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!

And the mack-10 blows up in 3..2..

Whorns have so much money they blow it on these.....

img_1473_medium.jpg


Bound to happen when you have too much loot.
 
Think about the logic.

PAC 10 was dead last in revenue last year.

Colorado AD is having a hard time giving away tickets. Just got an email for ticket offer for Iowa State game. I can bring the whole family for next to nothing. But I bet I could get the tic even cheaper at the game.

Adding a mid-major and CU to the P10 are going to create this ratings generating machine that will in turn produce this amazing TV deal?

The math doesn't work. A CCG is not that big of a deal. It's something, but not much split 12 ways.

CU doesn't even get ratings in the Denver market. What makes you thing Denver folks will watch p10 games with schools 1000 miles+ away. Some of the B12 schools are far away, but all of the p10 schools are far away save UU, the former mid major.

You really are looking at the past too much, in this situation. "In the past" a conference-owned network seemed ridiculously foolish. That has changed with the Big Ten model. "In the past" the Pac-10 under Tom Hansen actually went out of their way to AVOID signing big money television revenues as they felt it wasn't necessary. That has obviously changed in short order. "In the past" the ACC was comparable to the Pac-10 in revenue streams and in mindset. That changed in 2003-04 with the expansion to 12 teams. It didn't payoff big-time for the ACC until just this past round of TV negotiations when they were able to package their total sports deals into one EXTREMELY lucrative contract. "In the past" no single school could top Notre Dame for private-rights programming on a national broadcaster, but UT might be doing that right now.

Clearly the FUTURE is brighter than the "past" across the board for college sports and their television rights. How do you continue to assume that the Pac-12 won't capitalize also?

The Pac-10 is now up to bat and they are taking a two-fold approach by expanding and forming their own TV network, while obviously taking aggressive steps to capitalize on their teams previously undervalued market appeal.

You say that nobody in Denver will watch CU play football in the Pac-10?

It is all about access, not necessarily big ratings. By placing a network in big markets while landing expanded-basic cable tier or on satellites is what brings in the revenue. There is a near guarantee that 500,000 homes on an expanded tier cable or satellite package can generate $6 million per year by itself. The ratings for that type of programming don't have to be overwhelming (you're talking a 2.0 overnight or something similar), but serviceable for a cable network to be succesful in that market.

A conference with Los Angeles, Bay Area, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Salt Lake, and surrounding communities will generate a significant amount of revenue from their network. Then you factor in television advertising, bowl games, basketball tourneys, championship games, etc.

Lastly, the 3-4 times population of CU alumni in the Pac-12 footprint should realistically increase the donations and merchandise sales for the school.

Downplay Utah all you want, I really don't care, but constantly referring to them as a "mid-major" is just the same as calling you a snot-nosed kid, even if you are a 35 year old high-powered executive now. You are what you are, not what someone's former perception of what you used to be. Utah has been killing it in both major sports for nearly a decade now, they draw big crowds and win big games, they are not a "mid-major", especially when compared to Washington State, Iowa State, Vanderbilt, and many many other supposed "major" programs.
 
Last edited:
So why don't you share your money with CSU? CSU is D1 football. How do you justify getting more money than CSU? It's all d1 football.

If we were in the same conference, CSU would get an equal share of the conference media contract and I'd be ok with that. Equal sharing is what works if you want a strong conference. Unequal sharing is an outdated model. It's the difference between the NFL and MLB.

Regarding whether the numbers make sense for CU or the Pac-10 schools, HornBuff... since you refuse to believe what people here are trying to tell you, why don't you ask yourself why everyone decided to make the move. Are all of these ADs, Chancellors, Presidents, Pac-10 executives, consultants and analysts idiots?

Because you would have to believe that if you were to believe your own arguments.
 
Good post Scotty. Thanks.
I get what you are saying, but regardless of structure, the heart of the matter is viewership. You have big cities in the p10, but the interest in college football in p10 is not what it is in other parts of the country. People camp out for days to see even crap teams play in the southeast, but Stanford, a very good team in a massive city, can't even outsell Iowa State on average.

No doubt the new PAC 10 deal will be better than the old one, but my point is that it will likely not be materially better than the new B12 deal. Cash to CU might be roughly the same in either scenario, not this giant delta thrown around as justification for leaving the "crap" b12.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

If we were in the same conference, CSU would get an equal share of the conference media contract and I'd be ok with that. Equal sharing is what works if you want a strong conference. Unequal sharing is an outdated model. It's the difference between the NFL and MLB.

Regarding whether the numbers make sense for CU or the Pac-10 schools, HornBuff... since you refuse to believe what people here are trying to tell you, why don't you ask yourself why everyone decided to make the move. Are all of these ADs, Chancellors, Presidents, Pac-10 executives, consultants and analysts idiots?

Because you would have to believe that if you were to believe your own arguments.
Kind of having it both ways there. Outraged at UT for market based revenue splits but same market based revenue distribution justified if you are in a different conf, even though it's all the same d1 college football.

With respect to your second question, I believe the p10 people were counting on the larger 16-team deal and probably would not have done this deal if the had known it was only going to be CU and UU all along. That's not just me. Read any p10 country newspaper or listen to p10 sports talk.
 
Good post Scotty. Thanks.
I get what you are saying, but regardless of structure, the heart of the matter is viewership. You have big cities in the p10, but the interest in college football in p10 is not what it is in other parts of the country. People camp out for days to see even crap teams play in the southeast, but Stanford, a very good team in a massive city, can't even outsell Iowa State on average.

No doubt the new PAC 10 deal will be better than the old one, but my point is that it will likely not be materially better than the new B12 deal. Cash to CU might be roughly the same in either scenario, not this giant delta thrown around as justification for leaving the "crap" b12.

The big 12 is crap. and Iowa is not in the southeast. And I dare you to tell an Oregon fan that they don't support their team.
 
Good post. Thanks.
I get what you are saying, but regardless of structure, the heart of the matter is viewership. You have big cities in the p10, but the interest in college football in p10 is not what it is in other parts of the country. People camp out for days to see even crap teams play in the southeast, but Stanford, a very good team in a massive city, can't even outsell Iowa State on average.

No doubt the new PAC 10 deal will be better than the old one, but my point is that it will likely not be materially better than the new B12 deal. Cash to CU might be roughly the same in either scenario, not this giant delta thrown around as justification for leaving the "crap" b12.

Actually, ratings are now less important than the number of cable television homes. The money is in the number of homes paying for the Pac-12 on its cable tv package. Ratings matter, but they're not as important. This is why programs like Rutgers and Boston College are hot properties even though people in those metros aren't huge college football fans. It's why the Big East would rather bump Villanova up to D1-A for the Philly market rather than accepting a program like East Carolina that would be in the top 3 in the conference for home attendance and fanaticism but doesn't draw a major metro media market. This calculation becomes especially important if we talk about a "Pac-12 Network" and it's likely partner, Comcast. Comcast is the dominant cable provider in Colorado and Utah as well as the other Pac-12 markets. With them having a 49% ownership, it's likely that the network gets onto a basic tier throughout the Mountain and Pacific time zones. also, the network is perfectly positioned to be the US college network that gets broadcast throughout the Asia-Pacific region since the conference is so strong in all sports, including some olympic sports that are more popular there.

But let's assume that a "Pac-12 Network" and all that growth potential doesn't happen. For the Pac-10, the additions of CU and UU give the conference strategic control of the Mountain and Pacific time zones (the only regions outside Texas with population growth outpacing the national average), are currently revenue neutral (add enough that splitting the pie 12 ways instead of 10 still gives everyone the same money), adds the conference championship game revenue, and increases the number of games available for programming by 20%. From CU's standpoint, it raises our academic prestige to have the Pac-12 affiliation, gives us a tighter connection to California alumni (outnumber alumni in every Big 12 state combined, not including Colorado), increases exposure of CU to west coast out-of-state students (where we get the majority of non-Colorado applicants), and increases exposure to Asia-Pacific international applicants (which can be a financial windfall because new CO law puts no limits on the number of international students CU can take - they're no longer included in the in-state/out-of-state student population ratio that has to be maintained with a minimum in-state percentage).

---------- Post added 11-06-2010 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was 11-05-2010 at 11:52 PM ----------

Kind of having it both ways there. Outraged at UT for market based revenue splits but same market based revenue distribution justified if you are in a different conf, even though it's all the same d1 college football.

I think you mis-read my post. I'm against market-based revenue splits.

With respect to your second question, I believe the p10 people were counting on the larger 16-team deal and probably would not have done this deal if the had known it was only going to be CU and UU all along. That's not just me. Read any p10 country newspaper or listen to p10 sports talk.

Yep. Everyone was so single-mindedly focused on getting UT that when that didn't happen the conference and its members tried to save face in the national media, panicked, and did a bad deal. UT is just so awesome that top media negotiations people like Larry Scott and presidents of universities like Stanford were unable to handle rejection from them and went crazy.

And the Big 12 is financially stronger after losing the program with the 2nd most national prestige (Nebraska) along with its 3rd largest media market (Denver).
 
new CO law puts no limits on the number of international students CU can take - they're no longer included in the in-state/out-of-state student population ratio that has to be maintained with a minimum in-state percentage)

Stupid law, unless we get a one to one trade with their top institutions.
 
With respect to your second question, I believe the p10 people were counting on the larger 16-team deal and probably would not have done this deal if the had known it was only going to be CU and UU all along. That's not just me. Read any p10 country newspaper or listen to p10 sports talk.

What about the fact they they offered membership to Colorado in 1994?
 
new CO law puts no limits on the number of international students CU can take - they're no longer included in the in-state/out-of-state student population ratio that has to be maintained with a minimum in-state percentage)

Stupid law, unless we get a one to one trade with their top institutions.

It means that CU can accept a lot more international applicants. They pay a lot more in tuition than in-state students. This means millions of dollars in revenue for the university. Why is that stupid?

Are you suggesting that CU shouldn't accept an international student unless a university from that student's country also accepts a Coloradan as a student? Or did you just not understand what I posted?
 
Buffnik, good reasoning. Thanks for the post.
We will see how the TV deal actually works out in reality, as in actual cash in pocket reality. Not sure there is much more that can be said on the matter.

Let's just get the right guy to start the new era, regardless if moving to p10 was the best option.

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

It means that CU can accept a lot more international applicants. They pay a lot more in tuition than in-state students. This means millions of dollars in revenue for the university. Why is that stupid?

Are you suggesting that CU shouldn't accept an international student unless a university from that student's country also accepts a Coloradan as a student? Or did you just not understand what I posted?
i think the reasoning behind the old law was sound. More revenue is fine, but CU is here to educate Colorado kids first and foremost. I'd rather make due with less money than have slots taken up by foreigners.
 
I'd rather make due with less money than have slots taken up by foreigners.

But there's the rub. Out of state and foreign students help subsidize the education of in-state students. If CU had a 75 percent in-state enrollment, the quality of the education would suffer. Professors would make less. The facilities would be suffer.

It's all about finding the balance. If Colorado were more serious about increasing the percentage of Colorado kids at CU, they could do more to fund higher education by paying higher taxes. Low taxes = need for more OOS and OOC students.
 
i think the reasoning behind the old law was sound. More revenue is fine, but CU is here to educate Colorado kids first and foremost. I'd rather make due with less money than have slots taken up by foreigners.

Not when a state deficit is forcing budget cuts to higher education. Not when the university is making budget cuts. And not when the new law doesn't reduce the number of students from Colorado. If Colorado kids had to be 5/10 before, all this means is that it will now be 5/11 with that extra student coming from overseas. Enrollment is increasing. Actually, projections are that with state population growth, CU will see a 20% increase in in-state students by 2020. Since these kids are educated at a loss due to lack of state government funding but low tuition for them, the international students are necessary to pay the bills.
 
Tom tancredo is that you?
No, but I voted for him.

---------- Post added at 12:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

Not when a state deficit is forcing budget cuts to higher education. Not when the university is making budget cuts. And not when the new law doesn't reduce the number of students from Colorado. If Colorado kids had to be 5/10 before, all this means is that it will now be 5/11 with that extra student coming from overseas. Enrollment is increasing. Actually, projections are that with state population growth, CU will see a 20% increase in in-state students by 2020. Since these kids are educated at a loss due to lack of state government funding but low tuition for them, the international students are necessary to pay the bills.
Well if they are not taking up slots then that would be ok, I guess.
 
Back
Top