ...

After figuring in the Tier 3 rights and revenues from bowls and the NCAA Tournament the number is going to be a lot closer to $10M than it is to the $4M that you initially predicted. For the record, I actually do have quite a few ties to these media companies and Aresco did use other non-cable media companies to actually sweeten this deal much more than it would have been. At the end of the day it was a trade off between giving the AAC exposure so that it can continue to grow and what the final payout was. They could have received more $$ per school per year from someone like Amazon as I had discussed. The schools ultimately decided that they valued the exposure they get on ESPN over a few million more per year.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
After figuring in the Tier 3 rights and revenues from bowls and the NCAA Tournament the number is going to be a lot closer to $10M than it is to the $4M that you initially predicted. For the record, I actually do have quite a few ties to these media companies and Aresco did use other non-cable media companies to actually sweeten this deal much more than it would have been. At the end of the day it was a trade off between giving the AAC exposure so that it can continue to grow and what the final payout was. They could have received more $$ per school per year from someone like Amazon as I had discussed. The schools ultimately decided that they valued the exposure they get on ESPN over a few million more per year.
Expand ...

So Tier 3 rights are not included? Because they were in the previous contract.
 
If we are on ESPN+ most of the time in the next few years, then that is on us- the university, the administration and Dan Hurley- for not being good enough for national TV most games. I suspect that will not be the case and we will be on mostly ESPN/2/U games, given the direction I project Hurley+co. to steer this ship.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
They could have received more $$ per school per year from someone like Amazon as I had discussed. The schools ultimately decided that they valued the exposure they get on ESPN over a few million more per year.
Expand ...

Amazon has 101 million subscribers. ESPN+ will never ever ever ever ever get close to that. How does ESPN get us more exposure than that?
 
Hurleyman216 said:
After figuring in the Tier 3 rights and revenues from bowls and the NCAA Tournament the number is going to be a lot closer to $10M than it is to the $4M that you initially predicted. For the record, I actually do have quite a few ties to these media companies and Aresco did use other non-cable media companies to actually sweeten this deal much more than it would have been. At the end of the day it was a trade off between giving the AAC exposure so that it can continue to grow and what the final payout was. They could have received more $$ per school per year from someone like Amazon as I had discussed. The schools ultimately decided that they valued the exposure they get on ESPN over a few million more per year.
Expand ...

Have fun moving the goalposts - are you CL82’s son?

We’ve always been talking about the TV contract - not tourney credits or bowl money.

If you want to believe that they had options for money with someone like Amazon but took a deal on ESPN+ for exposure... please stop insulting others as that’s an absurd fantasy that exists nowhere but in your mind.

This is the Boneyard - not the Penthouse Forum.
 
calluke said:
Amazon has 101 million subscribers. ESPN+ will never ever ever ever ever get close to that. How does ESPN get us more exposure than that?
Expand ...

Because right now people don't think, hey I want to watch a basketball game, let me flip on Amazon Prime and see what's on... ESPN is still the king for sports.
 
wtf is espn+??? games on local tv stations?
 
whaler11 said:
Have fun moving the goalposts - are you CL82’s son?

We’ve always been talking about the TV contract - not tourney credits or bowl money.

If you want to believe that they had options for money with someone like Amazon but took a deal on ESPN+ for exposure... please stop insulting others as that’s an absurd fantasy that exists nowhere but in your mind.

This is the Boneyard - not the Penthouse Forum.
Expand ...

Right, the difference between you and me is I actually know people who are involved with and have knowledge of the negotiations that happened while you literally have nothing. Keep freaking out because we'll get buried on ESPN+. Come back to me in 5 years when ESPN+ has more subscribers than cable and then we can have this conversation again. Until then, stop your b*tching.
 
ThabeetDown said:
Ya'll complaining about ESPN+ need to relax. Yes, it's $5/mo, so have one less Starbucks for the month. The amount of games you get on there is well worth it (many college sports, Serie A soccer, etc.). If you want to complain about the years/amount of cash, go for it, but ESPN+ should not be something to cry over.
Expand ...

Yeah, I'm sure the parents of any football and basketball recruits with limited means will be so excited they have to pay extra to watch their kids' games on TV. The recruits will also be excited about the lack of exposure.
 
damn kinda sucks but if its only $5 guess its okay. i wonder how many UC games will be on that thing.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
Right, the difference between you and me is I actually know people who are involved with and have knowledge of the negotiations that happened while you literally have nothing. Keep freaking out because we'll get buried on ESPN+. Come back to me in 5 years when ESPN+ has more subscribers than cable and then we can have this conversation again. Until then, stop your b*tching.
Expand ...
3b67bffb05e6f3f0a77b8c41d5113477edee8d21c287bc0e853a2c0a410092ef.jpg
 
Hurleyman216 said:
This is what all the dinosaurs on this board don't get. 5 years from now there will likely be more people watching content "streaming" than subscribing to cable. This deal gives ESPN the flexibility short-term to put the content they want on their networks. If our teams are good we'll get plenty of exposure, if we suck we won't. I don't think people realize how many people these days WON'T pay $100/month or more for a cable subscription (especially the younger generation). People under 35 or 40 are more likely to shell out $60/year to watch their favorite teams than spend $1500/year on cable. If anything this will increase viewership over time. Cable is dying folks, I know some of you guys refuse to believe it, but it's gonna happen sooner than you think.
Expand ...

You could not be more right and more wrong at the same time.

The future of sports, and TV in general, is through streaming and customer-curated packages. For cable companies to survive, they will have to start offering the ability to selectively choose which stations you want and pay accordingly based on what you select - along with the option to stream those channels through your various devices.

That's where ESPN will thrive - NOT ESPN+. ESPN will be the service that the customer selects and streams, accompanied by ESPN2. ESPN+ is and will continue to be an add-on streaming platform that the vast majority of regular sports consumers will not consider a necessity. They will be able to pay for and stream their main ESPN content to their devices in-home and mobile.

There's virtually no one who is going to or already has cancelled their ESPN in favor of ESPN+. ESPN+ is at best a tertiary option for the consumer. And that's where this deal falls woefully short - the average sports consumer will not add it to their streaming services and AAC teams will not get the same level of exposure as those on ESPN/ESPN2.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
Right, the difference between you and me is I actually know people who are involved with and have knowledge of the negotiations that happened while you literally have nothing. Keep freaking out because we'll get buried on ESPN+. Come back to me in 5 years when ESPN+ has more subscribers than cable and then we can have this conversation again. Until then, stop your b*tching.
Expand ...

LOL - ok chief.

Was Andre Drummond your source and the games all start at 11:11 on ESPN+?

The more ESPN+ subs than ESPN is going to age about as well as your ten million dollar guarantee.

Amazon - lol.

Does this mean the Memphis FOIA leaks weren’t fake? Remember I don’t know how that works...
 

Online statistics

Members online
289
Guests online
2,654
Total visitors
2,943
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,188
Messages
4,386,571
Members
10,196
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom