AAC Media Contract | Page 4 | The Boneyard

AAC Media Contract

superjohn said:
This makes no sense.
Expand ...

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.
 
aburks41 said:
Idk, but I really cannot see UConn or Cincy being put on ESPN+. We draw too many eyes (which actually may be a reason to put us on ESPN+ lol) but ESPN knows Hurley is a big name and will want to keep him on cable TV, even if that means were on ESPNU a bunch
Expand ...

If ESPN cared about UConn we would be in the ACC
 
Hurleyman216 said:
Yeah and ESPN+ has only been around for a year and cable has been around for an eternity. ESPN started ESPN+ because they've been losing MILLIONS of subscribers per year. Streaming will be king sooner than you think. I know you think you know everything about media, but you really have no clue.
Expand ...

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.
 
Ok, I’ve had some time to digest this news, to think it over; I’ve taken some deep breaths and I have to say....

this is awful*

*see me in the foot notes








*awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful awful
 
.-.
Hurleyman216 said:
Yeah and ESPN+ has only been around for a year and cable has been around for an eternity. ESPN started ESPN+ because they've been losing MILLIONS of subscribers per year. Streaming will be king sooner than you think. I know you think you know everything about media, but you really have no clue.
Expand ...

Streaming will be king no doubt. But ESPN+ is a stand alone specialty app. It has no connections with DirecTV Now, Hulu Plus, Sling, or any of the other growing streaming service. People are already getting sick of having to pay multiple monthly streaming subscriptions. Wait till the Disney+ app comes out.

Would have been great to align with an online giant that is already established and not going anywhere (Twitter, Amazon, Youtube, Facebook, etc...)
 
Last edited:
aburks41 said:
The Big East from the 90's until 2013 was the most popular/best conference in college basketball. UConn happened to be the best program in that conference for those 15 years. We were absolutely on the same level as Kentucky during that time period. If you think current day Gonzaga is our comp, then you must not understand how big UConn's peak was. 99% of people cannot even name another team in the WCC aside from Gonzaga or Saint Marys lmao
Expand ...

I was born and raised in Connecticut and went to UConn during peak BE years. I know how big UConn was, is now, and can be. I was referring to Gonzaga in terms of being to recruit and be an elite team year in and year out despite playing in a terrible conference. There is nothing wrong with that model because we are in a terrible conference! We shouldn't try to be Duke and UK, we should try to be UConn, which is closer to Gonzaga than Duke/UK. The amount of you that live in the past way too much is not shocking for this toxic community.
 
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.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,955
Messages
4,546,610
Members
10,428
Latest member
CarloPFF


Top Bottom