Jump to content

CaffeinatedCoog

Members
  • Content Count

    1,242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CaffeinatedCoog

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. . lol---Yup----No G5 conference can afford to do that---Worrying about the years we dont get a 50 million dollar payout from one bowl is kind of a first world problem.
  12. Doesnt have to as nobody is saying its equal. Its always going to be roughly 3x behind. You'll actually lose ground in real dollars-----but It will certainly be less than 10X behind---which is roughly where the AAC is now in terms of payout. lol...I didnt select "7X "as the method of comparison----somebody else did.
  13. Wrong. The gap will shrink---certainly in year one of the new AAC deal. All deals are graduated, so the gap will stay generally similar throughout the current deals. That said, I agree with you that all bets are off when the Pac12 does their next deal.
  14. That must be before Pac12 Network expenses. The per team payout per that article is only 31.3 million---meaning conference operations soaked up 121.4 million. Much of that has to be costs associated with the network. At any rate, the AAC currently averaging around 5 million a team in conference payout. But in 2020, that will rise to around 9-10 a team. When you look at per team payouts its only going to be about 3X more than the AAC makes in 2020. That said, I like the P6 narrative, but I see it as more of a marketing program. The AAC isnt at a P5 level---but I do think its making progress and the P6 marketing has caught on enough with the talking heads that it helps drive consumer awareness (which helps imrpove attendance, ratings, image, perception, etc).
  15. Then if your using total conference payout, the AAC schools will be making around 9-10 million each in total revenue in 2020. That means the Pac12 would be making roughly 3X the AAC revenue---nowhere near the 7X figure the poster claimed.
  16. The Pac12 makes 7 times what the AAC makes? Not sure how you got there. They are closer to 10 times the current AAC money in 2019, but that gap will fall to just 3X in 2020. For the record, the Pac12 gets about 20 million a team from media deals with FOX and ESPN. They only make an extra million or two each from the Pac12 network. That’s nowhere near 49 million each. The Big10 doesnt even make that much from media. In the old BCS system, the other AQ conference teams were making 15 million each or so from media while the Big East teams only made about 4 million each. So, a gap of 3-4X between power conferences is not unprecedented. That said, the difference in media pay is probably the easiest hurdle for the AAC to clear to be considered a power conference. Major bowl access, average attendance, and autonomous powers are all much tougher hills to climb in its effort to be considered a power conference. It’s nowhere near where it needs to be in those categories.
  17. To be fair, thats something thats a little different in the AAC. There really is no "standard bearer". Wasnt that long ago UCF went 0-12. Its actually a pretty balanced league. UCF had a couple of really exceptional years---but Houston, Cinci, Temple, Navy, Memphis, and now SMU have all "carried the flag" at some point in the leagues short history. Heck, even Tulane is showing signs of life in Nola. It may not be as good for building a national bell cow school, but I think the fact that the winner could really come from anywhere in any given year makes things more fun. That parity may cost them an access bowl slot at some point---but as long as the programs take care of business in OOC---the parity wont hurt the league too much.
  18. Thats the only reason I think there is any chance. That western division would be all academies or private schools with Houston being the lone traditional public institution.
  19. It is. But geographic sustainability assumes there are interesting geographic peers to partner with. Sam Houston State is 40 minute drive from Texas A&M. I doubt the two will ever be a conference together. Most of the AAC members are schools that just missed the cut for the power conferences that control their region. Thus, these schools were left with just two choices---neither of them all that great. They could partner with nearby non-peer schools that aren't very good---resulting in a crappy uninteresting league with easy travel. Or---they could partner with true peer schools that are similar---but much farther away---resulting in a high quality league--that has little cohesion. It is what it is. Sometimes you just have make the best of your situation and pick your poison. I think UConn made the right decision. They were fooling themselves thinking that their football was ever going to look enticing to a power conference. The Big East will be an outstanding home for them. Their future is basketball. They will stumble through a few 1 or 2 win indy seasons in an empty football stadium. In 3 years their lease on the stadium in Hartford ends. I bet they drop to FCS shortly thereafter.
  20. I dont think so. To the best of my knowledge its part of the media deal. That said, it doesnt mean there isnt a clause in the deal that reduces the payout if the conference loses the CCG.
  21. But UAB doesnt have a fan base similar to any of those examples. Not even close. It aint the stadium. Never has been. lol---I respect your opinion, but we simply arent going to agree on this one.
  22. The presidents wont go for Liberty...ever. As for UAB, they are where they belong. Their fanbase, support, and budget havn't changed a bit since we were there. I think its cool they are doing well and saved their football program. I was actually rooting for them during that period. But its not "a new UAB". Its "the same ole UAB". For instance---the new stadium---that's nice---but it aint UAB's stadium. UAB will be paying the city rent and will be sacrificing concession/parking revenue streams that other schools with stadiums use to fund athletic operations. The reality? They hired a cheap FCS coach that fit their low budget ($600K) and hit a jackpot. That always nice----but counting on the lottery isnt a long term career path. Even with the winning---they cant even get 20K to show up. Its the same ole UAB. We spent 20 years in a conference with them. I know exactly who they are. They are a perfect fit for the current CUSA. Honestly---Id like to see the AAC either split the i#12 slot into "non-football" and "football only" invites to maximize the positive impact of the addition. Or, barring that strategy---just sit tight at 11. Im fine with that. A little scheduling issue is not really that big a deal. It not a good enough reason to reach so desperately for a poor addition. If we stay patient, maybe a BYU/Air Force level candidate will eventully come along.
  23. Yeah---but lets really look at those numbers. The average is pretty misleading. They got 39,165 when Alabama St played there. The next games was 27,932 for S Alabama. So, they are doing ok when the opponents are nearby and UAB is getting significant help filling Legion Field. Then all the sudden, things go soutt. UAB only draws 23,526 vs Rice and they only bring in 19,511 vs ODU last Saturday. So, in the most recent games against Rice and ODU, your getting a good look at how that rabid UAB fan base fills up the place for the reigning CUSA champion who is now 6-1. Imagine what it will be like when they are back to being a 1-6 doormat. UAB will have one of the nicest empty stadiums in all of FBS. I havent forgotten what a embarrassing conference member UAB was back in CUSA. Those game always had more people on the side lines than in the stands. No thanks on UAB. When Clark leaves, its going to get ugly fast. Honestly, the smartest way to go is forget finding a full member who is good at basketball and good at football. There isnt one. Find a consistently good football program that is reasonably well supported and add them as a "football only" school. Then add VCU as a non-football member. That gives you another good football program and another upper tier basketball program. Thats the best way to maximize the positive impact of that open 12 slot.
  24. Ehh. Over the last 7 seasons they have largely been a mid-tier basketball team in a fairly weak one bid league. They won the league once during that period. Mostly, they finished in the middle tier of the league. UAB football is 5-1 and is coming off a CUSA championship year. Thats about as good as things are ever going to be UAB---yet they drew only 23K to their last home game. That tells me their upper support ceiling is pretty darn low. As soon as Clark moves on to greener pastures, and UAB returns to being a cellar dweller, there will be more people on the side lines than in the stands. Everyone remembers those games. Thats the kind of support that led some to think they could shut the program down without anyone much noticing. . I think there are no good choices at this time for the AAC other than BYU, Army, and Air Force. If they absolutely had to take someone---I'd look at AppSt or Marshall as a "football only:" member and then add VCU as a non-football member. Thats probably about as good as you can do using only east of the Rockies options.
  25. In the next 2 years---no. In the next 2-4 years---its certainly possible we could lose a member. I just see no reason to rush a replacement into the league given the fairly mundane available options. What does the AAC gain by rushing the decision? Every option currently available will still be available 2 to 4 years from now. Thats why I say, just be patient and see how things unfold. Between now and then, one of the current options may separate themselves from the pack---or perhaps an unexpected option with more value may suddenly pop up out of nowhere.
×