You know that ESPN deal we all hate? ...Not So Fast My Friend!

[Carolina_Bull]

It is crazy to think that ESPN and its B5 partners want AAC to be successful

They want AAC to fail

AAC is DOA

[usfbullrider]

The article is a stretch. We didn't get good money for our product. Not even close. The evidence they make their argument is somewhat laughable.

[slick1ru2]

 

How ESPN Became the AAC’s New Best Friend

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2014/8/13/5999687/how-espn-became-the-aac-s-new-best-friend

Hmmm... I don't know. We chose ESPN over an NBC upstart because of exposure... but now they pawned us off to a CBS upstart. I don't quite get that.

 

 

The issue is that CBS Sports is better than ESPN 3... it's still a national network..

 

Marginal national network and after you look at the numbers it being better is debatable. They are on the most expensive or second most expensive tiers of programming which have lower numbers of subscribers.  In comparison,  NBC Sports is on a lower tier and has 50% more potential viewers, ESPN in the lowest tier and has ~100% more viewers.

 

ESPN3 is in available to large and small ISPs, Its also available to every college and military base with a domain that ends in .edu or .mil in the U.S., that's 21 million potential viewers right there alone, almost half the number of potential viewers of CBS Sports, which is in the mid 50s.

Cable providers with ESPN3 access, http://espn.go.com/watchespn/affList

TV Providers with ESPN3 access   http://espn.go.com/watchespn/affList

 

If you go to ESPN3 and you can't access it because your ISP isn't a member, check the TV Provider list and if its on it, log into it.

 

We do want the most eyes on the product in the end, be it online or on TV. 50% of TVs in the US are now hooked to the Internet and that's going to rise at a very steep rate. There is an increasing number of 'cable nevers' that never paid for cable TV and only watch internet or OTA TV. Its a new world where people watch online and on the go and ESPN3, which a few years ago was a novelty, is now the future of sports.

Edited August 21, 2014 by slick1ru2

[Who'sYourData?]

The AAC is clearly the best of the non-P5.  I don't think ESPN wants a P6, but it is in their best interests to encourage the AAC.

 

There is only so much Little League they can show.

[slick1ru2]

 

How ESPN Became the AAC’s New Best Friend

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2014/8/13/5999687/how-espn-became-the-aac-s-new-best-friend

Hmmm... I don't know. We chose ESPN over an NBC upstart because of exposure... but now they pawned us off to a CBS upstart. I don't quite get that.

And ESPN slaughtered the Big East... just to build us back up again? Not sure I am buying this here. But I could be happy in this conference if we do become the 6th "power" conference.

College Football is still better if all teams have a chance for a Cinderella Season, or the possibility of moving into the big time.

 

Point of clarification.  We did not choose ESPN over NBC.  ESPN had rights of first refusal, they merely needed to match the terms of the deal offered by NBC, which they did.

 

Overall, interesting perspective.  We have exposure, now we have to do something with it.

 

 

The schools had to vote on it after determining it was a package that matched NBC's in all facets. I think they may have exceeded the NBC offer on some counts which ensured their getting the nod when the schools voted. 

[SpeedyBull]

You know what. If we go on a wining streak we will be on ESPN. 

It's a broken record but all that matters right now is winning. Just don't kill anyone CWT, but get it done. 

[Superhippy]

The article makes some interesting points, and I agree that ESPN really wants the AAC to do well, but not for the reasons the article states.   The articles entire premise is that ESPN wants an AAC team instead of a MAC team in the New Year's day game because of an 11% ratings spike.   That's really reaching.  An 11% increase for one game is nice, but in the whole scheme of things means very little.

 

ESPN wants the AAC to do really well, and specifically the teams with potentially huge markets (USF, UCF, Cincy, ECU), because then those teams will be added to P5 conferences later on.  Lets say UCF and USF gets added to the Big XII.  Now they will recruit better, will both see a massive attendance spike just from the difference in who they are playing (Texas and Oklahoma instead of Tulsa and SMU), and both are in huge football markets that would only get bigger.   You just have to look at the Mountain West of about 5 years ago to see what can happen.  You can't say the same for teams in the MAC, C-USA, and Sunbelt.  Not a single team in any of those conferences would have any chance of bring able to bring in enough money to interest a P5 conference, except MAYBE and it's a big MAYBE Marshall.

 

Personally this is why I have said that the AAC and Mountain West should be proactive and create the nations 1st Mega-Conference of 24 teams and essential force their way into being the P6 conference.   The benefits for both would be off the charts.

 

- The top team out of 24 would most likely be undefeated or have 1 loss and would have a great chance at the playoff every year.

- It would be the 1st conference that is Nationwide and could generate ratings where there shouldn't be any.  Fresno State and Boise State fans would have a reason to watch USF and UCF, and vice versa.

- Basketball would get a huge bump.  Separately the Mountain West and AAC and decently strong.  Together they would be a top 3 conference.

 

An AAC / Mountain West merger would be the best and maybe only way for those 24 schools to give a big F-U to the P5 conferences, and it would work.

[Guest]

 

 

How ESPN Became the AAC’s New Best Friend

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2014/8/13/5999687/how-espn-became-the-aac-s-new-best-friend

Hmmm... I don't know. We chose ESPN over an NBC upstart because of exposure... but now they pawned us off to a CBS upstart. I don't quite get that.

 

 

The issue is that CBS Sports is better than ESPN 3... it's still a national network..

 

Marginal national network and after you look at the numbers it being better is debatable. They are on the most expensive or second most expensive tiers of programming which have lower numbers of subscribers.  In comparison,  NBC Sports is on a lower tier and has 50% more potential viewers, ESPN in the lowest tier and has ~100% more viewers.

 

ESPN3 is in available to large and small ISPs, Its also available to every college and military base with a domain that ends in .edu or .mil in the U.S., that's 21 million potential viewers right there alone, almost half the number of potential viewers of CBS Sports, which is in the mid 50s.

Cable providers with ESPN3 access, http://espn.go.com/watchespn/affList

TV Providers with ESPN3 access   http://espn.go.com/watchespn/affList

 

If you go to ESPN3 and you can't access it because your ISP isn't a member, check the TV Provider list and if its on it, log into it.

 

We do want the most eyes on the product in the end, be it online or on TV. 50% of TVs in the US are now hooked to the Internet and that's going to rise at a very steep rate. There is an increasing number of 'cable nevers' that never paid for cable TV and only watch internet or OTA TV. Its a new world where people watch online and on the go and ESPN3, which a few years ago was a novelty, is now the future of sports.

 

 

I would rather watch it on a TV than on a computer... most people don't know how - or have the ability to - play from their computer to their TV (yet).

 

Saying it's on cable is better than saying it's online.

[slick1ru2]

With half of U.S. TVs being connected to the internet, or an internet enabled device, I don't think the argument about not knowing how to watch on tv is valid as it was. Plus you have the WatchESPN app on increasingly popular devices like the Roku, Chromecast and Xbox. I believe Xbox 360 sales are over it's lifespan around 100 million.

http://www.socaltech.com/nearly_half_of_u_s_households_have_tvs_connected_to_internet_says_report/s-0055424.html

Edited August 21, 2014 by slick1ru2

[SpeedyBull]

With half of U.S. TVs being connected to the internet, or an internet enabled device, I don't think the argument about not knowing how to watch on tv is valid as it was. Plus you have the WatchESPN app on devices like the Roku and Xbox. I believe Xbox 360 sales are over it's lifespan around 100 million.

http://www.socaltech.com/nearly_half_of_u_s_households_have_tvs_connected_to_internet_says_report/s-0055424.html

 

Not to mention Chromecast