Hope you all like watching USF football on ESPN+

[NewEnglandBull]

2 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

Time will tell, but if it means $5 million more per year to USF we will just have to deal with it. I have to believe that we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that money from CBS, NBC, or any of the streaming channels. 

I would like to see some sort of deal with Amazon/Twitch, Facebook Live, and/or Twitter. We have the first opportunity to get overpaid by those providers. 

Amazon has already stated they are not going into CFB at this time. FB live is an option but you would want FB TV for best viewing option...unless you want to do the HDMI thing with a tv hook up.

[JTrue]

7 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Again...there is ZERO CORRELATION BETWEEN LAST YEAR and a new contract. Regardless of the $ amount (5, 6, 29 million) we get, if we sign with ESPN there will be AAC games on espn plus. The higher the number the greater the likehood they put more on plus.

Why isn't there? I didn't take too many economics classes in school, but I seem to remember something about what people have done in the past relating to what they'll do in the future. For instance, if people have been on a waiting list for season tickets, one could reasonably assume prices will increase based on previous demand. It's not rock solid, but I think it plays some part.

However, I am entirely open to the idea that ESPN thinks a fan base like the AAC that has poor viewership would all of a sudden want to subscribe and pay more. But the Hallmark Channel hasn't come around to the idea that showing ****** movies should require a subscription fee to watch.

Edited February 20, 2019 by JTrue

[NewEnglandBull]

5 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Why isn't there? I didn't take too many economics classes in school, but I seem to remember something about what people have done in the past relating to what they'll do in the future. For instance, if people have been on a waiting list for season tickets, one could reasonably assume prices will increase based on previous demand. It's not rock solid, but I think it plays some part.

Well, the best thing that could happen is that Aresco keeps the floor of the number of games as low as possible. I know nothing about Aresco’s negotiation skills. Could he say that last year the most a team was on espn3 was three times (ECU I believe) and use that number as a basis for negotiations? Sure, that is possible. I just think if they come in at $7 to $8 mil they are going to insist the conference put up more inventory on ESPN+ due to their inventory needs. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by NewEnglandBull

[JTrue]

1 minute ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Well, the best thing that could happen is that Aresco keeps the floor of the number of games as low as possible. I know nothing about Aresco’s negotiation skills. Could he say that last year the most a team was on espn3 was three times (ECU I believe) and us that number as a basis for negotiations? Sure, that is possible. I just think if they come in at $7 to $8 mil they are going to insist the conference put up more inventory on ESPN+ due to inventory needs. 

Anything is possible. But if Aresco takes a look at the numbers of people watching games and thinks the fans are going to want to pay a subscription fee, he's crazy. Doesn't matter how much he's putting in USF's pocket. I'm not subscribing to a **** thing if USF gets $29 million and I have to pay $10 a month to watch.

[NewEnglandBull]

1 minute ago, JTrue said:

Anything is possible. But if Aresco takes a look at the numbers of people watching games and thinks the fans are going to want to pay a subscription fee, he's crazy. Doesn't matter how much he's putting in USF's pocket. I'm not subscribing to a **** thing if USF gets $29 million and I have to pay $10 a month to watch.

Well now that is an excellent point. Right now the price point for plus is $4.99 but who knows how long that holds. Let’s face it though,  most of us on this board love USF and will pay at least during the season.

[JTrue]

Just now, NewEnglandBull said:

Well now that is an excellent point. Right now the price point for plus is $4.99 but who knows how long that holds. Let’s face it though,  most of us on this board love USF and will pay at least during the season.

If we go subscription, you can kiss off every casual fan and half this board.

[Brad]

$4.99 a month to watch the Bulls?  I'm out!

Not really.

[puc86]

There are people on this board that wouldn’t pay $5 to watch USF?  I mean I get not wanting to watch our conference mates but $15-$20 a season really seems like pretty close to zero dollars to watch our Alma Matter plus I’m pretty sure there are ways to steal streams on the internet for people that can’t part with the cash.

[NewEnglandBull]

3 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

Aresco lacks the vision and the will to do what’s necessary to allow the AAC to compete. He’d rather cash a check and build relationships to help enhance his next career move.

Not killing off the MWC was a critical mistake and showed me he doesn’t have what it takes to lead this conference.

I am not holding much confidence in the man...we will see. 

[puc86]

1 minute ago, brybull1970 said:

Aresco lacks the vision and the will to do what’s necessary to allow the AAC to compete. He’d rather cash a check and build relationships to help enhance his next career move.

Not killing off the MWC was a critical mistake and showed me he doesn’t have what it takes to lead this conference.

If your latest career accomplishment is creating the AAC your next career move is retirement.