New AAC media deal with ESPN announced

[RoyalShock]

More money, but probably only because - if I understand the following quote correcty - most of the basketball games will go to ESPN+. Ugh.

Football, along with men's and women's basketball, will remain on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, but the majority of basketball games and a significant number of the football games will go to ESPN+. Other live sports including baseball, softball and soccer also will air on ESPN+. Renewal talks with CBS have not begun.

[shocks02]

Football schools will see a jump from $1.7M annually to $6.9M. IMO, ESPN+ isn't a big deal. Seems lots of the ESPN3 content is headed that way. I would expect the conference kept mostly the same number of slots on ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU.

[Jhook89]

So what do we get?

[RoyalShock]

That's the million dollar question.

Or hopefully, much more than a million.

[RoyalShock]

Another thing to consider, whatever amount we get won't look nearly as good near the end of the deal.

But it will still be far better than whatever we would have received if still in the MVC.

[SB Shock]

So what do we get?

The annual per-school average of $6.94M provides each AAC school with nearly $5M more in annual revenue.,

-- so I would assume WSU cut is somewhere at or below 3.4 million?

[RoyalShock]

Someone on the AAC board speculated a 70/30 type of split, which I assume to mean Navy gets 70% of one share, WSU 30%. If accurate, that's just over $2 million.

[Shockm]

I thought it was 60/40 which would be just under 2.8 Million. So it is somewhere between 2.1-2.8 Million.

[SHOCKvalue]

ESPN+ for most of the MBB games is gonna nuke exposure and ratings, at least until the cable to streaming conversion of the US consumer is further along. Who knows if that circuit ever completes itself.

Money will be nice, but we all know how important media exposure is after the wave we got from the F4.

I’m conflicted, I guess.

[ShockerFever]

ESPN3 isn’t mentioned, so I assume all the ESPN3 basketball games (which we had none with the AAC this year) will switch to ESPN Plus. So if that’s the case, it’s not a big deal at all. I can’t imagine the conference having less TV games in a deal that ESPN is paying more for.

[Jhook89]

So we go from getting nothing in the MVC to 2 mil a year in the AAC. Amazing. Plus the UA deal and the tournament shares.

As as far as the espn+, I actually like this move. As a cord cutter it is almost impossible to view the cbs sports channel without having cable. Espn + is only $5 and my guess with how this deal is set up espn is gonna to start heavily pushing the platform. IMO cbs sports doesn’t exactly qualify as national tv lol. I’m fine losing some games on that channel.

[BAShocker]

Austin Powers: “one billlllllion dollars”

[Aargh]

With WSU and Creighton gone from the MVC, can that conference even get a "break even" deal? If WSU can get $2 mill a year from the TV deal, that is HUGE for the athletic department. That allows facilities upgrades and improvements. If player stipends get approved, WSU will havwe the funds to handle that.

[AZ Shocker]

Wondering out loud here...but do you guys think the descreptancy in funds between all the schools in our league with football and us not having football will give us any advantage or disadvantage?

I think the answer is probably no because football cost so much and the schools that have football will just spend the added funds to "up" their football programs.

And then having said that...should we consider bringing back football and get our "fair" portion of funds to fund a football program at Wichita St.???

I wonder in the new deal if there is some sort of provision stating that "if" Wichita St. does re-start its football program...that Wichita St. would immediately start receiving the same equal funding from the new deal.

[Aargh]

One of the stipulations with joining the AAC was that we would not be allowed to join for football even if we started a program.

[Topshock]

What we will get seems reasonable, and if real numbers are used, probably an advantage for WSU considering we don't have to support football.

[Wooglin]

Wondering out loud here...but do you guys think the descreptancy in funds between all the schools in our league with football and us not having football will give us any advantage or disadvantage?

I think the answer is probably no because football cost so much and the schools that have football will just spend the added funds to "up" their football programs.

And then having said that...should we consider bringing back football and get our "fair" portion of funds to fund a football program at Wichita St.???

I wonder in the new deal if there is some sort of provision stating that "if" Wichita St. does re-start its football program...that Wichita St. would immediately start receiving the same equal funding from the new deal.

As much as I love football, I am guessing its a dead issue. Bringing back football to WSU would be exponentially more expensive than any offset a tv revenue deal could provide. Millions and millions would be necessary to upgrade the facilities, hire coaches, recruit a team, buy equipment, all the while not forgetting we would need to address Title IX issues. After all that's completed, we would have a team that would not be very competitive for several years while we attempt to establish our team. Non-competitive teams = empty seats and annual fiscal losses. According to LJ World, (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2018/ap...-revenues-soa/) the Chickenhawks athletics department had a deficit of $14 mil in 2016 and $19 mil in 2017, The MBB team brought plenty of black ink to the balance sheet while football was awash in red ink. Its a numbers game and I am certain WSU is conscious of how scary bringing back football could be to the ledger.

[giskard]

Bringing football back will probably depend a lot on how the next WSU president feels about it.

[Wooglin]

Bringing football back will probably depend a lot on how the next WSU president feels about it.

I'm sure the topic will come up during interviews.

[Aargh]

I'm not.