Why Not 14?

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

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.

[SJU1987]

There was a guy on St. John's Redmen.com called Joe ( he later changed to Resurrection of Joe to sneak back on the website ) He was hated there and they banned him multiple times. I wonder if Stever is Joe ?

[ArmyVet]

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.

It seems like AAC fans want to rewrite history. If they traded dollars for exposure, what exposure exactly has the AAC gained? Other than UCF, I can't think of a school who has benefitted or outperformed any realistic expectations.

[DudeAnon]

Not everything has to be all done at once.

1. Add Dayton next season
- They bring a commitment to basketball and several pre-existing rivalries

2. Wait for next round of conference realignment. Take either VCU or UConn
- All the P5 TV contracts are coming up soon. Conference realignment round 2 should be done by 22-23.
- If UConn makes the P5. VCU is the next best option.

[ProprietyofLeyluken]

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.

It seems like AAC fans want to rewrite history. If they traded dollars for exposure, what exposure exactly has the AAC gained? Other than UCF, I can't think of a school who has benefitted or outperformed any realistic expectations.

It's not rewriting history.
The AAC Championship is going to be on ABC this weekend. Last March, the AAC got the B1G's CBS slot for its MBB tournament.
If they weren't drawing, they wouldn't get those prime windows.

With all the other major FB conferences locked up in deals, ESPN is currently the only network they can negotiate with. It's to ESPN's advantage to strike a deal before they go to open market.

[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.

It seems like AAC fans want to rewrite history. If they traded dollars for exposure, what exposure exactly has the AAC gained? Other than UCF, I can't think of a school who has benefitted or outperformed any realistic expectations.

Exactly. Now he's just babbling.

Exposure - exposure in a flooded content market for college football?

On any given Saturday during the regular season, we have the SEC game of the week, the highlighted game for ABC Saturday evening, NBC running hard with ND most weeks, key games during the day on ABC and Fox, and Fox's highlighted games, not to mention the P5 coverage that comes with ESPN and ESPN2.

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.

[ArmyVet]

It seems like AAC fans want to rewrite history. If they traded dollars for exposure, what exposure exactly has the AAC gained? Other than UCF, I can't think of a school who has benefitted or outperformed any realistic expectations.

It's not rewriting history.
The AAC Championship is going to be on ABC this weekend. Last March, the AAC got the B1G's CBS slot for its MBB tournament.
If they weren't drawing, they wouldn't get those prime windows.

With all the other major FB conferences locked up in deals, ESPN is currently the only network they can negotiate with. It's to ESPN's advantage to strike a deal before they go to open market.

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

[gtmoBlue]

Nice post XUSandy. That's why I'm holding onto hope for ND and S'Cuse...

[GoldenWarrior11]

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.

[stever20]

ok, forget the AAC. How can the Big East compete long term, when their programs are getting for the year 3 million, while you have some Big Ten programs getting over 50 million a year now? ACC programs getting over 40 million. You can say that 75% of that is football. That's accounting- but a school doesn't have to devote resources 75%. I mean look at the SEC basketball now and the coaches they've hired in the last few years. Their money is making a huge difference....