Mistaken assumptions about AAC and ESPN3

[MilliniumPrince]

Really, about 3 big things:

1) he could have left rights for schools to sell so the UConn's, Memphis's, Cinci's could have maximized their value (e.g. Tier 3 rights, and especially women's basketball where we are getting hosed on this contract).
2) I want a hard commitment to channels for games, not wishy washy "national TV"
3) When he went and added schools I want to see a justification that the school added to the TV contract in a real, not conceptual, way (see Tulane).

That is all. Doesn't seem like too much to ask from a guy making a mill.

Again.... What leverage did he have in the inherited situation to accomplish an of he above? If he let the schools control their own rights... Why the hell would ESPN or NBC agree to that? I don't know the man, but dear God!! He was at a high stakes poker table with about $100 in chips. Why would any network agree to any of that... For a league who seemed to lose a program every month? Why should he had added instead of those who joined? Why would these better teams jump on board a sinking ship? The Aresco bashing leaves me stunned.

 

[specialisthusky]

Again.... What leverage did he have in the inherited situation to accomplish an of he above? If he let the schools control their own rights... Why the hell would ESPN or NBC agree to that? I don't know the man, but dear God!! He was at a high stakes poker table with about $100 in chips. Why would any network agree to any of that... For a league who seemed to lose a program every month? Why should he had added instead of those who joined? Why would these better teams jump on board a sinking ship? The Aresco bashing leaves me stunned.

The Aresco bashing is no different than an overpaid baseball player who strikes out a ton. Half the amount of people giving him a hard time wouldn't be if he personally was not making as much as UCONN.

 

[Waquoit]

That is good news. Let's try and keep this thread what it is, positive, cause God knows it would be pretty awesome to have one of them on these boards.

Didn't take you for a "Barney" type of guy, art.

 

[Waquoit]

The Aresco bashing is no different than an overpaid baseball player who strikes out a ton.

Yeah, but in baseball that type of guy hit the occaisional home run. Aresco just strikes out a lot.

 

[tcf15]

CBS is 6 conference, 6 OOC.

Since the basketball contract starts this year, we'll get to see what it's going to be like right away.

UConn-USF was on ESPNU and SNY also because UConn had been on for so many other conference games during the year. Can't show UConn each week. This year, the UConn-USF game will be one of the more competitive games and may get onto 2.

Don't mean to jump in the middle of this, but I have a question about the CBS coverage. Are the 12 games guaranteed to be on CBS, or will it be split between CBS and CBS Sports Network? I remember the preseason tournament UConn played in last year was broadcast on CBS Sports Network and it was pretty awful.

 

[upstater]

Don't mean to jump in the middle of this, but I have a question about the CBS coverage. Are the 12 games guaranteed to be on CBS, or will it be split between CBS and CBS Sports Network? I remember the preseason tournament UConn played in last year was broadcast on CBS Sports Network and it was pretty awful.

CBS not the Sports Network.

One of the reasons why the value of the ESPN deal was driven down so low is that CBS gets first choice of any 12 games it wants.

This is the deal the league used to have with CBS.

Now, the fact that these games are guaranteed national games on a big network is great. But, you have to wonder about CBS getting the best games for next to nothing.

If ESPN had guaranteed a certain number of games on ESPN, you could argue the conference was better off going with ESPN than CBS.

The ratings for national CBS and ESPN games are roughly similar.

 

[UPitt]

CBS not the Sports Network.

One of the reasons why the value of the ESPN deal was driven down so low is that CBS gets first choice of any 12 games it wants.

This is the deal the league used to have with CBS.

Now, the fact that these games are guaranteed national games on a big network is great. But, you have to wonder about CBS getting the best games for next to nothing.

If ESPN had guaranteed a certain number of games on ESPN, you could argue the conference was better off going with ESPN than CBS.

The ratings for national CBS and ESPN games are roughly similar.

Until fall of 2014, everything is just speculation. You are assuming that CBS will broadcast the games on CBS instead of CBS Sports. I believe the contract gives CBS the rights to any 12 games, but does not specify what network will broadcast the games. Being that CBS will pick the best 12 games fot TV, it is likely that most or all will be on CBS. But, my understanding is that CBS would have the right to sell these games to another network or broadcast them on a sister station such as CBS Sports. Secondly, the CBS games are not guaranteed to be broadcast nationally (on all TV sets), and will more likely than not be broadcast regionally. This is not new, as this currently exists for almost all games broadcast on over-the-air networks.

 

[UPitt]

But, you have to wonder about CBS getting the best games for next to nothing.

Have you seen the CBS contract? I have not, but I agree that it sounds as if the AAC was more interested in TV exposure than dollars. This combined with the 6 year contract may be a very good thing for Uconn and the conference. TV exposure is what will drive up the value of the conference for the next TV contract, and more importanly this exposure will help to keep Uconn in the national spotlight. With the contract only being 6 years, the conference does not need renegotiation "look-ins" to increase the value of the contract. After 6 years, the conference can go to the open market and should be worth more after 6 years of good TV exposure. I actually think the AAC conference leaders have done a better job looking out for the conference and its teams than the past leadership in the Big East.

 

[upstater]

Until fall of 2014, everything is just speculation. You are assuming that CBS will broadcast the games on CBS instead of CBS Sports. I believe the contract gives CBS the rights to any 12 games, but does not specify what network will broadcast the games. Being that CBS will pick the best 12 games fot TV, it is likely that most or all will be on CBS. But, my understanding is that CBS would have the right to sell these games to another network or broadcast them on a sister station such as CBS Sports. Secondly, the CBS games are not guaranteed to be broadcast nationally (on all TV sets), and will more likely than not be broadcast regionally. This is not new, as this currently exists for almost all games broadcast on over-the-air networks.

It specifies CBS and not CBS Sports.

It would totally insane to give your 12 best games to CBS Sports Network.

Lastly, CBS bball games are broadcast nationally. During the entire season last year, there was only one instance of games that were not national. Two games went head to head, that's it.

I don't know why in the world people are speculating all over the place when some of this is clear. Not everything. But CBS is clearly the network OTA channel. That channel does not show regional basketball games.

 

[upstater]

Have you seen the CBS contract? I have not, but I agree that it sounds as if the AAC was more interested in TV exposure than dollars. This combined with the 6 year contract may be a very good thing for Uconn and the conference. TV exposure is what will drive up the value of the conference for the next TV contract, and more importanly this exposure will help to keep Uconn in the national spotlight. With the contract only being 6 years, the conference does not need renegotiation "look-ins" to increase the value of the contract. After 6 years, the conference can go to the open market and should be worth more after 6 years of good TV exposure. I actually think the AAC conference leaders have done a better job looking out for the conference and its teams than the past leadership in the Big East.

First, they do have look-ins.

But secondly, the CBS contract is the same as the old BE contract. It's the same thing. Remember, ESPN essentially extended the old contract after it went to market. This is why the American was stuck with the matching provision. It was part of the old contract. So--what the American put out to bid was all of football and basketball (minus the best 12 games).\
\

 

[WestHartHusk]

CBS not the Sports Network.

One of the reasons why the value of the ESPN deal was driven down so low is that CBS gets first choice of any 12 games it wants.

This is the deal the league used to have with CBS.

Now, the fact that these games are guaranteed national games on a big network is great. But, you have to wonder about CBS getting the best games for next to nothing.

If ESPN had guaranteed a certain number of games on ESPN, you could argue the conference was better off going with ESPN than CBS.

The ratings for national CBS and ESPN games are roughly similar.

Do you find it ironic that in a post that you started to defend Aresco you end up pointing out that Aresco likely cost the league money in a sweetheart deal to his former employer? Or that in defending the TV deal you acknowledge that you don't know the terms of the contract and you don't know how "CBS" or "ESPN" or "National TV" are defined, but we do know that the money is crap. Like my man Lil Wayne says, "money talks, bull- walks on a mother-fuc&in tightrope." Aresco is dancing on that tight-rope with his words.

 

[upstater]

Do you find it ironic that in a post that you started to defend Aresco you end up pointing out that Aresco likely cost the league money in a sweetheart deal to his former employer? Or that in defending the TV deal you acknowledge that you don't know the terms of the contract and you don't know how "CBS" or "ESPN" or "National TV" are defined, but we do know that the money is crap. Like my man Lil Wayne says, "money talks, bull- walks on a mother-fuc&in tightrope." Aresco is dancing on that tight-rope with his words.

You've totally misrepresented things.

1. The old ESPN contract also had the provision for the best games to got to CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old. That's why the matching provision was in there. That was from back in the Tranghese days. The whole set-up was Tranghese era.

2. Now, I'm saying that perhaps they could have gotten a better deal from ESPN if they had given ESPN the best 12 games. CBS had no such matching rights. However, the trade-off might have been this: the games had to be guaranteed on ESPN, not 2 or U. Otherwise, it makes no sense to give up the CBS games.

3. There was nothing to stop them from offering ESPN the rights to the 12 games AFTER the initial extension of the contract. Maybe they did. Maybe ESPN didn't add enough. Maybe they thought it wise to keep CBS on board (though CBS is becoming less relevant now that it's abandoned the NCAA tourney).

4. Why do you constantly misrepresent the facts here? You say I'm confused. I'm not. You're taking the Pitt guy's word for it that CBS might not mean CBS Broadcast but rather a mix between that and CBS Sports? NO. Why in the world would they give the 12 best games to CBS Sports? Makes no sense. And finally, Aresco was explicit when he said that future football contracts would be on NATIONAL TELEVISION and NOT ESPN3. How much more explicit could he be?

 

[WestHartHusk]

You've totally misrepresented things.

1. The old ESPN contract also had the provision for the best games to got to CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old. That's why the matching provision was in there. That was from back in the Tranghese days. The whole set-up was Tranghese era.

So we don't learn from our mistakes? You take a job as a professor and it turns out the previous professor was teaching with his pants down. Do you learn the lesson, or keep teaching with your pants down? I don't care what the previous arrangement was, this was a new deal.

2. Now, I'm saying that perhaps they could have gotten a better deal from ESPN if they had given ESPN the best 12 games. CBS had no such matching rights. However, the trade-off might have been this: the games had to be guaranteed on ESPN, not 2 or U. Otherwise, it makes no sense to give up the CBS games.

You are only guessing here, same as the rest of us and yet you are so clearly right, why? I will also remind you that the dude was managing a sinking ship and his former employer ended up with a sweetheart deal. That sounds odd to me.

3. There was nothing to stop them from offering ESPN the rights to the 12 games AFTER the initial extension of the contract. Maybe they did. Maybe ESPN didn't add enough. Maybe they thought it wise to keep CBS on board (though CBS is becoming less relevant now that it's abandoned the NCAA tourney).

Um, fine.

4. Why do you constantly misrepresent the facts here? You say I'm confused. I'm not. You're taking the Pitt guy's word for it that CBS might not mean CBS Broadcast but rather a mix between that and CBS Sports? NO. Why in the world would they give the 12 best games to CBS Sports? Makes no sense. And finally, Aresco was explicit when he said that future football contracts would be on NATIONAL TELEVISION and NOT ESPN3. How much more explicit could he be?

I'm not misrepresenting the facts. I'm pointing out that there are no facts. Have you ever looked at a contract? You are harping on the guys words as if they are gospel when I have seen a million of these salesman talk about a great contract only to open it up and find out: a) they have no idea what the contract really requires / grants; or 2) they know it sucks but emulate what they think a lawyer does and use legalese.

 

[UPitt]

You've totally misrepresented things.

1. The old ESPN contract also had the provision for the best games to got to CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old. That's why the matching provision was in there. That was from back in the Tranghese days. The whole set-up was Tranghese era.

2. Now, I'm saying that perhaps they could have gotten a better deal from ESPN if they had given ESPN the best 12 games. CBS had no such matching rights. However, the trade-off might have been this: the games had to be guaranteed on ESPN, not 2 or U. Otherwise, it makes no sense to give up the CBS games.

3. There was nothing to stop them from offering ESPN the rights to the 12 games AFTER the initial extension of the contract. Maybe they did. Maybe ESPN didn't add enough. Maybe they thought it wise to keep CBS on board (though CBS is becoming less relevant now that it's abandoned the NCAA tourney).

4. Why do you constantly misrepresent the facts here? You say I'm confused. I'm not. You're taking the Pitt guy's word for it that CBS might not mean CBS Broadcast but rather a mix between that and CBS Sports? NO. Why in the world would they give the 12 best games to CBS Sports? Makes no sense. And finally, Aresco was explicit when he said that future football contracts would be on NATIONAL TELEVISION and NOT ESPN3. How much more explicit could he be?

I tried to explain this nicely, but you are flat out wrong. 2013 football season is being played under the the old Big East contract. After the football season, the new contract starts. This new contract is NOT an extension of the old. ESPN matched the NBC Sports Network offer and terms. ESPN was NOT allowed to change any of the language in the contract offered by NBC. Therefore, this is a completely new contract that was written by NBC Sports Network and matched by ESPN. Secondly, my understanding is the CBS owns the rights any 12 games it chooses. Unless explicity stated, CBS would own the rights to 12 games and be free to do as they want with them. That could include airing the games on CBS or CBS sports, selling the rights to ESPN or FOX, or selling the rights to local networks.

 

[upstater]

I'm not misrepresenting the facts. I'm pointing out that there are no facts. Have you ever looked at a contract? You are harping on the guys words as if they are gospel when I have seen a million of these salesman talk about a great contract only to open it up and find out: a) they have no idea what the contract really requires / grants; or 2) they know it sucks but emulate what they think a lawyer does and use legalese.

I wrote this to you yesterday: his statement was explicit. Either he's lying, or the games will not be on ESPN3.

For the life of me, I can't even begin to fathom how you think the games will not be on CBS.

The details have been laid out by Aresco. You simply refuse to believe them. So, call him a liar and be done with it.

And you clearly misunderstood what I was saying about the old contract. I was telling you that the top games were kept separate from the entire package. if ESPN wanted the games, they could have bid for them. Instead, they went to CBS.

 

[upstater]

I tried to explain this nicely, but you are flat out wrong. 2013 football season is being played under the the old Big East contract. After the football season, the new contract starts. This new contract is NOT an extension of the old. ESPN matched the NBC Sports Network offer and terms. ESPN was NOT allowed to change any of the language in the contract. Therefore, this is a completely new contract that was written by NBC Sports Network and matched by ESPN. Secondly, my understanding is the CBS owns the rights any 12 games it chooses. Unless explicity stated, CBS would own the rights to 12 games and be free to do as they want with them. That could include airing the games on CBS or CBS sports, selling the rights to ESPN or FOX, or selling the rights to local networks.

Aye yaye yaye. Why in the world are you repeating my point that 2013 will be played under the old contract, and then telling me I'm wrong? Bizarre. And then you even misunderstand my point about the 12 games. That was ALWAYS the old contract with ESPN, CBS had the best games. The same parameters were in play. ESPN literally bought the package MINUS the 12 games, which was a carryover of the old contract.

Your understanding about the CBS deal is so wrong in every which way.

 

[UPitt]

Aye yaye yaye. Why in the world are you repeating my point that 2013 will be played under the old contract, and then telling me I'm wrong? Bizarre. And then you even misunderstand my point about the 12 games. That was ALWAYS the old contract with ESPN, CBS had the best games. The same parameters were in play. ESPN literally bought the package MINUS the 12 games, which was a carryover of the old contract.

Your understanding about the CBS deal is so wrong in every which way.

Quote from Upstarter: "1. The old ESPN contract also had the provision for the best games to got to CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old. That's why the matching provision was in there. That was from back in the Tranghese days. The whole set-up was Tranghese era."

The old contract had absolutely nothing to do with the NBC Sports Network offer. The AAC went out for bid. ESPN had the right to match the bid, per the old contract details. NBC Sports Network prepared its own offer with its own language. ESPN matched the offer and was not allowed to change any language in the offer. I think you are the only person on this board to think the new contact with ESPN is an extension of the old contract with ESPN.


I suggest you read this article before sticking your head up your butt any further.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...nated-two-more-school-exits-according-sources


Upstater: I have tried to be respectful and have open discussion, by you are so polarizing that you take the fun out this board for myself and I think many others as well. I am glad to see your passion, but no need to be a jerk towards anyone who disagrees or voices a different opinion.

 

[UPitt]

Aye yaye yaye. Why in the world are you repeating my point that 2013 will be played under the old contract, and then telling me I'm wrong? Bizarre. And then you even misunderstand my point about the 12 games. That was ALWAYS the old contract with ESPN, CBS had the best games. The same parameters were in play. ESPN literally bought the package MINUS the 12 games, which was a carryover of the old contract.

Your understanding about the CBS deal is so wrong in every which way.

Until I see the CBS contract, I will beg to differ.

 

[upstater]

Quote from Upstarter: "1. The old ESPN contract also had the provision for the best games to got to CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old. That's why the matching provision was in there. That was from back in the Tranghese days. The whole set-up was Tranghese era."

The old contract had absolutely nothing to do with the NBC Sports Network offer. The AAC went out for bid. ESPN had the right to match the bid, per the old contract details. NBC Sports Network prepared its own offer with its own language. ESPN matched the offer and was not allowed to change any language in the offer. I think you are the only person on this board to think the new contact with ESPN is an extension of the old contract with ESPN.

Holy cow. This is unreal. The old contract kept the best games for CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old in this regard. They didn't carve out 12 games for CBS right now. It was the old contract. They smartly didn't wrap the two together in the same package because the dang matching provision would have wrapped up the best 12 games as well. It was smart business. You are being a poindexter right now.

I was the one who originally said the contract for this year is the old contract, while next year begins the new one. It's in the very first post of this thread. A thread that I started. How brainless of you. The fact that some provisions are extensions of the old is only natural, and I only brought that up to point out that the best games were always outside the ESPN contract, not in it. Why is that important? Because I'm pointing out that Aresco didn't strategically carve out the best 12 games and give them to CBS. In fact, it would have been bad business if he had wrapped the best games into a contract with matching provisions. Get it now? Next time, keep things in context.

Upstater: I have tried to be respectful and have open discussion, by you are so polarizing that you take the fun out this board for myself and I think many others as well. I am glad to see your passion, but no need to be a jerk towards anyone who disagrees or voices a different opinion.

Let me say: I don't give a flying F about your hurt feelings. Next time, if you want respect, try starting by not twisting things.

 

[upstater]

Until I see the CBS contract, I will beg to differ.

Do you always weigh in on things you don't know anything about?

Beg to differ with what? The idea that the games will be shown on CBS broadcast? You beg to differ with that? Based on what?

 

[06029]

Do you always weigh in on things you don't know anything about?

Beg to differ with what? The idea that the games will be shown on CBS broadcast? You beg to differ with that? Based on what?

Since the old posts from previous boards no longer exist, I am working from memory. But I do believe there was very similar trumpeting of how every BE FB/BB game was going to be televised and how ALL of the conference games were going to be on ESPN or ABC. ESPNU was not even around then. When people questioned this assumption back then, we were told how it was in the contract and the league would not say it if it were not true. Somehow, this turned out not to be the case as ESPN+/regional productions for conference games was the reality and this morphed into ESPN3 coverage. The CBS BB games I think will be big network as long as the league teams are top 25. But anything associated with ESPN, it could be on any of their outlets.

I believe that history is largely a series of repeating patterns that evolve from iteration to iteration due to technological advances. I will believe the premise of the original post when it happens. And I will bet anyone a dollar that WatchESPN and any online source for any network is ultimately considered to be TV within the next 3 years. Its how I watch 90% of TV right now.

And seriously upstater, comments to the press and press releases should be taken at face value? Even you know better than that especially when there is an agenda in play.

 

[sportsart]

Why are people trying to make things what they aren't?

All but 8 games will be on national TV. Watching WatchESPN online is not nor will it ever be considered national TV.

If you can't change the channel on your TV and find the game it is not on TV.

 

[upstater]

Since the old posts from previous boards no longer exist, I am working from memory. But I do believe there was very similar trumpeting of how every BE FB/BB game was going to be televised and how ALL of the conference games were going to be on ESPN or ABC. ESPNU was not even around then. When people questioned this assumption back then, we were told how it was in the contract and the league would not say it if it were not true. Somehow, this turned out not to be the case as ESPN+/regional productions for conference games was the reality and this morphed into ESPN3 coverage. The CBS BB games I think will be big network as long as the league teams are top 25. But anything associated with ESPN, it could be on any of their outlets.

Even now, they are only talking about 60% of the bball games. Which is UP from the BE contract. So, that's not a surprise. Aresco said this yesterday. I am not saying that bball games won't be on ESPN3. They will. We are talking about the 60% of the games that Aresco expressly said will NOT be on ESPN3. There's a big difference here. Aresco even said that 40% of the games will be on regional networks (or ESPN3) or perhaps not on TV at all!

I believe that history is largely a series of repeating patterns that evolve from iteration to iteration due to technological advances. I will believe the premise of the original post when it happens. And I will bet anyone a dollar that WatchESPN and any online source for any network is ultimately considered to be TV within the next 3 years. Its how I watch 90% of TV right now.

And seriously upstater, comments to the press and press releases should be taken at face value? Even you know better than that especially when there is an agenda in play.

All I said was that Aresco distinguished between ESPN3 and television explicitly. He's either a liar or he isn't.

And why did I write this thread at all? Because last week people were complaining that a lot of the football games were going to be on ESPN3 this year. Aresco responded by saying that this year is the last year of the old football contract, and that next year 90% of the fball games will be on TELEVISION and NOT ESPN3.

 

[upstater]

Why are people trying to make things what they aren't?

All but 8 games will be on national TV. Watching WatchESPN online is not nor will it ever be considered national TV.

If you can't change the channel on your TV and find the game it is not on TV.

"I beg to differ."

That's the response I'm getting when I make the same exact point. Even Whaler says they'll be on ESPNU, at the least, and he's not even an Aresco fan.

 

[UPitt]

"I beg to differ."

That's the response I'm getting when I make the same exact point. Even Whaler says they'll be on ESPNU, at the least, and he's not even an Aresco fan.

That was my response to the CBS contract that you claim to know as fact. I do disagree with you with respect to CBS. I think CBS owns 12 games and can air them on any channel they want. I suspect they will be on CBS because they are good games, but I think they have the right to air them on CBS Sports.