Why Not 14?

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

I have to believe that it's safe to say that if a casual fan is channel surfing on any given Saturday afternoon, they'll probably roll past UC at UCF in favor of the B1G match-up, SEC match-up, etc.

UCF win over Cincinnati delivers top television ratings for ESPN/ABC

Nov 18, 2018 - ESPN is reporting the UCF versus Cincinnati game was the highest rated primetime college football game Saturday night.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ ... story.html

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

Common misconception: the AAC did not CHOOSE to trade dollars for exposure; it was selected for them based on the what the market dictated for them.

1. They were negotiating without a ratings history.

2. They have that now. (thanks to getting that exposure in the 1st contract)

[Xudash]

Regardless of what the annual payouts are, we know for certain that the Big East received a 12-year, $500 million deal (averages out to $4.16 million per year of the deal) and that the American received a 7-year, $126 million deal (averages out to around $1.5 million per year of the deal). Obviously, the American receives CFP money annually (last year the American received a total of $20.26 million, between UCF's NY6 appearance and the revenue shared amoung the G5). That adds $1.68 million annually. The Big East earns more in tournament credits, and will continue to do so over the next few years (due to the lack of success from the American in March).

The math is only part of the equation.

The AAC's inaugural deal traded dollars for exposure. They gambled on themselves and their ability to draw ratings.

A similar approach was taken with the original Big East deal with ESPN. They just wanted to secure the television time and the opportunity to show that they are a ratings draw.

When the old Big East folded, it opened up a lot of television windows on the WWL. Aresco's strategy was to capitalize on the innate value of those windows to build their brand.
It was essentially the new Big East deal in reverse, in which FS1 paid more because it was a fledgling network and the content providers were taking on the bigger risk.

Now the AAC is using an established ratings history in their (re)negotiation with ESPN this year.

Common misconception: the AAC did not CHOOSE to trade dollars for exposure; it was selected for them based on the what the market dictated for them. NBC, a non-ESPN entity, made an offer for their content, which ESPN matched under the terms of their agreement. The Big East was given its $500 million deal from Fox because another entity believed that is what their content was worth. The most important component of these two deals is that Fox paid that amount to a non-football league, where as NBC/ESPN decided to offer their amount on their full package. This was/is obviously a very tough pill to swallow, but it is what it is.

Ultimately, there are programs in the AAC that are P5-worthy - UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis. However, all others have not demonstrated the historical and consistent value to be deemed worthy of an invitation (Tulsa, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UConn). Furthermore, the Big 12 and ESPN considered expansion a few years ago, and both Fox and ESPN were unwilling to pay more for new members. While UCF is the highest rated and top-level G5 football program, they are still behind Florida, Florida State and Miami within Florida. UCF is much stronger candidate, long-term, for the ACC than UConn, IMO. Interestingly enough, a number of the AAC have never been a part of a true power conference (UCF, Tulsa, Tulane, East Carolina) where others have been downgraded or relegated (Cincinnati, SMU, Houston, UConn, USF), yet there is this push where the league has been "unfairly slighted" or is part of some greater "injustice".

Finally, another misconception that many AAC fans fail to recognize is that even with all of the TV revenue, CFP payouts, bowl appearances, the costs for high-level college football still do not equate to the level of expenses (or the amount of revenue coming in). Between coaching salaries, football facilities, scholarships (for the equality in Title IX), it is a significant financial burden to meet those costs when you are being paid peanuts on the dollar in comparison to the P5. Whether it is $4-$6 million, or $10-12 million, the G5 is still being ridiculously outspent by the P5 - and the gap over not just a number of years, but long-term as well, will continue to grow and widen.

The Big East, bottom line, is absolutely getting more bang for its buck, and - to further hammer home this point - the Big East, unlike the American, is actually viewed as a respected peer to the networks and the P5 conferences. If you do not like that, or agree with that, then there are some serious blinders being put on.

Excellent post, again.

If I may amplify your bolded point, I believe we all agree - or most of us objectively acknowledge - that there is even inequality within the realm of the P5; there are the true power-haves and then the have-nots within the club. It doesn't take too much business sense to understand that there is a canyon wide difference between the ledgers at Ohio State versus Wake Forest. P5 money is essential for survival, for sustainability. The clock is ticking for those that don't collect it, but at least those that do get to stay in the game, so to speak.

You also noted that that the Big XII considered expansion a few years ago. I believe we all remember that as well. If we remember it accurately, we recall that it never moved forward because the money at the increment wasn't there. The expansion opportunity wasn't accretive. The candidates couldn't bring the necessary value to the TV deal. The initiative was dropped accordingly.

It's no different for us with expansion. If a prospective candidate cannot deliver a revised television package that keeps each existing BE member whole with respect to the Fox deal, and absent some burning strategic need to expand otherwise, I would think it would be safe to say that nothing is going to be happening on our end for a while as well.

Again, if it made sense to do it now or soon, there would probably be a little more smoke about from Val, the Presidents and the AD's about it.

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

Who exactly is clamoring for the AAC media rights? Why would ESPN bid against themselves?

That's how exclusive negotiating periods work.

Networks strategically use that period to put forward a number that entices the content provider not to go to market.

If they go to market, the AAC will likely chop up the content into packages and make more money with a number of deals, imo.

The risk for ESPN is that the only other content they can replace the AAC with is Sunbelt and CUSA (their ESPN+ content). Good luck with that. The AAC has provided a nationally competitive ratings portfolio of games and the MW plays at awful hours.

Imo, the AAC is in a much stronger position at this time.

[Savannah Jay]

I have to believe that it's safe to say that if a casual fan is channel surfing on any given Saturday afternoon, they'll probably roll past UC at UCF in favor of the B1G match-up, SEC match-up, etc.

UCF win over Cincinnati delivers top television ratings for ESPN/ABC

Nov 18, 2018 - ESPN is reporting the UCF versus Cincinnati game was the highest rated primetime college football game Saturday night.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ ... story.html

It's "competition" for viewers that evening was the Oklahoma/Kansas game. There were no Big 10 games that evening and the SEC schools all played 'mid majors' that day (in the afternoon). For comparison, the article states that 3.0M watched UCF/UC. 2.8M watched Oklahoma/Kansas. The next week Oklahoma played WVU in prime time and it garnered 5.8M viewers.

Good luck with the AAC game this weekend...almost directly head to head with the SEC championship game, which had 13.4M viewers last year.

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

I have to believe that it's safe to say that if a casual fan is channel surfing on any given Saturday afternoon, they'll probably roll past UC at UCF in favor of the B1G match-up, SEC match-up, etc.

UCF win over Cincinnati delivers top television ratings for ESPN/ABC

Nov 18, 2018 - ESPN is reporting the UCF versus Cincinnati game was the highest rated primetime college football game Saturday night.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ ... story.html

It's "competition" for viewers that evening was the Oklahoma/Kansas game. There were no Big 10 games that evening and the SEC schools all played 'mid majors' that day (in the afternoon). For comparison, the article states that 3.0M watched UCF/UC. 2.8M watched Oklahoma/Kansas. The next week Oklahoma played WVU in prime time and it garnered 5.8M viewers.

Good luck with the AAC game this weekend...almost directly head to head with the SEC championship game, which had 13.4M viewers last year.

I have a feeling they'll do ok. ABC picked it up.

[Xudash]

Anyone have a picture of "Baghdad Bob"? We could use it right about now.

Kevin Bacon in Animal House - "All is well!" - will do in a pinch.

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

Anyone have a picture of "Baghdad Bob"? We could use it right about now.

Kevin Bacon in Animal House - "All is well!" - will do in a pinch.

This is a good "All is well" pic

[GoldenWarrior11]

Common misconception: the AAC did not CHOOSE to trade dollars for exposure; it was selected for them based on the what the market dictated for them.

1. They were negotiating without a ratings history.

2. They have that now. (thanks to getting that exposure in the 1st contract)

Actually, each of the teams did, in fact, have a ratings history. A majority of them were in Conference USA, which had terrible ratings compared to the P6 (Big East) at the time. Unfortunately, none of those programs carried strong or relevant ratings on their own. Another huge part of ESPN's concern (then and now) is that a significant portion of the league (Tulsa, Tulane, UConn and SMU)continue to have, really, really weak attendance figures (sub-20k per game). UConn's football attendance has absolutely nose-dived since the Big East. The lowest of the P5 conference attendance figures - ACC, 48-50k per game - still blows the AAC out of the water - only 28k per game - by over 20k on average. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the American programs - Cincinnati (Ohio State), UCF/USF (UF, FSU, Miami), SMU/Houston (UT/TA&M/BU/TT/TCU), East Carolina (UNC/Duke/NCST/WF), Temple (PSU/PITT), Tulsa (OU/OSU) and Memphis (TENN) - all are 2nd, 3rd, even 4th or 5th, in their own state in terms of popularity. There is no plausible or conceivable reason why any network would fork over tens of millions of dollars for that type of product, either in 2013 or in 2019.

The biggest advantage ESPN has over the AAC is what the AAC's ratings would be if it were on another network. If they were, it would be widely assumed that they would not carry the same ratings because ESPN, by itself, garners the strongest sports audience. ESPN, in theory, and especially with the change to ESPN+, move those slots out with games from the MAC, C-USA and the Sun Belt and lose little, if any value. Fox has no need for additional Fall content. Neither does CBS. The biggest hope, once again, is NBC, but NBC would not bridge the gap with ESPN/Disney or Fox by acquiring the American's content. However, NBC didn't offer a ton of money in 2013 - and if ESPN isn't willing to pay/overpay for the American content, then no other competitor will out-bid themselves either.

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

Common misconception: the AAC did not CHOOSE to trade dollars for exposure; it was selected for them based on the what the market dictated for them.

1. They were negotiating without a ratings history.

2. They have that now. (thanks to getting that exposure in the 1st contract)

Actually, each of the teams did, in fact, have a ratings history. A majority of them were in Conference USA, which had terrible ratings compared to the P6 (Big East) at the time. Unfortunately, none of those programs carried strong or relevant ratings on their own. Another huge part of ESPN's concern (then and now) is that a significant portion of the league (Tulsa, Tulane, UConn and SMU)continue to have, really, really weak attendance figures (sub-20k per game). UConn's football attendance has absolutely nose-dived since the Big East. The lowest of the P5 conference attendance figures - ACC, 48-50k per game - still blows the AAC out of the water - only 28k per game - by over 20k on average. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the American programs - Cincinnati (Ohio State), UCF/USF (UF, FSU, Miami), SMU/Houston (UT/TA&M/BU/TT/TCU), East Carolina (UNC/Duke/NCST/WF), Temple (PSU/PITT), Tulsa (OU/OSU) and Memphis (TENN) - all are 2nd, 3rd, even 4th or 5th, in their own state in terms of popularity. There is no plausible or conceivable reason why any network would fork over tens of millions of dollars for that type of product, either in 2013 or in 2019.

The biggest advantage ESPN has over the AAC is what the AAC's ratings would be if it were on another network. If they were, it would be widely assumed that they would not carry the same ratings because ESPN, by itself, garners the strongest sports audience. ESPN, in theory, and especially with the change to ESPN+, move those slots out with games from the MAC, C-USA and the Sun Belt and lose little, if any value. Fox has no need for additional Fall content. Neither does CBS. The biggest hope, once again, is NBC, but NBC would not bridge the gap with ESPN/Disney or Fox by acquiring the American's content. However, NBC didn't offer a ton of money in 2013 - and if ESPN isn't willing to pay/overpay for the American content, then no other competitor will out-bid themselves either.

Comparing those teams that were in CUSA (whose TV deal back then was practically non-existant) to what they grew into once they had regular exposure, and paid for new facilities and better coaches, is a flawed comparison.
That comparison is precisely why the exposure was negotiated in the first place... To give those promoted teams a platform that they never had before.


GoldenWarrior11, TCU is a program that has benefitted from exposure. Do you think people are comparing them now to their CUSA days?


Something tells me ESPN doesn't have any plans to give the MAC and CUSA 4.0 any significant exposure bump in the near or distant future.

As for comparing the American Conference's ratings on other networks, ABC seems to be showing major AAC games and popping a rating each time. CBS took their basketball tournament.
To act like it's the network getting the rating doesn't seem supported by the other networks who are taking their games.

Time will tell.