Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

AAC Media Rights Deal

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Right but the key is the definition of the payouts and what Boise has veto power over.   

Boise gets veto power over where its broadcast package gets signed not its streaming package.   

Of the broadcast package Boise gets a take off the top.  Boise does not get a take off the top for streaming.   

The result is a perverse incentive for the other 11 schools to push all content to streaming because it’s $1.5M in revenue they get that otherwise goes to Boise.    The whole Boise package was collusion between Boise and ESPN at the expense of the MWC TV negotiations.   Now the MWC has found away around it by focusing on streaming.    

I do not believe Boise is guaranteed a broadcast take off the top. Someone with more contract knowledge can go back and read what is posted in that old thread to check this.

http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/59909-revisiting-mwc-television-agreement/

Look again at the agreement info again: "The revenue from such Boise State home football games license/sub-license shall be retained by the MWC and the MWC will add its retained amount to the MWC media revenue monies to be pooled and disbursed in the same manner as with all other MWC revenues." That reads like all revenue from the Boise package goes to the MWC.

I do not see any qualifying statements in the paragraphs 3 and 4 posted in the old thread that indicates BSU is quaranteed receiving some broadcast money off the top. Instead it reads like the conference decides distribution. If I am correct then the conference presidents so far have agreed to give Boise more since they generated the additional revenue individually. But I am not sure that is a guaranteed broadcast revenue distribution in perpetuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tulsa Guy said:

The entire AAC conference was designated P5 for TV purposes by BiG.  That is astounding and that is why Aresco brought that up in the interview posted by CougarRed.

Yes, the BiG said it would consider more G5 schools for P5 status as you stated.  And BiG did that....with the entire AAC conference!  That is certainly not going to happen for MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, and CUSA.  This is another piece in Aresco's drive to move AAC for his often stated (and from Day 1) goal of P6.  What is now playing out is not a separation of AAC from G5.  What is playing out now is making moves to attain Aresco's goal of P6. 

AAC is now P6 in basketball.  ACC is now P6 in the eyes of BiG.  Step by step, Aresco is attaining his goal of making AAC into a P6 conferene.

Or the BiG is looking to pick apart the AAC in the next expansion cycle. If the BiG grants P5 status to schools in the AAC (or BYU or Fresno or Air Force) it would make it easier to justify adding 1 or 2 G5 schools from that group since they are already considered P5 by the BiG members.

How the BiG is looking at things now may not be a future good thing for teams left behind in the next expansion.  :hmmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tulsa Guy said:

I totally misunderstood and underestimated AAC Commissioner Aresco.  I considered him a blowhard and a braggart.  I now realize I was totally wrong.  After this new AAC ESPN TV contract was announced, I went back and read the old articles and you tube of his statements.  The man is intent on making the AAC a P5 contract.  In one interview, Aresco stated that his hardest job was to convince many AAC college Presidents that the AAC could be a P5 conference.  Go to youtube Aresco contract extended.

The entire AAC conference was designated P5 for TV purposes by BiG.  That is astounding and that is why Aresco brought that up in the interview posted by CougarRed.

Yes, the BiG said it would consider more G5 schools for P5 status as you stated.  And BiG did that....with the entire AAC conference!  That is certainly not going to happen for MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, and CUSA.  This is another piece in Aresco's drive to move AAC for his often stated (and from Day 1) goal of P6.  What is now playing out is not a separation of AAC from G5.  What is playing out now is making moves to attain Aresco's goal of P6. 

AAC is now P6 in basketball.  ACC is now P6 in the eyes of BiG.  Step by step, Aresco is attaining his goal of making AAC into a P6 conferene.

I now understand why you have so bought in to your own bullshit.  Its because you realize how lucky Tulsa is.  Its a tiny private school with little to nothing to offer athletically, and no apparent interest or ability to do what needs to be done to improve things, that is only where it is and not back in CUSA because of a convoluted series of events having nothing to do with bringing anything to the table.  AAC was desperate to back fill and was left with Tulsa because it had few other options.  And so you buy into Aresco's spin doctoring because the alternative is anonymity and irrelevance.  So you hope that schools in the AAC that have at least a modicum of hope of a seat at the big table and the wherewithal to work towards it dont abandon you, while praying that Aresco can con a few more people into believing that they really arent sitting at the kids table.

 

 

See, i understand because Ive been there.  A school that for too long was content floating along, until reality kicked us in the ass.  Fortunately, when it happened we had people who decided we needed to forge our own path.  And we did - but it also took a remarkable bit of fortuitous timing to pay off.  But without the work that went before, that timing wouldnt have mattered.  And even now, I for one know that the future is out of our control, and we could end up back in the wilderness.  So the work, the real work and not some lame PR, never ends for those seeking to improve their situation and those who seek to hold on to what they have. 

 

Just think about this - if there was even a bit of a possibility that Aresco's goal would or could work, the big dogs in the AAC would have signed off on the GOR.  So you have about 3 years to enjoy the peace and quiet.  Then the next round of tv deals start negotiations.  And the realignment rumors that go with it.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RSF said:

I now understand why you have so bought in to your own bullshit.  Its because you realize how lucky Tulsa is.  Its a tiny private school with little to nothing to offer athletically, and no apparent interest or ability to do what needs to be done to improve things, that is only where it is and not back in CUSA because of a convoluted series of events having nothing to do with bringing anything to the table.  AAC was desperate to back fill and was left with Tulsa because it had few other options.  And so you buy into Aresco's spin doctoring because the alternative is anonymity and irrelevance.  So you hope that schools in the AAC that have at least a modicum of hope of a seat at the big table and the wherewithal to work towards it dont abandon you, while praying that Aresco can con a few more people into believing that they really arent sitting at the kids table.

Just think about this - if there was even a bit of a possibility that Aresco's goal would or could work, the big dogs in the AAC would have signed off on the GOR.  So you have about 3 years to enjoy the peace and quiet.  Then the next round of tv deals start negotiations.  And the realignment rumors that go with it.

I want to thank the Denver Airport Boyz and Boise State for making it possible for Tulsa to be in AAC and perhaps someday P6.  If it were not for you kind folks, Tulsa would not be in AAC today.

I also want to thank the former TU President who quietly and diligently stayed in touch with the AAC powers that be and  pitched TU's many positives to the conference powers.  Did you know Tulsa was involved in 3 of the highest 8 rated AAC ESPN TV telecasts of conference games in 2018?  Lots of OU Sooners and OSU Cowboys were probably watching in addition to Tulsa grads and fans. Half of Tulsa's roster are Oklahoma kids and so their families, friends, and the schools and towns from where they graduated were probably watching too.

I also want to thank the AAC Presidents who had many, many fine schools to choose from....but they chose Tulsa.  Look, don't chew on me.  If you have a beef, take it to the AAC Presidents.

Now that Tulsa is out of the fiasco of the west, I will rest comfortably until I kick the bucket.  No matter what happens in the future, Tulsa will always be better off in EST and CST with 75% of the population.

2005 Liberty Bowl:  Tulsa 31, Fresno State 24.

2016: Tulsa 48, Fresno State 41.  Tulsa overcomes 30 point deficit and beats Fresno State in two overtimes.

He who laughs last, laughs best.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tulsa Guy said:

Aresco wants to make more money from ALL broadcast sources.  If the MWC cannot pull in an audience on linear ESPN platforms, the MWC isn't going to pull in money via streaming. 

My guess is AAC will make more money off ESPN+ streatming than MWC....its that population thing again.

The money is coming from the 1.5M Boise takes off the top.  Doesn’t have anything to do with streaming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FresnoFacts said:

I do not believe Boise is guaranteed a broadcast take off the top. Someone with more contract knowledge can go back and read what is posted in that old thread to check this.

http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/59909-revisiting-mwc-television-agreement/

Look again at the agreement info again: "The revenue from such Boise State home football games license/sub-license shall be retained by the MWC and the MWC will add its retained amount to the MWC media revenue monies to be pooled and disbursed in the same manner as with all other MWC revenues." That reads like all revenue from the Boise package goes to the MWC.

I do not see any qualifying statements in the paragraphs 3 and 4 posted in the old thread that indicates BSU is quaranteed receiving some broadcast money off the top. Instead it reads like the conference decides distribution. If I am correct then the conference presidents so far have agreed to give Boise more since they generated the additional revenue individually. But I am not sure that is a guaranteed broadcast revenue distribution in perpetuity.

did you miss this? 

4. Division of Conference Revenue. The MWC Bylaws will be amended to provide for all members (except football-only members, which shall receive a percentage of a full share) shall receive equal distributions of conference revenue from all sources except as follows:

     (a)    National Exposure Bonus System.  In return for the grant of television rights in paragraph 3 above, the MWC will adopt policies or bylaws that provide additional payments to conference members when they participate in regular season football games broadcast nationally as provided in this paragraph.  A national broadcast will be where a football game is aired on one of the following networks (or their successor as long as the network is in over 90,000,000 homes in the United States) ESPN, ESPN2, ABC network "Over the Air," NBC network "Over the Air," CBS network "Over the Air," or Fox network "Over the Air."  If a conference member plays in a regular season game on a national broadcast as defined herein, then any MWC team participating  in such game will receive a bonus of $300,000 from the MWC.  Further, if such national broadcast is on a Saturday, the MWC will provide an additional bonus payment of $200,000.  Multiple appearances on a national broadcasts are cumulative (for example and for the avoidance of doubt, a MWC team that plays on a game broadcast on ESPN on a Thursday night, and later in the season plays on ABC network "over the air" on a Saturday would earn a bonus of $800,000).  National exposure bonus payments are calculated and paid as a higher priority and prior to the per-member division of conference revenues.

The MWC can’t stop the bonus payments as they are agreed for perpetuity.  What the MWC can do is not agree to any Television deal and route all their games via streaming, including the Boise games.   If the Boise Games net 5M via streams that 5M is distributed evenly to all teams.  11 teams make more money than if ESPN pays 6M for MWC/Boise games.   If Stadium or YouTube will pay us 75% of what ESPN will pay the MWC is highly incented to route all games via streaming.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

did you miss this? 

4. Division of Conference Revenue. The MWC Bylaws will be amended to provide for all members (except football-only members, which shall receive a percentage of a full share) shall receive equal distributions of conference revenue from all sources except as follows:

     (a)    National Exposure Bonus System.  In return for the grant of television rights in paragraph 3 above, the MWC will adopt policies or bylaws that provide additional payments to conference members when they participate in regular season football games broadcast nationally as provided in this paragraph.  A national broadcast will be where a football game is aired on one of the following networks (or their successor as long as the network is in over 90,000,000 homes in the United States) ESPN, ESPN2, ABC network "Over the Air," NBC network "Over the Air," CBS network "Over the Air," or Fox network "Over the Air."  If a conference member plays in a regular season game on a national broadcast as defined herein, then any MWC team participating  in such game will receive a bonus of $300,000 from the MWC.  Further, if such national broadcast is on a Saturday, the MWC will provide an additional bonus payment of $200,000.  Multiple appearances on a national broadcasts are cumulative (for example and for the avoidance of doubt, a MWC team that plays on a game broadcast on ESPN on a Thursday night, and later in the season plays on ABC network "over the air" on a Saturday would earn a bonus of $800,000).  National exposure bonus payments are calculated and paid as a higher priority and prior to the per-member division of conference revenues.

The MWC can’t stop the bonus payments as they are agreed for perpetuity.  What the MWC can do is not agree to any Television deal and route all their games via streaming, including the Boise games.   If the Boise Games net 5M via streams that 5M is distributed evenly to all teams.  11 teams make more money than if ESPN pays 6M for MWC/Boise games.   If Stadium or YouTube will pay us 75% of what ESPN will pay the MWC is highly incented to route all games via streaming.   

The exposure bonuses were eliminated prior to the 2017 season. Mountain Division teams were claiming a disproportionate share of them. 

Boise gets their cut from their home games prior to the rest of the conference getting their shares, which Boise also receives. End result is Boise gets about $3M per year and the remaining schools get somewhere between $1-$1.5M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, 307dude said:

The exposure bonuses were eliminated prior to the 2017 season. Mountain Division teams were claiming a disproportionate share of them. 

Boise gets their cut from their home games prior to the rest of the conference getting their shares, which Boise also receives. End result is Boise gets about $3M per year and the remaining schools get somewhere between $1-$1.5M.

I’m not positive if the bonuses were eliminated for just the 11 non Boise teams (voluntarily) or Boise also.  Do you have a link stating the term sheet was modified?   Boise would have to have given up potential upside which I doubt they would do.

In either case, the extra payout comes from TV revenue.  If all revenue comes from streaming then I believe the Boise bonus goes away unless a renegotiated term sheet includes streaming which again I doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

I’m not positive if the bonuses were eliminated for just the 11 non Boise teams (voluntarily) or Boise also.  Do you have a link stating the term sheet was modified?   Boise would have to have given up potential upside which I doubt they would do.

In either case, the extra payout comes from TV revenue.  If all revenue comes from streaming then I believe the Boise bonus goes away unless a renegotiated term sheet includes streaming which again I doubt.

The link below spells out pretty well how the bonus system worked and how it was changed to the current situation.

 

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/sports/college/mountain-west/boise-state-university/bronco-beat-blog/article142935634.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 307dude said:

The link below spells out pretty well how the bonus system worked and how it was changed to the current situation.

 

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/sports/college/mountain-west/boise-state-university/bronco-beat-blog/article142935634.html

It’s clear how it changes for the 11 but not clear if and how it changed for Boise...

The conference determined the formula and bonus structure was not performing as it had been intended. Now, Boise State’s membership agreement and its ESPN deal were honored, meaning the school gets $1.8 million up front annually.

This statement indicates the term sheet and ESPN deal did not change meaning 1.8M annually minimum.   It isn’t clear 1) if the term sheet which includes the bonus plan changed 2) how the term sheet changed if it did at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sactowndog said:

did you miss this? 

4. Division of Conference Revenue. The MWC Bylaws will be amended to provide for all members (except football-only members, which shall receive a percentage of a full share) shall receive equal distributions of conference revenue from all sources except as follows:

     (a)    National Exposure Bonus System.  In return for the grant of television rights in paragraph 3 above, the MWC will adopt policies or bylaws that provide additional payments to conference members when they participate in regular season football games broadcast nationally as provided in this paragraph.  A national broadcast will be where a football game is aired on one of the following networks (or their successor as long as the network is in over 90,000,000 homes in the United States) ESPN, ESPN2, ABC network "Over the Air," NBC network "Over the Air," CBS network "Over the Air," or Fox network "Over the Air."  If a conference member plays in a regular season game on a national broadcast as defined herein, then any MWC team participating  in such game will receive a bonus of $300,000 from the MWC.  Further, if such national broadcast is on a Saturday, the MWC will provide an additional bonus payment of $200,000.  Multiple appearances on a national broadcasts are cumulative (for example and for the avoidance of doubt, a MWC team that plays on a game broadcast on ESPN on a Thursday night, and later in the season plays on ABC network "over the air" on a Saturday would earn a bonus of $800,000).  National exposure bonus payments are calculated and paid as a higher priority and prior to the per-member division of conference revenues.

The MWC can’t stop the bonus payments as they are agreed for perpetuity.  What the MWC can do is not agree to any Television deal and route all their games via streaming, including the Boise games.   If the Boise Games net 5M via streams that 5M is distributed evenly to all teams.  11 teams make more money than if ESPN pays 6M for MWC/Boise games.   If Stadium or YouTube will pay us 75% of what ESPN will pay the MWC is highly incented to route all games via streaming.   

Lol. You are fuucking stupid. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UConn administration has publicly criticized the deal    https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2019/3/29/18285457/aac-tv-deal-uconn-sny?

UConn athletic director David Benedict said in a statement:  I’m sure it comes as no surprise that we are disappointed that there will be a reduction in linear TV exposure for our men’s and women’s basketball programs, including but not limited to the potential loss of our successful partnership with SNY. While there are many things to celebrate about this new and forward-looking agreement, any potential loss of linear distribution of our men’s and women’s basketball programs would be disappointing for our fans and our student-athletes.

In another statement, Benedict said UConn understood “the conference has an obligation to make decisions based on what it thinks is most beneficial to our membership as a whole.” But he expanded on the problems the deal creates for his school: "However based on UConn’s understanding of the deal, there are certain exclusive components which we believe are not in the best interest of our fan base or representative of maintaining and building our brand.  We were nonetheless encouraged to hear on the recent teleconference that conversations between ESPN and SNY, regarding the continuation of a linear UConn basketball package, are forthcoming. We see tremendous value in our relationship with SNY as it provides a great platform for the UConn athletics brand and helps us garner a significant amount of exposure in the nation’s No. 1 television market."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sbnation article concludes with withering criticism of the AAC:

UConn is a basketball school that needs to recruit the Northeast, showcase women’s hoops, and make money to help an athletic department in dire financial straits.

Houston and UCF need as many games on cable TV as possible to showcase their football programs to skeptical media opinion-shapers.

ECU, Tulane, and Tulsa just need enough money to shape up their athletic infrastructure and make themselves something closer to big-time departments.

SMU is also in this conference.

The AAC is mostly Southern, but it has schools in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Storrs.

It’s mostly urban, but it has schools in Storrs and Greenville.

It’s mostly public schools, but it has SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

Around half the league has been open about wanting to be in a different league.

The money here is big, but it’s not “paper over all differences” big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

The UConn administration has publicly criticized the deal    https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2019/3/29/18285457/aac-tv-deal-uconn-sny?

UConn athletic director David Benedict said in a statement:  I’m sure it comes as no surprise that we are disappointed that there will be a reduction in linear TV exposure for our men’s and women’s basketball programs, including but not limited to the potential loss of our successful partnership with SNY. While there are many things to celebrate about this new and forward-looking agreement, any potential loss of linear distribution of our men’s and women’s basketball programs would be disappointing for our fans and our student-athletes.

In another statement, Benedict said UConn understood “the conference has an obligation to make decisions based on what it thinks is most beneficial to our membership as a whole.” But he expanded on the problems the deal creates for his school: "However based on UConn’s understanding of the deal, there are certain exclusive components which we believe are not in the best interest of our fan base or representative of maintaining and building our brand.  We were nonetheless encouraged to hear on the recent teleconference that conversations between ESPN and SNY, regarding the continuation of a linear UConn basketball package, are forthcoming. We see tremendous value in our relationship with SNY as it provides a great platform for the UConn athletics brand and helps us garner a significant amount of exposure in the nation’s No. 1 television market."

I'm to the point where if UConn wants to pay an exit fee to the AAC and an entrance fee to the Big East just to go and make less money in the BE while forcing their football Indy...cool, it's been real and it's been fun, but UConn doesn't look the same without Jim Calhoun.

just offer Army football only, couple them with VCU olympic sports and move on.

also, of course sbnation wants to talk down ESPNs new deal

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2019 at 1:52 PM, Balzac said:

Hypothetically speaking...

Could the MWC lure back BYU into the MWC Media Deal with a share similar to (or greater) than Boise?

BYU likely holds the key to any legitimate monies increase from the old contract.

Invite BYU and Gonzaga and give them whatever they want. In the end, it will be worth it. Even if they absorb the lion share of the revenue (along with Boise), the TV contract will be so much more appealing.

Do a short term contract for 5 years.. Let Boise, BYU, and Gonzaga have it all... If Hair can bait a good suitor with that bait, perhaps the league can hopefully build a more substantial audience that gets the others paid on the next deal.

Bet on yourselves...

The key to that would be BYU finally having access to the NY6 spot. If they can play their first BCS/NY6 game ever, the whole league would get some shine.

Just tell BYU you won’t achedule them anymore, unless... (you’re currently giving away the milk for free, playas)

Since adding TCU in 2005 and starting The Mtn network a year later, the MWC hasn't been proactive in the slightest. Instead, it's been entirely REactive and for the most part not in a good way with the addition of San Jose State being the most obvious example.

I won't disagree with much of what you say but "giving it all" to the schools you mention wouldn't have the effect you think it would have. More likely, it would drive the West division schools away and perhaps Utah State with them and what would be left of the MWC would be a poor man's version of the current B12.

Question. Why do you think the AAC is hesitant to just go ahead and put the MWC out of its misery? It seems to me you guys could probably add Boise and YBU for all sports and if you could manage to continue to keep UCF and Houston in the fold, that might actually give you a shot at power conference status.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tulsa Guy said:

I want to thank the Denver Airport Boyz and Boise State for making it possible for Tulsa to be in AAC and perhaps someday P6.  If it were not for you kind folks, Tulsa would not be in AAC today.

I also want to thank the former TU President who quietly and diligently stayed in touch with the AAC powers that be and  pitched TU's many positives to the conference powers.  Did you know Tulsa was involved in 3 of the highest 8 rated AAC ESPN TV telecasts of conference games in 2018?  Lots of OU Sooners and OSU Cowboys were probably watching in addition to Tulsa grads and fans. Half of Tulsa's roster are Oklahoma kids and so their families, friends, and the schools and towns from where they graduated were probably watching too.

I also want to thank the AAC Presidents who had many, many fine schools to choose from....but they chose Tulsa.  Look, don't chew on me.  If you have a beef, take it to the AAC Presidents.

Now that Tulsa is out of the fiasco of the west, I will rest comfortably until I kick the bucket.  No matter what happens in the future, Tulsa will always be better off in EST and CST with 75% of the population.

2005 Liberty Bowl:  Tulsa 31, Fresno State 24.

2016: Tulsa 48, Fresno State 41.  Tulsa overcomes 30 point deficit and beats Fresno State in two overtimes.

He who laughs last, laughs best.

And everyone here laughs at you all the time. In a very short period you've managed to become the biggest assclown on this board and trust me when I say that's not easy to do.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boisewitha-s said:

Lol. You are fuucking stupid. 

Yeah sure....

i said from day 1 the bonus system would be a disaster and not reward performance while you parroted the Kustra line. 

I have also said the deal dramatically hurts the MWC’s negotiating position and that has also proven true.

perhaps you should get back in your truck and keep driving

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...