AAC Media Contract

[Towney007]

Again you need to look at his buyout. He signed the contract in a way where he isn't going anywhere in the next 3 years. Someone would have to write us a 5 million dollar check and then pay him. He can even add a year onto his contract after the season wraps up this year because of the scholarship issue.

Good to know. Thanks.

 

[UConnJim]

I though the deal called for every men’s game to at least be on ESPN3 - but maybe that was just conference games.

Yes, conference games were guaranteed on ESPN3.

 

[JMick]

Hahahaha. Dump football. Party's over. Go beg and plead to the big east. We don't have any other choice at this point

 

[whaler11]

The language in the story changed:

. Football, along with men's and women's basketball, will remain on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, but the majority of basketball games and a significant number of the football games will go to ESPN+.

 

[UConnJim]

What's the difference between ESPN3, Watch espn, and espn+?

It looks like ESPN3 will go away. Watch ESPN will probably still allow you to watch games on ESPN networks. ESPN+ is a new pay service from ESPN for $4.99 per month.

 

[Robertelamin]

Power 6+

 

[calluke]

The language in the story changed:

. Football, along with men's and women's basketball, will remain on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, but the majority of basketball games and a significant number of the football games will go to ESPN+.

This makes zero sense.

 

[UConnJim]

The language in the story changed:

. Football, along with men's and women's basketball, will remain on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, but the majority of basketball games and a significant number of the football games will go to ESPN+.

The point is a large number of basketball games are already on ESPN3 or CBS SN. These will go to ESPN+. It looks like football will be about the same as it was. The questions will ESPN+ pick up the low draw school basketball games that are not currently televised?

 

[whaler11]

The point is a large number of basketball games are already on ESPN3 or CBS SN. These will go to ESPN+. It looks like football will be about the same as it was. The questions will ESPN+ pick up the low draw school basketball games that are not currently televised?

I know they changed the language on football for ESPN+ from half to significant amount in the story.

 

[UConnJim]

Look at BC, which is the ACC. How many ACC basketball games did BC have on an ESPN network last year? Seven! Out of 18 conference games!

 

[JMick]

I know they changed the language on football for ESPN+ from half to significant amount in the story.

anyone that doesn't see this as a death sentence isn't paying attention

 

[whaler11]

anyone that doesn't see this as a death sentence isn't paying attention

is it really any worse than this morning?

 

[tzznandrew]

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.

I agree with the bulk of your point, but note this: I cancelled cable a long time ago and will pay for ESPN+ before the season starts. I'm not alone in cancelling cable, and I think ESPN+ is a good thing (in general), but a disaster for the conference.

 

[BY06518]

No it's an additional service that costs $15 a month

Is it $15 I think I pay only $4.99

 

[gampelcrazies]

Is it $15 I think I pay only $4.99

It is $4.99. It was a typo by me

 

[ConnHuskBask]

is it really any worse than this morning?

I could definitely think of a few ways to better spend $60 annually than to see us get whacked by the likes of Tulsa and Tulane.

That's all I got.

 

[UConnJim]

anyone that doesn't see this as a death sentence isn't paying attention

I totally disagree. You are not comparing the current contract between ESPN and the AAC and this contract. The coverage is very similar. The reason you may not think so is that many of the schools in the AAC already have many of their basketball games on ESPN3 and, unlike UConn, they don't have all of their games on TV. Yes, we will probably have no games on CBS SN. Basically, we will still see the same amount of UConn football and basketball games on ESPN networks as we do now.

 

[lange10]

This makes zero sense.

I read it as “marquee games such as UConn-Cincy will be on one of those 3 networks but a vast majority will be Espn+”

 

[UConnTrumbull]

The only good news from a TV standpoint is that you can basically cut cable and get any UConn game.

 

[BlueDogs]

I negotiated a Million dollar deal for myself ... it’s a $1 a year for a million years. Aresco sucks. Anything less than $10 Million a year makes the AAC totally uncompetitive second rate conference. I’m sure the deal structure maximizes his bonus compensation.

 

[tzznandrew]

If Dan Hurley wins like we think he will, basketball will be on ESPN and ESPN2 a great deal.

The women are still a draw.

It's really football that this is going to hurt. As if they need something else holding them back.

 

[crewbear742]

ESPN+ will tap out long before the ESPN subscriber base stops dropping. Only one in four cable subscribers even watches ESPN. The number of people who will pay for a separate service is below that. Yet ESPN needs that huge base to maintain their contract numbers. So eventually ESPN will have to jack up rates on their streaming service or cut content. Will people pay $40/month for ESPN? Nope.

 

[whaler11]

I could definitely think of a few ways to better spend $60 annually than to see us get whacked by the likes of Tulsa and Tulane.

That's all I got.

Its 40 if you drop from march to september!

 

[UConnNick]

We already were a mid major. We do lead the other G5's, so in the immortal words of Anthony Michael Hall's character in "Sixteen Candles", we are the king of the dipshits.

 

[UConnJim]

ESPN+ will tap out long before the ESPN subscriber base stops dropping. Only one in four cable subscribers even watches ESPN. The number of people who will pay for a separate service is below that. Yet ESPN needs that huge base to maintain their contract numbers. So eventually ESPN will have to jack up rates on their streaming service or cut content. Will people pay $40/month for ESPN? Nope.

Agree. The ESPN networks have declining subscribers and ESPN is trying to grow revenue by going to more streaming (ESPN+) or conference networks (ACCN). The only question is when does the ESPN channel revenues start to decline as they have been holding the revenues by jacking up the price.