AAC upcoming TV deal will have huge ramifications for UConn, league

[Hurleyman216]

Why would anyone want to be on Amazon over ESPN+ anyway if we are talking streaming. ESPN pushes you during all their programming. Someplace like Amazon they dump you into the inventory that has no relationship to sports at all.

Because 5-10 years from now ESPN might not exist, but I would bet my life savings that Amazon will still be around. I guess this is a lot like saying 15 years ago "Why would anyone rent movies from a place other than Blockbuster?". You would sound pretty stupid saying that in hindsight. The future isn't in cable networks, it's in ala carte streaming and letting consumers pick their content. Some of the cable companies might exist 10 years from now, but their products won't look anything like cable does now. I know it seems crazy, but the media is evolving and technology is changing. We might very soon be looking back at ESPN much like we did MTV. MTV ruled the media in the 80's/90's and today it is nothing.

 

[whaler11]

Because 5-10 years ago ESPN might not exist, but I would bet my life savings that Amazon will still be around. I guess this is a lot like saying 15 years ago "Why would anyone rent movies from a place other than Blockbuster?". You would sound pretty stupid saying that in hindsight. The future isn't in cable networks, it's in ala carte streaming and letting consumers pick their content. Some of the cable companies might exist 10 years from now, but their products won't look anything like cable does now. I know it seems crazy, but the media is evolving and technology is changing. We might very soon be looking back at ESPN much like we did MTV. MTV ruled the media in the 80's/90's and today it is nothing.

So you don’t know what ESPN+ is?

Do you know what MLBAM developed, who they sold it to and who uses it?

Do you have WatchESPN? You can watch all 16 Wimbledon courts today online.

It’s frigging Disney - the whole world is waiting to see what the streaming outlet they are building for their own Disney content. Did you notice they are buying Fox?

I know it’s cool to predict ESPN’s demise but Disney owns the best in class technology and they are light years ahead today.

 

[Guapo]

Because 5-10 years from now ESPN might not exist, but I would bet my life savings that Amazon will still be around. I guess this is a lot like saying 15 years ago "Why would anyone rent movies from a place other than Blockbuster?". You would sound pretty stupid saying that in hindsight. The future isn't in cable networks, it's in ala carte streaming and letting consumers pick their content. Some of the cable companies might exist 10 years from now, but their products won't look anything like cable does now. I know it seems crazy, but the media is evolving and technology is changing. We might very soon be looking back at ESPN much like we did MTV. MTV ruled the media in the 80's/90's and today it is nothing.

ESPN will still be in existence 10 years from now.

Its business model could very well be different; I could see "ESPN+" (or whatever it's called then, maybe just mainline "ESPN") being an a la carte option on a Netflix or Amazon streaming service.

 

[Hurleyman216]

So you don’t know what ESPN+ is?

ESPN+ might be too little, too late. ESPN has been overpaying for contracts and they are broke. Have you been living under a rock for the past 5 years? If ESPN and Amazon got into a bidding war over sporting content (you pick what sport) who do you think would win that bidding war? Just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. You think CVS thought their stock was going to drop by 7% in one day last week? No, they probably didn't, they probably also didn't think that Amazon was going to buy their way into the pharmaceutical business. Hell, here's another possibility for you...Amazon could essentially buy ESPN whenever they wanted. You're talking about an $830 billion company in Amazon. For comparison, ESPN is accounts for 40% of Disney's profits. Disney is huge, it's $150 billion company (5X smaller than Amazon). It might not be Amazon, it could be Google, could be Apple or Youtube. Open your mind to the fact that the future of sports media is not going to look like it does today.

 

[Hurleyman216]

It’s frigging Disney - the whole world is waiting to see what the streaming outlet they are building for their own Disney content. Did you notice they are buying Fox?

See that's the other problem. If they're so far ahead of everyone, why are we all waiting to see what kind of streaming outlet Disney comes out with? I'm not arguing that Disney isn't a great company, but they are not ahead of everyone in terms of streaming content. Their biggest value is still in creating great content for kids and brainwashing them into going to their theme parks and spending all of the their $$ for the rest of their lives.

 

[Guapo]

ESPN+ might be too little, too late. ESPN has been overpaying for contracts and they are broke. Have you been living under a rock for the past 5 years? If ESPN and Amazon got into a bidding war over sporting content (you pick what sport) who do you think would win that bidding war? Just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. You think CVS thought their stock was going to drop by 7% in one day last week? No, they probably didn't, they probably also didn't think that Amazon was going to buy their way into the pharmaceutical business. Hell, here's another possibility for you...Amazon could essentially buy ESPN whenever they wanted. You're talking about an $830 billion company in Amazon. For comparison, ESPN is accounts for 40% of Disney's profits. Disney is huge, it's $150 billion company (5X smaller than Amazon). It might not be Amazon, it could be Google, could be Apple or Youtube. Open your mind to the fact that the future of sports media is not going to look like it does today.

I think that Amazon buying ESPN is a very possible outcome.

Twitter also deserpatly needs someway to justify its existence to share holders.

I could very easily see broadcasting content, sports and non sports alike, as a way for them to monetize their relavency.

 

[Guapo]

See that's the other problem. If they're so far ahead of everyone, why are we all waiting to see what kind of streaming outlet Disney comes out with? I'm not arguing that Disney isn't a great company, but they are not ahead of everyone in terms of streaming content. Their biggest value is still in creating great content for kids and brainwashing them into going to their theme parks and spending all of the their $$ for the rest of their lives.

Hey man, I'm trying to help you out in this argument.

Disney is the world's largest media conglomerate.

Their value is so much more than children's movies and theme parks.

They could close the theme parks and be just as powerful.

 

[whaler11]

ESPN+ might be too little, too late. ESPN has been overpaying for contracts and they are broke. Have you been living under a rock for the past 5 years? If ESPN and Amazon got into a bidding war over sporting content (you pick what sport) who do you think would win that bidding war? Just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. You think CVS thought their stock was going to drop by 7% in one day last week? No, they probably didn't, they probably also didn't think that Amazon was going to buy their way into the pharmaceutical business. Hell, here's another possibility for you...Amazon could essentially buy ESPN whenever they wanted. You're talking about an $830 billion company in Amazon. For comparison, ESPN is accounts for 40% of Disney's profits. Disney is huge, it's $150 billion company (5X smaller than Amazon). It might not be Amazon, it could be Google, could be Apple or Youtube. Open your mind to the fact that the future of sports media is not going to look like it does today.

Broke is strong.

Follow your own logic though - if ESPN’s financials fall apart over content costs - even with tens of millions of non-users subsidizing them... how does Amazon make money by outbidding them?

No kidding things are going to change but are talking about a contract that is going to get signed in about 12 months and amazon has a couple dozen EPL games.

There isn’t even any reason to think they have interest in a marginal college sports conference other than people here hope they do.

ESPN might not exist in 2035 - great whatever. You still need to recruit players to participate in your 2022 season and if your games aren’t available to people you can’t do that.

I do enjoy this false choice that doesn’t exist. Maybe google wants in too - we should sleep on them.

 

[Guapo]

Broke is strong.

Follow your own logic though - if ESPN’s financials fall apart over content costs - even with tens of millions of non-users subsidizing them... how does Amazon make money by outbidding them?

No kidding things are going to change but are talking about a contract that is going to get signed in about 12 months and amazon has a couple dozen EPL games.

There isn’t even any reason to think they have interest in a marginal college sports conference other than people here hope they do.

ESPN might not exist in 2035 - great whatever. You still need to recruit players to participate in your 2022 season and if your games aren’t available to people you can’t do that.

I do enjoy this false choice that doesn’t exist. Maybe google wants in too - we should sleep on them.

Lol honest question @whaler11 (and I really don't mean this as an attack, I'm genuinely curious) if you have such a big, important job; why/how do you expend so much time and energy trying to reign in people's wild speculation on an Internet fan forum?

 

[Hurleyman216]

ESPN is going broke because they overpay for content and the cable subscription model isn’t what people want anymore. I’m a Red Sox fan and I’m more than happy to pay for NESN, but right now cable makes me pay to watch the Red Sox, Yankees and Mets. That pisses a lot of people off and hurts cable subscribers which hurts ESPNs bottom line.

There’s a tipping point of what people will pay, and the fact is cable companies are now charging $200 or more a month for what used to be $25. For avid sports fans they will shell out the $$, but for casual sports watchers the model doesn’t work. It’s not completely about the cost of the contracts, it’s how it’s being delivered and offering consumers a choice in what they pay for. Cable TV is like socialism, it’s great for broadcast channels that no one watches, but terrible for all the rest.

 

[whaler11]

Lol honest question @whaler11 (and I really don't mean this as an attack, I'm genuinely curious) if you have such a big, important job; why/how do you expend so much time and energy trying to reign in people's wild speculation on an Internet fan forum?

I’m off today still recovering from surgery.

I do something different now anyway where I spend the entire day on conference calls that aren’t always compelling. I do most of my real work at night or super early in the morning when there aren’t distractions.

 

[Guapo]

I’m off today still recovering from surgery.

I do something different now anyway where I spend the entire day on conference calls that aren’t always compelling. I do most of my real work at night or super early in the morning when there aren’t distractions.

I've never agreed with you more.

 

[Hoophound]

People that make a good living often have a lot of free time because no one is watching their every move all day. Some use it to play golf or go boating, others read the internet.

 

[Hurleyman216]

People that make a good living often have a lot of free time because no one is watching their every move all day. Some use it to play golf or go boating, others read the internet.

I always knew whaler and “the Donald” had a lot in common, but never realized until now that they are the same person. Whaler (I mean Mr. President), I apologize for anything bad I’ve ever said about you.

 

[Pudge]

When did they ever say the schools get t3 rights back?

Is anyone other than me going to actually name a second bidder that is going to drive things to 120 million a year?

The absolute best realistic thing I can dream up is Sinclair buys the Fox RSNs and bid using that ‘network’ plus the OTA Sinclair affiliates and their Stadium streaming platform.

Now keep in mind ASN went belly-up and got rolled into Stadium so it’s not something that worked before.

This is the reality - not Netflix or Amazon.

Here's a simple rule of Value.

It is not about not having a second bidder. It is the fact that ONE Product (AAC football and basketball) having 1/20th (or less) the annual or per game payment than the ACC/B12/Pac12 ... and still filling like time content during the prime viewing.

You think the less than $3m per school was fair. It never was. The Network got a bargain. This time they are going to pay a smidge more ... and love it. Because REGARDLESS of where we are watching the streaming (Netflix, Amazon or whatever you dream), there still are eyeballs willing to watch a solid UCF team play whomever ... or Houston ... or UConn (if we rise to 2009 level). I think sports executives know that. So, lacking a second bidder is not as important as putting AAC College Football (think USF v UCF) or AAC College Basketball (UConn v Temple) on for that Saturday ... versus WNBA or Australian Footie or whatever.

 

[Pudge]

I always knew whaler and “the Donald” had a lot in common, but never realized until now that they are the same person. Whaler (I mean Mr. President), I apologize for anything bad I’ve ever said about you.

Like Harley Davidson OR Amazon/Washington Post ... he is going to go after you and raise your taxes.

 

[Hurleyman216]

I also really hope that UConn is doing their due diligence to negotiate how UConn will get paid vs. the rest of the AAC teams. The reality is, even with the couple of down years we’ve had in MBB the last few years, the “value” we bring to the AAC is probably something like 50% of the total contract if not more. So, hoping our president and AD are smart enough to go back to the AAC and negotiate. Our tv deal should look more like Texas’ deal with the Big 12

 

[Guapo]

I also really hope that UConn is doing their due diligence to negotiate how UConn will get paid vs. the rest of the AAC teams. The reality is, even with the couple of down years we’ve had in MBB the last few years, the “value” we bring to the AAC is probably something like 50% of the total contract if not more. So, hoping our president and AD are smart enough to go back to the AAC and negotiate. Our tv deal should look more like Texas’ deal with the Big 12

I'd like to think that's what the "whispers" to Rothstein about the NBE are about.

 

[JMick]

I also really hope that UConn is doing their due diligence to negotiate how UConn will get paid vs. the rest of the AAC teams. The reality is, even with the couple of down years we’ve had in MBB the last few years, the “value” we bring to the AAC is probably something like 50% of the total contract if not more. So, hoping our president and AD are smart enough to go back to the AAC and negotiate. Our tv deal should look more like Texas’ deal with the Big 12

Texas has a lot of leverage. They could pick whatever conference they want to be in. On the other hand, we are still stuck in purgatory with no end in sight. It's a hard sell unless we're serious about dropping football

 

[gampelcrazies]

I'd like to think that's what the "whispers" to Rothstein about the NBE are about.

I think there’s a deal in place for UConn to go back if this contract doesn’t pan out

 

[Guapo]

I think there’s a deal in place for UConn to go back if this contract doesn’t pan out

Not sure if you're acting on insider info or not (I'm certainly not)

I was just saying, I think UConn is using the NBE as a negociating tool within the AAC to get a larger % of the money

 

[Hurleyman216]

Texas has a lot of leverage. They could pick whatever conference they want to be in. On the other hand, we are still stuck in purgatory with no end in sight. It's a hard sell unless we're serious about dropping football

Yeah, I don’t really disagree with this, Texas does have a lot of leverage. On the flip side, UConn would likely make way more $$ now if they went independent and started their own network. I realize the chances of that happening are very slim, but the reality is that UConn on its own has the brand power to be getting $20-30M/year. The problem we have right now which others have discussed is that ESPN is getting a huge discount on the UConn brand by having it packaged in a mediocre AAC and they know that. Until UConn calls their bluff we are stuck. I’m actually curious what a network like SNY would pay to own the UConn media rights outright. Hopefully we’re exploring all of our options because bringing in $3M/year in tv money is not sustainable for too much longer.

 

[gampelcrazies]

Not sure if you're acting on insider info or not (I'm certainly not)

I was just saying, I think UConn is using the NBE as a negociating tool within the AAC to get a larger % of the money

No inside info here. Looking in from the outside to me it seems like this is it for football. If they don't get a good contract from the AAC, I can see them going back to the big east and downgrade football.

I don't think UConn would talk to the Big East just for leverage.

 

[JMick]

Yeah, I don’t really disagree with this, Texas does have a lot of leverage. On the flip side, UConn would likely make way more $$ now if they went independent and started their own network. I realize the chances of that happening are very slim, but the reality is that UConn on its own has the brand power to be getting $20-30M/year. The problem we have right now which others have discussed is that ESPN is getting a huge discount on the UConn brand by having it packaged in a mediocre AAC and they know that. Until UConn calls their bluff we are stuck. I’m actually curious what a network like SNY would pay to own the UConn media rights outright. Hopefully we’re exploring all of our options because bringing in $3M/year in tv money is not sustainable for too much longer.

There's been a lot of talk over the last year about how mutually beneficial our relationship with SNY is. I think we could make more money with an SNY partnership but you'd still have to fill a schedule and there would be hurdles with exposure.

 

[whaler11]

Here's a simple rule of Value.

It is not about not having a second bidder. It is the fact that ONE Product (AAC football and basketball) having 1/20th (or less) the annual or per game payment than the ACC/B12/Pac12 ... and still filling like time content during the prime viewing.

You think the less than $3m per school was fair. It never was. The Network got a bargain. This time they are going to pay a smidge more ... and love it. Because REGARDLESS of where we are watching the streaming (Netflix, Amazon or whatever you dream), there still are eyeballs willing to watch a solid UCF team play whomever ... or Houston ... or UConn (if we rise to 2009 level). I think sports executives know that. So, lacking a second bidder is not as important as putting AAC College Football (think USF v UCF) or AAC College Basketball (UConn v Temple) on for that Saturday ... versus WNBA or Australian Footie or whatever.

LOL. This is absurd. There is no such thing as fair. Value is what someone will pay.

It doesn’t matter how many people watch - if nobody but ESPN wants to buy the rights the price ain’t going up much.

LOL at every MBA teaching claim you’ve made.