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!
Blog Source- Big 10 & SEC To Expand To 16... Big 12 May Follow
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
You guys give too much credence to some blog. Wake me up when the actual press announces expansion.
With the exception of Dallas-Ft. Worth (5th largest TV market), most expansion markets would dilute the Pac TV payouts. Additional markets to target would be Sacramento (20), San Diego (28), Vegas (40), Albuquerque (47), Fresno (55), Tulsa (59).
In terms of major universities, that really points to the texas and okie schools, maybe SDSU, UNLV, NMSU, Fresno State? In addition to sports, are any of these schools a fit from academic/research standpoints?
I'm thinking that I am content with the Pac as it stands.
Nielsen
In terms of major universities, that really points to the texas and okie schools, maybe SDSU, UNLV, NMSU, Fresno State? In addition to sports, are any of these schools a fit from academic/research standpoints?
I'm thinking that I am content with the Pac as it stands.
Nielsen
Nobody. We don't need to expand. Period.
You keep saying that, but if CU is "only" making 30MM a year and the SEC and Big10 and other schools are making 45MM a year then it will be a problem.
Just ask CSU what it's like having big brother make more.
Only if there are teams to add that would actually improve our TV deal...
That's the trouble with the Pac-12. Not many regional schools will add that much value. Like it or not, the Pac-12 might be forced to expand. Definitely some bold moves for our conference in teh future
Except what you are describing is basically impossible. There are simply no markets big enough that adding those schools will add $15 million a year PER school in the conference. The market is no basically saturated, and expanding could maybe add a few million a year per school best case scenario.
But that makes no sense. If there are no regional schools that will add value, why expand? There aren't that many schools outside the region that add value either. That aren't already part of one of the other mega-conferences, unless they want to go to the east coast. At this point, I don't see the Big XII being ripe for raiding even if Scott wanted to go that way...
The way things are set up, your scenario can't come to pass. As SEC & B10 revenues increase, so will the revenues of the Pac 12. And we'll only have to split the revenues 12 ways. You don't expand for the sake of expanding. Just because the Big 10 has 16 schools is no reason for us to do the same. They're all fishing in the same pond. We have our own pond that we don't need to share with anybody.
So, every conference expands to 16 teams, dividing up into two divisions of eight teams, re-creating, in essence: the old Big 8!
Play seven in your divison and half the other division, then one extra non-con? Followed by a CCG?
College football went all around the world to return to the days of yore, only with different configurations? Makes no sense to me.
Although I like eight schools as a division or league because a team plays everbody else in that league or Div.
Used to tick me off, when theOSU or UM would dodge the better teams in the Big 10 (since they only played 7 of 9 in league) and proclaim they should be the MNC, having missed playing a good squad, in-conference---they always managed to play Northwestern though!
Couldn't do that in the Big 8! Always played kNU and OU, regardless.
Play seven in your divison and half the other division, then one extra non-con? Followed by a CCG?
College football went all around the world to return to the days of yore, only with different configurations? Makes no sense to me.
Although I like eight schools as a division or league because a team plays everbody else in that league or Div.
Used to tick me off, when theOSU or UM would dodge the better teams in the Big 10 (since they only played 7 of 9 in league) and proclaim they should be the MNC, having missed playing a good squad, in-conference---they always managed to play Northwestern though!
Couldn't do that in the Big 8! Always played kNU and OU, regardless.
If forced to, Pac 12 could cherry-pick SDSU and SJSU for starters, then take the "Y" and Boise St......SJSU ended up ranked higher than half the B1G, as it was! Locking up the Mormons, would fill out the TV market for the entire mountain region, including Nevada, so it wouldn't need the NV schools.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Heard they were going to 17 but they're calling it 16.
The PAC already has EVERY relevant school in the West, no need to add more, it would just make the conference more unappealing.
This X eleventy billion.
The Pac 12 has the entire Western half of the US wrapped up. Every significant market west of Kansas is already in the conference. We're not fighting anybody else for those markets. There isn't anybody else in those markets that we would need to add value. it's done. Finished. There's no "forcing" here. I think people are getting tied up in the fact that the SEC is going to 16 teams and that somehow we need to do the same. Hogwash. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Same with Fresno, while those are MWC cities I'm guessing they're more of a Pac-12 market already.
Gold
Well-Known Member
The incremental value of east coast metros for B10 and SEC tv deals make sense. Maybe. There is not the same availability in the West, we have them all. Dallas isn't incrementally valuable when you go to 16 teams, we've done the math on this.
Whats the next argument here? Strength of schedule goes up? it's already tough, we don't need another ringer. Also, we can schedule tough non-conf if someone is that eager up for a tough schedule.
Whats the next argument here? Strength of schedule goes up? it's already tough, we don't need another ringer. Also, we can schedule tough non-conf if someone is that eager up for a tough schedule.
I see no scenario that adding a Western school would be anything but dilutive in terms of the per school cash haul. Some of the Big 12 teams perhaps (OU, UT). That's it.
Not happening. No reason to happen.
Not happening. No reason to happen.
ximianKernel
Member
if these conferences goes to 16, that will force them to play 9 conference games. Otherwise with some protected cross divisional rivalry... some school won't get to play any other cross dvisional teams other than their cross divison rivals.
AFA and BYU would be non-dilutive. But PAC12 will not take religious schools.
conference payouts over time for the B1G and SEC are not going to rise substantially without comparative rises in the PAC payouts. The market in the midwest is not growing, many of the major cities are stagnant or even shrinking. The southern states will continue to grow but not at a pace that outstrips the western states.
You can talk TV markets all you want but California is the prize in terms of size and demographics. AZ is blowing up, CO has almost doubled in two decades, UT is one of the fastest growing states in the country, WA and OR are growing as well and all have demographic advantages over the B1G and SEC states.
The PAC doesn't have to expand. If for some reason it does happen it has to be done very carefully to protect the indentity and structure of the conference. Texas simply isn't a good fit because of the way they work and the other Texas schools (excepting A&M which is already locked into the SEC) aren't worth bringing without UT.
You can talk TV markets all you want but California is the prize in terms of size and demographics. AZ is blowing up, CO has almost doubled in two decades, UT is one of the fastest growing states in the country, WA and OR are growing as well and all have demographic advantages over the B1G and SEC states.
The PAC doesn't have to expand. If for some reason it does happen it has to be done very carefully to protect the indentity and structure of the conference. Texas simply isn't a good fit because of the way they work and the other Texas schools (excepting A&M which is already locked into the SEC) aren't worth bringing without UT.
Again with the "if forced" comment. We won't be forced into anything. There is nothing that would force the PAC 12 to expand.
Air Force has publicly stated that they do not want to be in a BCS conference. They know they do not have the size and skill set to get beat up in a league like the PAC 12 each week. BYU is never coming to the PAC12. Ever.
Stand pat at 12. I would've been ok adding KU, ISU, OK, Okie State but that ship sailed now that the Big 12 has a monster exit fee and has stabilized membership.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Yes and no. As far as the Nevada schools, we don't get anything we don't already have. I'd say there are a fair amount of Pac 12 alums living in Vegas (Why do you think Larry moved the conference tourney there?) and Reno already, so I'll pass there. New Mexico, however, is another story. Albuerquerque is the one even reasonably sized market west of Texas that isn't in the Pac 12 footprint. I wouldn't say add them now, but if their football program continues to improve......definitely.
Gold
Well-Known Member
1. We don't add for the sake of adding. So AFA, UNLV, come on, this is bush league. Let's stop the nonsense.
2. The Dallas metro, while big, DOESN'T add incremental value to each teams payout if the league expands to 16 and if the other 3 teams aren't bringing a big metro with them.
3. That means in order to add incremental value to what we already receive, the P12 would have to add Dallas AND another major metro. Not OU, not KU, or anyone else mentioned above. A major metro with a ton of viewership. That doesn't exist.
2. The Dallas metro, while big, DOESN'T add incremental value to each teams payout if the league expands to 16 and if the other 3 teams aren't bringing a big metro with them.
3. That means in order to add incremental value to what we already receive, the P12 would have to add Dallas AND another major metro. Not OU, not KU, or anyone else mentioned above. A major metro with a ton of viewership. That doesn't exist.