AAC Media Contract | Page 9 | The Boneyard

AAC Media Contract

For MBB
Realistically, the worst case for MBB is that SNY goes away and all of those games are on ESPN+, we're talking all the early season bodybag games along with a few conference games. Best case is they keep SNY and its just your Tulane, Tulsa, ECU games of the world. Not ideal, but not a death sentence.

For football
Its really bad, but the program's a hulking crater anyway. Heck, it could help attendance! Why pay $5 to figure out how to stream a game to your Chromecast when you can get a ticket for $2 in the parking lot. But its going to be bad for them when it kicks in if they keep being this bad. If this contract applied to the coming year, there's an excellent chance UConn would have 10 of their 12 games behind a paywall. Imagine if 83% of MBB games were behind a paywall.

For WBB
If WBB loses SNY and is only on ESPN+? Holy freaking shitballs is that gonna be a disaster. I love them to death, but every year I have to explain to the WBB board 100 times how ESPN's very basic and logical broadcast of the first weekend of the WBB tournament works and thats on regular television, there is no shot those folks are figuring out ESPN+. Plus you lose all of the shoulder programming, which they do a phenomenal job with and have won Emmys for. There's every chance this deal hurts WBB more than it hurts MBB or FB.

For Everything Else (hockey, soccer, baseball, etc)
This is an outstanding deal and a massive step up. CBSi is an overpriced technical joke. For how far these programs have punched above their weight, now they'll all (ALMOST ALL, THE HOCKEY FAN SAID ANGRILY) have new on-campus facilities and a broadcast component to match. Well done. Jim Penders should be the happiest man on campus.

A Word On SNY
The SNY folks don't get enough credit- they agreed to the first UConn deal when they were getting UConn home Big East conference games in MBB and FB & have stuck through it even though they don't get a UConn MBB game after the first two months of the year. They've stuck with it even after they got carriage on most CT systems and their access got worse. They're doing a year-in-review program for a MBB (check your DVR) they haven't televised in 3 months and they're agreeing to televise a CT college hockey tournament in Bridgeport the next 2 years. And they still televise UConn's FCS bodybag game. God bless 'em.

Guess its still better than showing the Mets.
 
You thought you are special enough to make a new thread about this, why?
 
1553046373945.png
 
Slasher said:
The article is not very well written.
Expand ...
It's supposed to be not well written. If the top #1 or #2 team in the AAC is playing Michigan or Clemson next weekend then that game will definitely not be exclusively on ESPN+.
 
like 9ish large all in on espn, 6 large on the img thing, a couple on women/sny thing? that's like 16+ million per annum. since college sports cash is football, and espn owns college football, and this deal is with espn, well, then good on that for husky football too. unless I missed something on the math, what else could a husky fan say but 'noice.' but let's see what our partners think. ya know, they get way over a million viewers on some of their aac football games?
The American’s New TV Deal Is Out. Here’s What It Means for UCF.
my bad. over 3 million viewers. that's like a lot more than the big villanova - creighton football game gets, I think.
UCF Draws Huge Audience For ESPN College GameDay and ABC Saturday Night Football
 
Last edited:
To get away UCONN FB games I pay extra for a sports package that includes CBSSN so this could be a wash unless they farm out games to CBSSN and have some on ESRN+. What are the chances if conference realignment returns we get screwed again to help keep the value in the ESPN+ platform? And as mentioned 2 posts above, we are paying the freight for the league contract as fans.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
I get that people are going to stream - but they are still going to stream ESPN.

It’s not like they are going to stream magic sports stream company that doesn’t exist.

Currently 86 million households can stream ESPN on Watch ESPN and 2 million accounts can stream on ESPN+.

So how does the fact ESPN+ is streaming matter when EVERYTHING on linear ESPN is already streaming on the EXACT SAME APP... and 43x more people have access. 43x more.
Expand ...

I don’t think you understand this concept. Cable. Is. Dying. Streaming will soon be king. ESPN started ESPN+ because they had to (because cable is dying). I can just picture you in 10-15 years screaming about electric cars: “Why would anyone buy an electric car when you can buy a gas powered car?!?”
Times change, technology changes and most importantly (and this is a big one) the population is changing. Yes we have a lot of baby boomers that want to hook up their cable box with a coax cable to their CRT tv. Those people are going to be dead and gone in 15-20 years and that market will be gone too. The younger generations get their media through cell phones and streaming content.
This isn’t rocket science, but come on, try to keep up.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
I don’t think you understand this concept. Cable. Is. Dying. Streaming will soon be king. ESPN started ESPN+ because they had to (because cable is dying). I can just picture you in 10-15 years screaming about electric cars: “Why would anyone buy an electric car when you can buy a gas powered car?!?”
Times change, technology changes and most importantly (and this is a big one) the population is changing. Yes we have a lot of baby boomers that want to hook up their cable box with a coax cable to their CRT tv. Those people are going to be dead and gone in 15-20 years and that market will be gone too. The younger generations get their media through cell phones and streaming content.
This isn’t rocket science, but come on, try to keep up.
Expand ...

I seriously think you are too stupid to understand ESPN and ESPN+ stream on the same app and 43x more people can stream ESPN than ESPN+.

One of them streams the NFL, NBA, CFB playoffs, 35 bowl games, ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, MLB, MLS, WNBA.

The other streams MLS, UFC, La Liga, EFL, G5 CFB, mid major CBB.

They. Stream. On. The. Same. App.

Maybe have your guys on the inside explain that ESPN is available via the exact same app that ESPN+ is available on?

Once you wrap your head around that, I’ll have my 9 year old show you 86/2=43.

You do realize that Playstation Vue, You Tube TV, Fubo TV, Sling TV... you get access to Watch ESPN with those?

Your guys on the inside notice that no CFB P5 or CBB P6 league has moved to ESPN+?

Did they notice when CBS left the AAC out of the Power 6 (branding!) on the selection show or when the women’s tourney made UConn a 2 seed in the two days prior to announcing they are now on the mid-major streaming network with 2.3% the number of ESPN subscribers?
 
These posts would make more sense if ESPN wasn’t available via streaming by 43x more people.
 
zls44 said:
You said that, in the next 5 years, ESPN+ (2m subs, including yours truly) will have more subs than ESPN will on cable (86m subs).
Expand ...

Yes, that’s exactly what I said and there are a lot of smart people working at these networks that understand this. ESPN is smart and with this new contract they know that they’ll lock in ESPN+ subscribers if fans have to tune into ESPN+ for a half dozen games or more. But once you’re paying $5/month for ESPN+, honestly why would you pay for cable? You can get almost every other channel streaming that you can get with cable for about $40/month. Streaming services are slowly crushing the cable companies which is why they’re all switching over to streaming. Now the only thing these companies like Comcast and Cox have is almost a Monopoly on internet. So one of two things (or both) are going to play out. First, as customers continue to cut cable tv, these
companies will jack up the price of internet (this is already happening). Second, one or more companies will come out with a much cheaper way to stream content. It may be cell phone companies, but could also be satellite wireless internet which a number of companies are working on. Once someone comes out with $20-30/month high speed internet it’s game over for Comcast and the cable companies. Maybe they’ll be smart and displace their current services with cheaper ones, but historically these companies are greedy and it’s hard to do.
 
.-.
Hurleyman216 said:
Yes, that’s exactly what I said and there are a lot of smart people working at these networks that understand this. ESPN is smart and with this new contract they know that they’ll lock in ESPN+ subscribers if fans have to tune into ESPN+ for a half dozen games or more. But once you’re paying $5/month for ESPN+, honestly why would you pay for cable? You can get almost every other channel streaming that you can get with cable for about $40/month. Streaming services are slowly crushing the cable companies which is why they’re all switching over to streaming. Now the only thing these companies like Comcast and Cox have is almost a Monopoly on internet. So one of two things (or both) are going to play out. First, as customers continue to cut cable tv, these
companies will jack up the price of internet (this is already happening). Second, one or more companies will come out with a much cheaper way to stream content. It may be cell phone companies, but could also be satellite wireless internet which a number of companies are working on. Once someone comes out with $20-30/month high speed internet it’s game over for Comcast and the cable companies. Maybe they’ll be smart and displace their current services with cheaper ones, but historically these companies are greedy and it’s hard to do.
Expand ...

lol HE WORKS THERE
 
Hurleyman216 said:
Yes, that’s exactly what I said and there are a lot of smart people working at these networks that understand this. ESPN is smart and with this new contract they know that they’ll lock in ESPN+ subscribers if fans have to tune into ESPN+ for a half dozen games or more. But once you’re paying $5/month for ESPN+, honestly why would you pay for cable? You can get almost every other channel streaming that you can get with cable for about $40/month. Streaming services are slowly crushing the cable companies which is why they’re all switching over to streaming. Now the only thing these companies like Comcast and Cox have is almost a Monopoly on internet. So one of two things (or both) are going to play out. First, as customers continue to cut cable tv, these
companies will jack up the price of internet (this is already happening). Second, one or more companies will come out with a much cheaper way to stream content. It may be cell phone companies, but could also be satellite wireless internet which a number of companies are working on. Once someone comes out with $20-30/month high speed internet it’s game over for Comcast and the cable companies. Maybe they’ll be smart and displace their current services with cheaper ones, but historically these companies are greedy and it’s hard to do.
Expand ...
You have no idea why internet costs what it does do you? I figured you were arguing with whaler because you’re bored but you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m one those cord cutting savy millennials, espn + isn’t a short term winner and may not even be a longer term winner. You know what is a winner streaming ESPN. I have enough friends at ESPN, to know ESPN+ is like espn classic ifs just extra content.
 
whaler11 said:
I seriously think you are too stupid to understand ESPN and ESPN+ stream on the same app and 43x more people can stream ESPN than ESPN+.

One of them streams the NFL, NBA, CFB playoffs, 35 bowl games, ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, MLB, MLS, WNBA.

The other streams MLS, UFC, La Liga, EFL, G5 CFB, mid major CBB.

They. Stream. On. The. Same. App.

Maybe have your guys on the inside explain that ESPN is available via the exact same app that ESPN+ is available on?

Once you wrap your head around that, I’ll have my 9 year old show you 86/2=43.

You do realize that Playstation Vue, You Tube TV, Fubo TV, Sling TV... you get access to Watch ESPN with those?

Your guys on the inside notice that no CFB P5 or CBB P6 league has moved to ESPN+?

Did they notice when CBS left the AAC out of the Power 6 (branding!) on the selection show or when the women’s tourney made UConn a 2 seed in the two days prior to announcing they are now on the mid-major streaming network with 2.3% the number of ESPN subscribers?
Expand ...

You still don’t get it. The people streaming ESPN are paying over $100/month for cable.
ESPN+ cost $4.99/month. Cable customers pay about $9/month of that $100+ to ESPN.
What you don’t get is that the “APP” (that’s short for application for your generation) is the new “cable box”. So, you know that little box that sits near your tv that you point the remote at? Eventually that’s going to be called an app and it won’t matter whether your game is on ESPN or ESPN+. Streaming services like Hulu have already talked about packaging content with ESPN+. So eventually, ESPN+ will be a series of channels offered by all these streaming services. I know it’s really hard for your pea brain to comprehend, but everything is going to be ok.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
You still don’t get it. The people streaming ESPN are paying over $100/month for cable.
ESPN+ cost $4.99/month. Cable customers pay about $9/month of that $100+ to ESPN.
What you don’t get is that the “APP” (that’s short for application for your generation) is the new “cable box”. So, you know that little box that sits near your tv that you point the remote at? Eventually that’s going to be called an app and it won’t matter whether your game is on ESPN or ESPN+. Streaming services like Hulu have already talked about packaging content with ESPN+. So eventually, ESPN+ will be a series of channels offered by all these streaming services. I know it’s really hard for your pea brain to comprehend, but everything is going to be ok.
Expand ...

Just stop. Please stop.
 
whaler11 said:
I seriously think you are too stupid to understand ESPN and ESPN+ stream on the same app and 43x more people can stream ESPN than ESPN+.

One of them streams the NFL, NBA, CFB playoffs, 35 bowl games, ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, MLB, MLS, WNBA.

The other streams MLS, UFC, La Liga, EFL, G5 CFB, mid major CBB.

They. Stream. On. The. Same. App.

Maybe have your guys on the inside explain that ESPN is available via the exact same app that ESPN+ is available on?

Once you wrap your head around that, I’ll have my 9 year old show you 86/2=43.

You do realize that Playstation Vue, You Tube TV, Fubo TV, Sling TV... you get access to Watch ESPN with those?

Your guys on the inside notice that no CFB P5 or CBB P6 league has moved to ESPN+?

Did they notice when CBS left the AAC out of the Power 6 (branding!) on the selection show or when the women’s tourney made UConn a 2 seed in the two days prior to announcing they are now on the mid-major streaming network with 2.3% the number of ESPN subscribers?
Expand ...
t3dLl0TGHCxTG.gif
 
Hurleyman216 said:
You still don’t get it. The people streaming ESPN are paying over $100/month for cable.
ESPN+ cost $4.99/month. Cable customers pay about $9/month of that $100+ to ESPN.
What you don’t get is that the “APP” (that’s short for application for your generation) is the new “cable box”. So, you know that little box that sits near your tv that you point the remote at? Eventually that’s going to be called an app and it won’t matter whether your game is on ESPN or ESPN+. Streaming services like Hulu have already talked about packaging content with ESPN+. So eventually, ESPN+ will be a series of channels offered by all these streaming services. I know it’s really hard for your pea brain to comprehend, but everything is going to be ok.
Expand ...

I hope for your sake you are just one of the really odd BY trolls. Inside info - lol.
 
.-.
Hurleyman216 said:
You still don’t get it. The people streaming ESPN are paying over $100/month for cable.
ESPN+ cost $4.99/month. Cable customers pay about $9/month of that $100+ to ESPN.
What you don’t get is that the “APP” (that’s short for application for your generation) is the new “cable box”. So, you know that little box that sits near your tv that you point the remote at? Eventually that’s going to be called an app and it won’t matter whether your game is on ESPN or ESPN+. Streaming services like Hulu have already talked about packaging content with ESPN+. So eventually, ESPN+ will be a series of channels offered by all these streaming services. I know it’s really hard for your pea brain to comprehend, but everything is going to be ok.
Expand ...
This is quite a performance from you...
 
Hurleyman216 said:
You still don’t get it. The people streaming ESPN are paying over $100/month for cable.
ESPN+ cost $4.99/month. Cable customers pay about $9/month of that $100+ to ESPN.
What you don’t get is that the “APP” (that’s short for application for your generation) is the new “cable box”. So, you know that little box that sits near your tv that you point the remote at? Eventually that’s going to be called an app and it won’t matter whether your game is on ESPN or ESPN+. Streaming services like Hulu have already talked about packaging content with ESPN+. So eventually, ESPN+ will be a series of channels offered by all these streaming services. I know it’s really hard for your pea brain to comprehend, but everything is going to be ok.
Expand ...
“You’re not really that stupid are you” -Jim Calhoun
 
polycom said:
You have no idea why internet costs what it does do you? I figured you were arguing with whaler because you’re bored but you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m one those cord cutting savy millennials, espn + isn’t a short term winner and may not even be a longer term winner. You know what is a winner streaming ESPN. I have enough friends at ESPN, to know ESPN+ is like espn classic ifs just extra content.
Expand ...

I’m a cord cutter too and what is driving internet prices is the fact that most of these companies have sole control over the telecom wiring from the local governments. Like I said there are companies working on high speed wireless internet via satellite and if that takes off these traditional cable companies are in a world of trouble. Just as an example, Google is currently working on satellite internet. We’re not talking about some guy in his garage.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
I’m a cord cutter too and what is driving internet prices is the fact that most of these companies have sole control over the telecom wiring from the local governments. Like I said there are companies working on high speed wireless internet via satellite and if that takes off these traditional cable companies are in a world of trouble. Just as an example, Google is currently working on satellite internet. We’re not talking about some guy in his garage.
Expand ...

Shouldn’t you be shorting Comcast then? They have a 180 billion market cap - plenty of money to be made if they are in so much trouble.
 
whaler11 said:
I hope for your sake you are just one of the really odd BY trolls. Inside info - lol.
Expand ...

Yeah I’m just trolling you bro, but how can you be sure it’s me that’s trolling you and not Hurleyman215 or Hurleyman217? I mean I have the same handle as half the people on the BY...lol.
 
.-.
Hurleyman216 said:
Yeah I’m just trolling you bro, but how can you be sure it’s me that’s trolling you and not Hurleyman215 or Hurleyman217? I mean I have the same handle as half the people on the BY...lol.
Expand ...

I was hoping you were a troll and not a moran.

When Calluke is begging you to stop you’ve crossed the rubicon.
 
jdb50 said:
To get away UCONN FB games I pay extra for a sports package that includes CBSSN so this could be a wash unless they farm out games to CBSSN and have some on ESRN+. What are the chances if conference realignment returns we get screwed again to help keep the value in the ESPN+ platform? And as mentioned 2 posts above, we are paying the freight for the league contract as fans.
Expand ...

I feel like the school should pay you to watch the away games for the Football team.
 
whaler11 said:
I was hoping you were a troll and not a moran.

When Calluke is begging you to stop you’ve crossed the rubicon.
Expand ...

Sucks that I’m in your head (along with all my other Hurleymen on the BY). Hope you don’t have any nightmares about streaming services tonight. Don’t worry, if you can figure out how to sign into AOL with your dial up modem to come post on the BY you can probably eventually figure out how to stream ESPN+.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
I’m a cord cutter too and what is driving internet prices is the fact that most of these companies have sole control over the telecom wiring from the local governments. Like I said there are companies working on high speed wireless internet via satellite and if that takes off these traditional cable companies are in a world of trouble. Just as an example, Google is currently working on satellite internet. We’re not talking about some guy in his garage.
Expand ...
im getting 2 companies hawking me satnet now.
in Connecticut. tech/price thing not there for me, yet. soon, tho. proally next week. lol.
 
August_West said:
Should I start preparing you now for the disappointment?
Expand ...
would like to give you the thumbs-up 10 times on this. We are never leaving the AAC for a Power Conference. That ship sailed years ago.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
Sucks that I’m in your head (along with all my other Hurleymen on the BY). Hope you don’t have any nightmares about streaming services tonight. Don’t worry, if you can figure out how to sign into AOL with your dial up modem to come post on the BY you can probably eventually figure out how to stream ESPN+.
Expand ...

He already says he uses ESPN+.

Man this is quite the dichotomy. I never side with Whale....
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,954
Messages
4,546,565
Members
10,428
Latest member
CarloPFF


Top Bottom