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!
2018 Offseason Realignment Thread (because Duff loves this ****)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
The idea of adding teams such as SDSU, Boise, UNM, UNLV, etc. is small-time thinking. If the Pac12 truly wants to make a splash and become more prominent nationally then the only option is to go hard after OU and Texas.
The NCAA just approved Mexican colleges for D2 just like Canada. Small progress there.
Really like reading the nuances of each schools situation and qualifications beyond what I already know or think I know.
I am more convinced that we need to go after Houston right now! Before they get into AAC media discussions and before the Big 12 gets desperate if other members get taken away. I am also pretty convinced that New Mexico is a very good option to wrap up an entire state within our area, and with the Basketball Programs history and the Football team being a program that could be developed, they are a good option for round 1. From there, you have to look at UNLV and Oklahoma State to round out a solid 16 teams league with cohesive geography representing all of the states we want. I would then focus on a very futuristic distribution model for media rights and sponsorships to take advantage of the dynamic areas of the country we would be in. Need the same cash as other leagues and just focus on the development of our footprint. I do not want or see Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas or others joining us, and that is fine with me!
Would like to see movement on Houston right now!!!
I am more convinced that we need to go after Houston right now! Before they get into AAC media discussions and before the Big 12 gets desperate if other members get taken away. I am also pretty convinced that New Mexico is a very good option to wrap up an entire state within our area, and with the Basketball Programs history and the Football team being a program that could be developed, they are a good option for round 1. From there, you have to look at UNLV and Oklahoma State to round out a solid 16 teams league with cohesive geography representing all of the states we want. I would then focus on a very futuristic distribution model for media rights and sponsorships to take advantage of the dynamic areas of the country we would be in. Need the same cash as other leagues and just focus on the development of our footprint. I do not want or see Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas or others joining us, and that is fine with me!
Would like to see movement on Houston right now!!!
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
The only way for Pac-12 members to closer to equal distribution of conference revenues is for Pac-12 teams/programs to start equal attendance at games, equal ratings on TV, etc.
Just having the same number of programs is not the secret sauce that powers the B1G and SEC; it is that their attendance figures are 20-30% higher than the PAC-12 and their TV ratings are higher than that.
$$$ follows actual in-game attendance/ratings. That is what advertisers are paying access for (in any content arena: TV, streaming, etc).
Think like an advertising person. Why should anyone pay the PAC-12 an equal amount for inferior "performance" in delivering eyeballs to their advertisements?
The "bubble" that has been created about media markets fueling expansion in the last go-round has still not proven that it will be successful. The B1G took a couple of risks in their expansion: adding Nebraska because of high attendance/ratings but relatively low market size and then adding Rutgers and Maryland with the exact opposite portfolio. I don't think they will regret adding Nebraska for many reasons, but time will tell if Rutgers/Maryland are actually delivering enough % of those eyeballs to be a positive addition. The only programs that fit for them are Mizzou, Kansas, Oklahoma (I think they would make an exception on academics for them due to their improvement plan on that front), Virginia, and Texas (if OU is added to bridge the geography).
If anything the BIG XII is in a much better position than the PAC-12 is to use expansion to improve their distribution and league brand. Because they do not have the academic snobbery to deal with, they could be much more results-oriented in their search. If they added: Houston, Memphis, CSU, and New Mexico they would be adding 5.5 million TV households and 4 more top 50 TV markets without stretching the footprint of the conference. You could argue that Houston is a market they are strong in already but since they lost A&M their direct presence in that large market is shrinking.
This strategy would effectively landlock the PAC-12 and strengthen the BIG XII to maintain their P5 status and also protect against losing OU-Texas; and even if you did lose them the league would still have enough solid programs to still make an argument to retain P5 status.
Of course anything can change in the next 3-5 years.
Just having the same number of programs is not the secret sauce that powers the B1G and SEC; it is that their attendance figures are 20-30% higher than the PAC-12 and their TV ratings are higher than that.
$$$ follows actual in-game attendance/ratings. That is what advertisers are paying access for (in any content arena: TV, streaming, etc).
Think like an advertising person. Why should anyone pay the PAC-12 an equal amount for inferior "performance" in delivering eyeballs to their advertisements?
The "bubble" that has been created about media markets fueling expansion in the last go-round has still not proven that it will be successful. The B1G took a couple of risks in their expansion: adding Nebraska because of high attendance/ratings but relatively low market size and then adding Rutgers and Maryland with the exact opposite portfolio. I don't think they will regret adding Nebraska for many reasons, but time will tell if Rutgers/Maryland are actually delivering enough % of those eyeballs to be a positive addition. The only programs that fit for them are Mizzou, Kansas, Oklahoma (I think they would make an exception on academics for them due to their improvement plan on that front), Virginia, and Texas (if OU is added to bridge the geography).
If anything the BIG XII is in a much better position than the PAC-12 is to use expansion to improve their distribution and league brand. Because they do not have the academic snobbery to deal with, they could be much more results-oriented in their search. If they added: Houston, Memphis, CSU, and New Mexico they would be adding 5.5 million TV households and 4 more top 50 TV markets without stretching the footprint of the conference. You could argue that Houston is a market they are strong in already but since they lost A&M their direct presence in that large market is shrinking.
This strategy would effectively landlock the PAC-12 and strengthen the BIG XII to maintain their P5 status and also protect against losing OU-Texas; and even if you did lose them the league would still have enough solid programs to still make an argument to retain P5 status.
Of course anything can change in the next 3-5 years.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I hope we never add anyone. The PAC is never going to be on completely equal financial footing with the B1G or SEC. We can aim to keep pace with the ACC, perhaps. But I'm tired of college football being all about distribution and financial arrangements.
The PAC is still a geographically and culturally cohesive conference, and that's what makes college football fun. We're the west, and I want to keep it that way.
The PAC is still a geographically and culturally cohesive conference, and that's what makes college football fun. We're the west, and I want to keep it that way.
I'm becoming much more intrigued by the idea of poaching the MWC for basketball. If we could be Pac-12 for football but add BYU, SDSU, UNLV and New Mexico for hoops for a Pac-16 there (and any other sports they have other than football), I think that would be excellent. Would bring in some excellent programs, some of the best arenas in the west, and actually cut a lot of travel costs. Maybe football comes later. Maybe not. And we keep our soul as the conference of the west.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
They'll stay if St. Marys stays. If you're going to add Gonzaga if you're the MWC, you take St. Marys too. You do that, and BYU has no other choice BUT to return to the MWC.
Adding teams to the conference seems like a lazy way to accomplish a goal of better conference revenue. Work on improving the brand, get better representation in the CFB playoffs. Fill your stadiums. These are all things they can accomplish without adding other teams to the mix. Fix the holes in your own roof first.
Well, expansion is a stupid idea, so why not do something that might, you know, work?
In all seriousness, your response was obviously sarcastic, but it completely ignores the point. The point is that it’s not the size of the conference that is the issue. It’s how the conference performs that is the problem. Adding new teams is, to coin a phrase, putting lipstick on a pig.
My post was completely sarcastic, but stating "how the conference performs is the problem" is actually the definition of completely ignoring the point.
Not when it’s my point. That IS my point.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I'd actually welcome that idea. All of those programs would be great basketballs additions. I really hope we don't add football programs though - I think it's ridiculous how little some of the SEC and B1G teams see each other nowadays.
Looks like I have to become a fan of the top teams in the conference dominating. Sounds fun.
The hard part would be their football scheduling. BYU would be easy since they already have an independent football schedule. Could easily do a Notre Dame type deal where they played 4 Pac-12 teams a year in football and have all its other sports in the conference. Would be interesting to see if the MWC would allow schools to be football-only members and then raid the WCC and other conferences in the west to fill out its other sports. I don't think they'd have a choice but to go along with it, actually.
The key problem is that if you have relatively equal revenue distribution then any school you add not only needs to add revenue but needs to add revenue that is at least equal to if not greater than the share it will take. If not then everyone's share gets smaller.
Most of the schools that are being named don't have great attendance and don't have a history of drawing TV viewers. The result is that adding them would cost the current members money.
No, but it is an indicator of the level of fan interest in a program. TV revenue is based on the ability to draw viewers to the screen. If a team is drawing fans to games it also isn't likely drawing TV viewers.
So why didn't you say that?
I suspect that is usually correlated to some degree. But that's not what you said.
This is why I brought up the programs I did for basketball: BYU, UNLV, UNM & SDSU. They've got home arenas and support that put most of the Pac-12 members to shame. It's definitely a measure of prestige. It's also why I would love to see a plan for CU to bring our football up to where we were in the "big boy program" range of seating 60k-65k at Folsom.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Why not just add Gonzaga (and maybe BYU) to the Pac-12 for basketball only? ala Johns Hopkins to the Big Ten for lacrosse only. That blocks the MWC from potentially building a basketball conference to rival the Pac-12 out west and doesn't involve a dramatic conference realignment across all sports.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
What about Ontario University? Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America; holy ****, the tv potential is staggering!
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
Instead of trying to get OU or UT, going after sub-par MWC schools or Houston, we should go big. My idea includes pushing Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC), Tijuana. Push them to add football and other sports. Larry Scott wants an international reach, well we have one in our backyard with the lovely city of Tijuana, Mexico. The UABC has three main campuses, figured Tijuana would be easiest for sports travelling. The three campuses combine to have 54,000 students. Tijuana itself offers a population of just under 2 million, plus cheap fun from gambling, illicit shows, and much more.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
Screw UABC, CETYS already will be looking to join a DII, so lets go after them.
I thought we annexed Tijuana years ago. It feels like a seedier part of San Diego at this point -> with more interesting night life.
Houston, Tulane, Kansas and one of UNLV, NM or SDSU.
Houston and Tulane are travel partners, we get KU, and Utah gets UNLV, NM or SDSU.
This is fun. It's like drafting a fantasy baseball team, but I don't have to worry about setting my lineup in mid-August when I don't care anymore.
Houston and Tulane are travel partners, we get KU, and Utah gets UNLV, NM or SDSU.
This is fun. It's like drafting a fantasy baseball team, but I don't have to worry about setting my lineup in mid-August when I don't care anymore.
That completely depends on what schools you add.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Ooooooo! Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México . 48,000 seat stadium, largest tv market in North America and USC/UCLA can brag that their air is cleaner.
límpico_Universitario