Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaffeinatedCoog

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,224 profile views
  1. Exactly. Even the Sunbelt rejected the Liberty attempt to "buy" their way into that conference. Looking at the worthless all sports replacement options available east of the Rockies, its likely the AAC will be an 11 team conference for quite some time. The only smart move that adds some value to the conference right now is adding VCU as a "non-football" member. That would add some quality basketball inventory to help offset the lost UConn basketball inventory. For football, there are no schools that offer the kind of brand, academics, attendance, athletic budget, and performance that make much sense to add at this time. There are a few options that are comparable to the bottom performers in the league---but the reality is---conferences dont get better by adding teams that look like the bottom of the conference. Probably best to stand pat on the football side for now.
  2. I'd say Thompson did a darn good job on this one. Got more money than I was thinking the MW would get (I figured 2.5-3 million a team) and got a very significant jump in exposure. Only 3 CBS-OTA games are guaranteed---but I suspect the SEC exit from CBS will be a factor that helps the MW get more than the minimum each year. If the conference can get a couple more OTA appearances from FOX, the MW could end up regularly getting around 6 FOX/CBS OTA appearances per year. Thats huge.
  3. This could be a big deal for the MW. Sports Business Journal is reporting that CBS has dropped out of the bidding for their SEC tier one package. ESPN is reportedly the new home for that big weekly SEC game at a cost of around 300 million a year. Is it possible the MW might get showcased on CBS OTA once the SEC moves to ESPN? Navy and Army might get more exposure there as well.
  4. Every deal that ESPN has made over the last couple of years has included that ESPN+ streaming component. So if the MW was dead set against it, I suspect ESPN wasnt going to happen. I am surprised FOX was involved. With only two networks, and ownership of half the Big12, half the Pac12, and half the Big10---I honestly didnt think they had any broadcast windows for additional inventory. I wonder if they plan on getting FS-2 more involved in college sports? At any rate---I think the deal is pretty good. I think most people were expecting something in the 25 million range. 35 million far exceeds expectations.
  5. Exactly. Its not hard at all. The contract is for 45 events per school in 2020. Eventually, it will be about 80 or so events per school when the contract ramps up to full production. So, $600K---assuming there are no economies of scale. I suspect it will be less than this because FCS schools doing the same number of events do it for around $300K. Furthermore---lets keep in mind that many of these events are already being produced and streamed for the schools "All Access" websites (baseball, womens basketball, softball, etc)--so your really only looking at the difference in the cost of streaming the game for All-Access and the cost of a ESPN-Plus level production.
  6. Exactly. The broadcasts aint exactly going to be Monday Night Football. They wont be Pac12 Network quality either. They will look like most of what you see that are ESPN-3 "exclusive" games. Basically---it willbe very similar to a MW Digital Network game. Those MW games dont look bad. They are decent broadcasts--but are very basic with minimal bells and whistles. It is what it is.
  7. There are only 6 home football games per team. Roughly half of those will be on linear ESPN networks. So, lets say it costs twice as much to do a football game than it does to produce a basketball game. Thats adds another $45K to the ECU $300K estimate. So the total cost is $345K. Lets say it's actually 3 times more expensive to do a football game---that means $67,500 is the total production cost for a season of football games . Realistically, the base cost to do a football game is the same as a basketball game (2 announcers, producer, 3 cameramen, control room staff, etc). The real difference in price is going to be the number of extra cameras. I doubt it doubles or triples the price to add a few extra cameramen (especially if they are just Radio-TV department students in the end zones). Im pretty sure your locked in inside source has not sat in on a single AAC/ESPN meeting regarding preparation for next year. Im going to go with the ECU AD as the better source on this one.
  8. The ECU AD just told you what the costs were. A little over $300K. Ive been trying to tell you guys that the expenses to produce are nowhere near 2 million a year. There are plenty of FCS teams who's entire athletic budget is 5 million a year. These FCS schools are producing all their football, basketball, baseball, and whatever else for ESPN3. Do you really think they spend almost half their meager budget of streaming production costs? Of course not. Its closer to a $200-300K. Now, if you start off with nothing---sure---you might invest as much as 2 million in year one. But after that---its going to be $300 to $400K a year. Most schools are not starting off at ground zero. You guys produce a ton of content for the MW Digital Network. I guarantee you not one MW school is dropping anywhere near 2 million a year on streaming costs.
  9. I understand---Im just saying that the marketing of "New Coke" wasnt the problem. The New Coke product was the problem. One theory thats been floated in the years since was the whole thing was designed to make it easy to switch from sugar to corn syrup. Supposedly when they brought back the "Classic Coke" (that was the first step toward New Coke eventually getting dumped), they brought it back with corn syrup which saved the company a crap load of money over sugar. I never heard anything about that at the time--but I guess its possible. The only formula fiddling I was aware during the New Coke period was that the Houston Bottlers got special permission from Atlanta to increase the amount of carbonation in New Coke to try to make it more like the original formulation. It didnt make any difference.
  10. Shrug. We make 2 milliion a year now. We will make 2 or 3 tiimes more than that next year even using your figures. The AAC will make some progress in closing the gap. Thats simply a fact. lol....Will that last very long---probably not. But despite your wild flailing about---like it or not---the gap will narrow next year. Not sure why you seem so bothered by that. The MW is signing a new deal. Perhaps they will do just as well. We will soon see.
  11. I am not "equating" anything. I am comparing (those words do not mean the same thing). Yes, as the 10 year old deal and the new AAC deal are the only known facts at this time---yes---I am comparing those figures to one another. Its the only data known. All deals have differing dates so whining about signing dates is silly. Its a fallacy in any comparison of contract deals. That said, I readily acknowledge that the comparison could (and likely will) change radically once the Pac12 negotiates a new deal.
  12. While this is looked at as a marketing failure---its actually more of a product failure. Coke changed the actual product and were forced to go back to the old formulation by popular demand. I actually worked for Houston Coca Cola Bottling at the time. lol---I was just an account manager at the time, but it was a horrible period to work for the company---especially for the first month following the change because the original talking points we got from corporate was something to the effect that "New Coke was the only Coke and the old formula would no longer be available". Customers didnt like that talking point at all. There were people who took their Coca Cola very seriously and there were several times when I was confronted by consumers who were so angry I though it might turn violent. Crazy times.
  13. lol---so you want me to compare a known contract to one that isnt known? Nice 7th grade logic there. Look, obviously, the numbers are likely to change down the line when the Pac12 gets a new deal. Ive already stipulated to that fact. Im simply pointing out that the AAC has moved into a financial position that resembles the old Big East's media position with respect to other AQ conferences in the BCS days (the Big East media deal was only about 1/3 of the other power conference media deals of that time). Ive also stipulated that the AAC is not a power conference and that the money is actually the easiest hurdle to clear in terms of getting to the P5 level. Getting on their level in teams of attendance, major bowls, CFP contract bowl inclusion, autonomy, etc will all be much harder to attain than getting a better TV deal. If you look at my past posts I think you will find Im pretty realistic about what the AAC is and what it isnt. The MW used to market itself as "Above The Rest". Same thing. The AAC can very reasonably argue that is the 6th best of the 10 FBS conferences. You can market the AAC as "The best of the bottom 5 conferences in FBS" or you can market the AAC as "One of the top 6 conference in FBS". While both are true----It doesnt take much marketing savy to see one sounds much better than the other.
  14. Nope. Where on earth are you getting that? Im arguing that the AAC has closed the financial gap from getting 10X less than the Pac12 to getting around 3X less than the Pac12.