After Five Years, American Athletic Conference Finds Stability But Enters Crucial Stage

[SubbaBub]

You think a 900% increase is reasonable? Aresco should bring in you the room with him.

Rule #1 of negotiation. The past doesn't mean squat.

This is precisely why most people need to change employers to see a decent raise. There is usually one side that carries the baggage of current salary when they should be focusing on current or better yet future value.

The AAC was a bargain because it was an unknown commodity. That is no longer true.

I don't know if $20M is in the cards. I'd need to see comparables and some more advanced data but my gut tells me that the best deal lies in splitting up the packages, by media, time slot, priority, and maybe even sport though I think from an optimal exposure level they'd want BB and FB to be together.

 

[noeynox]

Rule #1 of negotiation. The past doesn't mean squat.

This is precisely why most people need to change employers to see a decent raise. There is usually one side that carries the baggage of current salary when they should be focusing on current or better yet future value.

The AAC was a bargain because it was an unknown commodity. That is no longer true.

I don't know if $20M is in the cards. I'd need to see comparables and some more advanced data but my gut tells me that the best deal lies in splitting up the packages, by media, time slot, priority, and maybe even sport though I think from an optimal exposure level they'd want BB and FB to be together.

This is not a bad post but there is this line of demarcation called the P5. The people paying money are not going to pay premium for G5 content. Aresco knows this I think, and why he has pushed the P6 narrative so hard. He gets an A for effort from me.

I really hope they end up on Amazon or somewhere else for more money.

 

[SubbaBub]

This is not a bad post but there is this line of demarcation called the P5. The people paying money are not going to pay premium for G5 content. Aresco knows this I think, and why he has pushed the P6 narrative so hard. He gets an A for effort from me.

I really hope they end up on Amazon or somewhere else for more money.

That would be the market comp. IF the AAC ratings, among other things, are close to that of the P5 then they should expect close to P5 money, with certain adjustments. The previous contract however isn't a factor, unless the guy in charge of the deal is a moron.

The AAC's bigger problem is that those comps may as well been signed in the 1800's. The cable marketplace is nothing like it was. TV eyeballs and money used to be fairly well coordinated. To get more money, they AAC may have to accept narrower distribution which on it's face makes no sense but, cobbling together multiple smaller deals with more narrowly seen outlets may end up with a bigger total payout. That's a problem as well due to the weakness of the lower half of the AAC content. Would mean more local distribution and less national. Sucks if you are a fan outside the home market.

 

[whaler11]

IF the AAC ratings, among other things, are close to that of the P5 then they should expect close to P5 money, with certain adjustments.

The cable marketplace is nothing like it was. TV eyeballs and money used to be fairly well coordinated.

The cable television revenue model isn’t based on ratings so you can throw paragraph 1 out the window.

You seemed to get there in the second paragraph.

The regulator on the contract is that there are seemingly no non-ESPN bidders.

 

[SubbaBub]

The cable television revenue model isn’t based on ratings so you can throw paragraph 1 out the window.

You seemed to get there in the second paragraph.

The regulator on the contract is that there are seemingly no non-ESPN bidders.

The conference network model is not based on ratings (it's subscribers). For the established national networks, it's still ratings, with streaming subscriptions coming on, and live content filler coming in a distant third.

The competing narratives are that the AAC had no track record last time around vs. the market is not the same the last time around. The AAC should do better this time. How much better and what they have to give up in terms of exposure on national networks is the question.

Will keeping similar exposure terms mean only a slight bump or is there a better deal by partnering with lesser distributions. Would subscriber models work better?

 

[whaler11]

The conference network model is not based on ratings (it's subscribers). For the established national networks, it's still ratings, with streaming subscriptions coming on, and live content filler coming in a distant third.

The competing narratives are that the AAC had no track record last time around vs. the market is not the same the last time around. The AAC should do better this time. How much better and what they have to give up in terms of exposure on national networks is the question.

Will keeping similar exposure terms mean only a slight bump or is there a better deal by partnering with lesser distributions. Would subscriber models work better?

ESPN, FS1, NBCSN are not based on ratings. They make their money on carriage just like the BTN and SEC network.

The only thing that moves the number is demand and nobody can even come up with a credible second party to bid.

We already know that other than UConn these schools t-3 rights are generally worthless.

You can see how worthless even at P5 schools as ESPN is pushing production costs onto the schools (see the Tulane documents and the ACC network).

Breaking the parts with value and sticking them on RSNs would destroy the conference. Their best selling point in recruiting is that the games are plastered all over ESPN.

The commissioner isn’t randomly talking about ESPN+.

 

[Fishy]

The regulator on the contract is that there are seemingly no non-ESPN bidders.

This is really the beginning and the end of it.

The conference has performed reasonably well and in a perfect world, it would be set to receive a competitive bump in rights fees....but they're going to market where the market is just one bidder.

That's never ideal.

The conference has to hope that ESPN will somehow see the value of paying it something more than nothing if only to preserve the whatever value the conference holds for them.

 

[Exit 4]

Lets be glad ncaa women’s soft ball is not a year round sport.

 

[CL82]

That would be the market comp. IF the AAC ratings, among other things, are close to that of the P5 then they should expect close to P5 money, with certain adjustments. The previous contract however isn't a factor, unless the guy in charge of the deal is a moron.

The AAC's bigger problem is that those comps may as well been signed in the 1800's. The cable marketplace is nothing like it was. TV eyeballs and money used to be fairly well coordinated. To get more money, they AAC may have to accept narrower distribution which on it's face makes no sense but, cobbling together multiple smaller deals with more narrowly seen outlets may end up with a bigger total payout. That's a problem as well due to the weakness of the lower half of the AAC content. Would mean more local distribution and less national. Sucks if you are a fan outside the home market.

They problem is that accepting smaller segmented market deals is a death spiral for the conference. The strength of the conference has been its visibility. Take that away and it will be forgotten and left to whither on the vine.

 

[SubbaBub]

They problem is that accepting smaller segmented market deals is a death spiral for the conference. The strength of the conference has been its visibility. Take that away and it will be forgotten and left to whither on the vine.

Like I said, they may have to sacrifice exposure for money.

And ESPN, FS1, and NBCS are already in over 90% of households, so ratings is still #1. Cord cutting isn't being saved by college sports. It does reduce the amount of money available for them to pay for college sports.