What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

We'll know whether CU is going to the Pac-10 by July 1 of this year

Sportsfan101

Well-Known Member
Must give 2 year advance notice to the conference (which requires us to give notice by July 1) or face escalating $$$ penalties for early withdrawal. I also understand that best case scenario is that we'd lose 1/2 of B12 distributions for each of the next 2 years. I still think we need to bite the bullet and make the jump, but we're going to need our donors to come up very, very big over the next 2 years to try to bridge the difference.

And Dan Hawkins just got a lot more job security. Ugh.
 
Must give 2 year advance notice to the conference (which requires us to give notice by July 1) or face escalating $$$ penalties for early withdrawal. I also understand that best case scenario is that we'd lose 1/2 of B12 distributions for each of the next 2 years. I still think we need to bite the bullet and make the jump, but we're going to need our donors to come up very, very big over the next 2 years to try to bridge the difference.

And Dan Hawkins just got a lot more job security. Ugh.

Completely agree with the first paragraph....but how do you figure Hawk got more job security? I assume it has to do with the loss of $$$$, but if the millionaires club comes through and with the lo$$ Benson and Co. will see this year from having retained Hawk, dude's gone unless he goes 12-0 and wins the mNC. (OK lofty goal, but I belive the minimum gate is 8 wins with a bowl win being one of the 8)
 
Completely agree with the first paragraph....but how do you figure Hawk got more job security? I assume it has to do with the loss of $$$$, but if the millionaires club comes through and with the lo$$ Benson and Co. will see this year from having retained Hawk, dude's gone unless he goes 12-0 and wins the mNC. (OK lofty goal, but I belive the minimum gate is 8 wins with a bowl win being one of the 8)

When I'm talking about Hawkins job security, I'm talking about increased financial constraints on the AD due to the loss of 1/2 of B12 revenue for the next 2 years. But the Millionaire's Club (or whatever it will be called), if implemented, could go a LONG way toward alleviating my fears with regards to Hawk. We really need donors to step up. If I'm Mike Bohn, and if the Pac 12 is announced with CU as a member, he needs to capitalize on the excitement by BEGGING people to donate. I think increased donations over the next 2 years could offset some of the conference $$ losses -- which may mean that Hawk needs to EARN his job versus being handed his job due to financial constraints.
 
Last edited:
When I'm talking about Hawkins job security, I'm talking about increased financial constraints on the AD due to the loss of 1/2 of B12 revenue for the next 2 years. But the Millionaire's Club (or whatever it will be called), if implemented, could go a LONG way toward alleviating my fears with regards to Hawk. We really need donors to step up. If I'm Mike Bohn, and if the Pac 12 is announced with CU as a member, he needs to capitalize on the excitement by BEGGING people to donate. I think increased donations over the next 2 years could offset some of the conference $$ losses.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the Pac 10 wants us so bad that they may be willing to pitch in some "parachute" to help offset the losses after we make the announcement.

Unlike the way Wash. DC likes to the phrase, this is truly a case where "you have to spend money to make money." Even if CU takes it in the $$$ shorts for a couple of years, it's definitely worth it in the long run, IMO. CU TO THE PAC!
 
Last edited:
I agree that the athletic department is much better situated for success in the Pac 10 versus the Big 12 and that losing $$ over the next 2 years is something we need to deal with.
 
Must give 2 year advance notice to the conference (which requires us to give notice by July 1) or face escalating $$$ penalties for early withdrawal. I also understand that best case scenario is that we'd lose 1/2 of B12 distributions for each of the next 2 years. I still think we need to bite the bullet and make the jump, but we're going to need our donors to come up very, very big over the next 2 years to try to bridge the difference.

And Dan Hawkins just got a lot more job security. Ugh.

One minor issue though is that the notice must be done 2 years in advance of the ending of the "additional term" in the conference bylaws. July 1, 2010 is only ONE year notice from the end of the current term. This means we would be losing 80% of revenues for that year.

Now, on the positive side, the Big 12 revenue last year was something like $8 or $9 million, so we would lose between $6.4 million and $7.2 million in revenue, but for only ONE year. Certainly the "million-dollar" club and/or the Pac Ten could help us out in that area.

What better "facility" to build for CU Athletics, than a better conference home!
 
Must give 2 year advance notice to the conference (which requires us to give notice by July 1) or face escalating $$$ penalties for early withdrawal. I also understand that best case scenario is that we'd lose 1/2 of B12 distributions for each of the next 2 years. I still think we need to bite the bullet and make the jump, but we're going to need our donors to come up very, very big over the next 2 years to try to bridge the difference.

And Dan Hawkins just got a lot more job security. Ugh.

Actually disagree on both accounts. The buyout will almost certainly be part of any realignment negotiations (CU wouldn't make the move it it was worse for them financially than staying). And if we do move, it won't be for 2 years and we're going to know everyhting we need to know about Hawkins future here at CU probably by the 5th or 6th game of this season. If anyhting, moving to the Pac 10 would likely reinvigorate the fan base and would give the AD the politcal capital to make a coaching change as well - fresh start for the whole program.
 
New Pac 10 tv package must be part of the deal. Realistically these need to happen at the same time, it's an all or nothing situation IMO.

Thats true, but their current deal runs out in 2011 so I would think they would have a new deal in the works before the end of 2010.
 
I also have a sneaking suspicion that the Pac 10 wants us so bad that they may be willing to pitch in some "parachute" to help offset the losses after we make the announcement.

Unlike the way Wash. DC likes to the phrase, this is truly a case where "you have to spend money to make money." Even if CU takes it in the $$$ shorts for a couple of years, it's definitely worth it in the long run, IMO. CU TO THE PAC!

Since the Pac 10 is a not for profit governed by its members do you really think they could hit a majority vote in this fiscal climate to cut their own revenue in favor of subsidizing us and team #12?
 
Since the Pac 10 is a not for profit governed by its members do you really think they could hit a majority vote in this fiscal climate to cut their own revenue in favor of subsidizing us and team #12?

Why would they be cutting their revenue? Yes some of the money from the new contract would go to buying us out, but if each member received more money per year with the new TV deal they would support it.
 
Why would they be cutting their revenue? Yes some of the money from the new contract would go to buying us out, but if each member received more money per year with the new TV deal they would support it.
Bringing in some more high profile members would give them leverage when negotiating a new TV contract, no?
 
Back
Top