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!

As the dust settles on Big 12 to PAC 10 it could get scary for CU.

BlackNGold

Club Member
After all the euphoria is over on the conference change there are still some big issues and hurdles for CU.

CU basically is betting on the come in the conference change.

First, CU has to negotiate the financial terms of their departure from the Big 12. Mike Bohn has thrown out an amount of $9 million and of course the Texas -Big 12 conglomerate has put the number at $20 million. Nebraska thinks the number should be zero ( I like their thinking). But lets use Bohn's $9 million for the moment.

Second, When does CU go to the PAC-10 and how does that play out revenue wise. If CU goes to the PAC 10 in 2011 there is a big financial challenge. The PAC 10's revenue from television is NOT increasing for 2011. That means that existing conference members will most likely NOT want to share 2011 revenue with CU (Utah has already been told that they will not receive a conference revenue distribution in 2011). If CU goes to the PAC-10 in 2011 and does not receive a conference distribution that could be another financial hit. CU gets about $8 million in conference distribution right now from the Big 12.

Third, presently the PAC-10 has one of the poorer revenue distributions of the BCS conferences. Larry Scott is trying to form a network and at the same time start negotiating a new TV contract for the conference. This is a delicate situation to say the least - he has to artfully carve out programming for both the PAC 10 conference and the Networks. Two major issues on this -market penetration and time zone. The western time zone has never been attractive for football to the Networks. One thing that has made the Big 10 network so successful is market penetration. The proposed 16 team superconference with Texas and OU would of been killer but the 12 team PAC-10 is less so. CU really needs for Larry Scott to cut a fat hog on the TV deal but at the moment that could be a big if.

Fourth, contrary to what many Internet posters were spouting the PAC-10 does not have equal revenue sharing. In fact, the revenue sharing of the PAC-10 is probably more archaic then the Big 12. Revenue sharing will be on the table at the conference meetings but I am not sure that CU even has a vote. It is going to take a lot of politicking to the big schools to agree to an equal revenue distribution to all schools.

So CU could be entering 2012 looking at being in the hole with $17 million of lost revenue over 2 years and if the PAC-10 contracts do not reward CU with something approaching $16 million a year and up then CU could be looking at a financial hole that takes a long time to dig out of.
 
After all the euphoria is over on the conference change there are still some big issues and hurdles for CU.

CU basically is betting on the come in the conference change.

First, CU has to negotiate the financial terms of their departure from the Big 12. Mike Bohn has thrown out an amount of $9 million and of course the Texas -Big 12 conglomerate has put the number at $20 million. Nebraska thinks the number should be zero ( I like their thinking). But lets use Bohn's $9 million for the moment.

Second, When does CU go to the PAC-10 and how does that play out revenue wise. If CU goes to the PAC 10 in 2011 there is a big financial challenge. The PAC 10's revenue from television is NOT increasing for 2011. That means that existing conference members will most likely NOT want to share 2011 revenue with CU (Utah has already been told that they will not receive a conference revenue distribution in 2011). If CU goes to the PAC-10 in 2011 and does not receive a conference distribution that could be another financial hit. CU gets about $8 million in conference distribution right now from the Big 12.

Third, presently the PAC-10 has one of the poorer revenue distributions of the BCS conferences. Larry Scott is trying to form a network and at the same time start negotiating a new TV contract for the conference. This is a delicate situation to say the least - he has to artfully carve out programming for both the PAC 10 conference and the Networks. Two major issues on this -market penetration and time zone. The western time zone has never been attractive for football to the Networks. One thing that has made the Big 10 network so successful is market penetration. The proposed 16 team superconference with Texas and OU would of been killer but the 12 team PAC-10 is less so. CU really needs for Larry Scott to cut a fat hog on the TV deal but at the moment that could be a big if.

Fourth, contrary to what many Internet posters were spouting the PAC-10 does not have equal revenue sharing. In fact, the revenue sharing of the PAC-10 is probably more archaic then the Big 12. Revenue sharing will be on the table at the conference meetings but I am not sure that CU even has a vote. It is going to take a lot of politicking to the big schools to agree to an equal revenue distribution to all schools.

So CU could be entering 2012 looking at being in the hole with $17 million of lost revenue over 2 years and if the PAC-10 contracts do not reward CU with something approaching $16 million a year and up then CU could be looking at a financial hole that takes a long time to dig out of.

Hmmm, where to start......

Not trying to rip your post, I think it's an interesting topic and appreciate your thinking. Still, I think you're all wrong.

With respect to point #1, I'm guessing that the final amount owed by CU will be about $9m. So we agree on something!

With respect to point #2, CU will not agree to leave the B12 unless it gets a share of the Pac 10 pie in 2011. We are under no obligation to leave the B12 in 2011, so this is a non-issue.

With respect to point #3, Pac 10 is on the market at exact right time. Based on article from Sports Business Journal, a bidding was has erupted with respect to Pac10 TV contract. Apparently Comcast (soon to be owners of NBC) want in, as does Fox. ESPN is also lurking. Rights fees have gone up greatly in past year, and Pac 10 is in right place at right time.

With respect to #4, revenue sharing hasn't been equal because USC, UCLA and Washington have blocked equal revenue sharing (I think conference needs 70% approval to make this change) and the vote has been 7-3. Now, however, CU and Utah will both vote starting in 2011 for equal revenue sharing, and whispers in Washington have them leaning that way as well. I suspect we'll see a 10-2 vote on this, and there will be equal revenue sharing.

Bottom line -- eating $9m is tough, but we should make it up in 2-3 years easy. This is a no-brainer. Trust me. I've talked to people inside the athletic department that say that this is the easiest decision they've ever had to make.
 
Maybe I missed it, but where did it say we're not getting any distributions in 2011? That doesn't make much sense to me, why would we agree to play in ANY conference for free. That can't be right.

Also, wouldn't there be a conference championship game that would add to overall conference revenue if CU joins in 2011?

Revenue sharing is a big deal, but I agree with 101 that even without CU and Utah, I think there will be enough votes to change to an equal share system. My understanding is they need 75% to make the change, so if Washington is for equal sharing, that's an 8-2 vote.
 
so if we go to the PAC:12 in 2011 and we are on TV does that mean we don't have to give them any of OUR tv and bowl game revenue?
 
when we joined the pac 10/12 it was announced we would enter the conference as FULL MEMBERS... Utah has the qualification Process
 
Sounds like BlackNGold is behind the news or missing some key information.

First of all, the Pac-10 and the Buffs have said that they can work out some financing where they would take a part of CU's TV money to pay off a loan that the Pac-10 gives to the Big 12 for CU's exit fees if it is the case. Since the Buffs will most likely get double the payouts under the new Pac-12 TV contract, the Buffs would be able to pay all of this off by 2020...no biggie. The only downer is that we probably will be forced to keep Hawk until his contract is up so it's best to stop hoping the Buffs lose so we can get rid of Hawk. The Buffs earned about $50 million dollars from football alone according to the most recent reports available. Deducting a couple million to four million won't hurt that much and that is assuming CU earns the same money that they would get in the Big 12. I am an accountant myself and CU can easily refinance that Pac-10 loan a few years down the road. The average Joe doesn't know jack about those things.

SINKRATZ is both correct and wrong on the revenue sharing. CU and Utah have immediate voting rights on this issue so in order to pass equal revenue sharing, there has to be nine votes. Washington usually voted with USC and UCLA against equal revenue sharing but in this case, the Huskies are changing their tunes so the actual vote could be more like 10-2 in favor of revenue sharing.

I believe buff4bcs1985 is correct about CU getting full Pac-12 payments beginning next year. If not, the Buffs can borrow money for one year. Look at Cal, they are getting away with losing $8 million a year on their athletics program. One way to raise more money is to increase the student activities fees and if each student chips in an extra $100 per school year, that's $2.5 million bucks.

The Pac-12 Network will be a success because it will cover slightly more than HALF of the United States at launch. Scott Weiberg established the Big Ten Network so we are in good hands.

BlackNGold, I had to neg rep you because you are either behind the news or just have bad information.
 
FWIW, Cal is most definitely not getting away with losing $8m a year - bad example. They are surviving only because they get $11m per year from the University which CU will never do for our AD. They are in serious trouble right now and don't be surprised if they drop several sports very soon.

Also increasing student fees is not as simple as you imply. CU's tuition is already sky high so good luck getting the students to vote for a fee increase particularly when our teams are performing so badly.

A neg rep is pretty f-ed up if you ask me.
 
What's the policy on Neg Rep?

I reserve it for general douchery of the unfunny kind. And even then, I ignore most of it. I've probably sent Neg 5 times in the past year, if that.
 
. CU's tuition is already sky high so good luck getting the students to vote for a fee increase particularly when our teams are performing so badly.

that would be easy, offer the kids free piss bombs at all the home games in exchange for the fee hike.
 
What's the policy on Neg Rep?

I reserve it for general douchery of the unfunny kind. And even then, I ignore most of it. I've probably sent Neg 5 times in the past year, if that.

I don't think there really is a policy. But generally, I'm pretty sparing with the negative rep.

My remembered negative reps:
1)Yesterday I gave that turdbucket new guy one.
2)I gave Wally one on accident for some crusty sock joke he made that I meant to + rep him for.
3)I gave some douchebag (I forget who) for bastardizing the fight song with some anti-hawkins tripe during last season.
4)I think I gave sykobuff a negative rep a few years ago because I was drunk and pissed off.

That's all I can remember, but there are probably others. I might give oblijah one for his unbeatable backgammon score in the arcade.
 
I don't think there really is a policy. But generally, I'm pretty sparing with the negative rep.

My remembered negative reps:
1)Yesterday I gave that turdbucket new guy one.
2)I gave Wally one on accident for some crusty sock joke he made that I meant to + rep him for.
3)I gave some douchebag (I forget who) for bastardizing the fight song with some anti-hawkins tripe during last season.
4)I think I gave sykobuff a negative rep a few years ago because I was drunk and pissed off.

That's all I can remember, but there are probably others. I might give oblijah one for his unbeatable backgammon score in the arcade.

If being drunk and pissed off was a reason for giving neg rep, this board's members would all have neg rep on a daily basis...
 
What's the policy on Neg Rep?

I reserve it for general douchery of the unfunny kind. And even then, I ignore most of it. I've probably sent Neg 5 times in the past year, if that.

Neg rep should be reserved for snobunny, and asshole fuskers/utes.
 
This article sounds like the P-12 will help the Buffs out when they join. I'm sure there are more details for both sides to work out.


dangit, groove. I came here to post the same link. However, I will rep you==not for the link, but because you have saved me from breaking my own rule:
NEVER post a link by J. Henderson. On principle.
Notice how he snuck a photo of a CU loss in there? Same old carp.

I thank you. I almost succumbed.
 
dangit, groove. I came here to post the same link. However, I will rep you==not for the link, but because you have saved me from breaking my own rule:
NEVER post a link by J. Henderson. On principle.
Notice how he snuck a photo of a CU loss in there? Same old carp.

I thank you. I almost succumbed.


I'll try to get you some meds for your condition. Not a big henderson fan myself, but at least his artricle was positive for a change.
 
Back
Top