CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

[Hank]

I also think it is wiser to choose ESPN/Disney over Fox.

 

[Master Blaster]

I have read much discussion about how the B1G should scoop up Stanford and Cal, but that the loss of those two schools would be a death blow to the Pac. Maybe the B1G doesn't want to completely kill the conference. Who knows?

We must read/watch different things.

I believe the bay area schools are potentially attractive to the Big 10 because there are an assload of Big 10 alums living there. This would give the current big 10 schools an apportunitiy to reconnect with some of the wealthier alumi and turn it into donations. So there's value there for all of the big 10 schools even if they don't move the needle much for TV negotiations

 

[Not Sure]

Lol the B1G just took two of most prestigious academic schools in the country, have many others that are already part of the conference, and are trying to add Notre Dame. It's not that they don't care about academic prestige, it's that they also place high value on football excellence.

I'm also seriously curious as to why you care if the CU football program is in a conference where they mean something. Aside from Texas, which you have been very vocal about hating being in a conference with, CU was never in a conference where academics meant something, until 2011. Has your experience rooting for CU over the past decade been enjoyable because at least they have been in a conference where academics matters?

You’re trying to frame this in a way that makes the entire discussion around academics. It’s really no more complicated than I prefer to be in a conference where it’s a consideration. Just because the B1G added two academically prestigious schools doesn’t mean they give a **** about it. That’s a happy byproduct.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I have read much discussion about how the B1G should scoop up Stanford and Cal, but that the loss of those two schools would be a death blow to the Pac. Maybe the B1G doesn't want to completely kill the conference. Who knows?

We must read/watch different things.

I'm sure you read local California publications that have biased opinions. I mostly listen to and read national opinions and haven't heard a thing about Cal being relevant in expansion, and the only Stanford discussion is that maybe they would be included as a condition set by Notre Dame to the B1G.

 

[SewallBeach]

$130M! Per team. Oh my ****!

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think there's a strong correlation between academics and football success. I haven't crunched numbers, but I suspect we'd see that all of the competitive D1 Teams over the last decade have come from the top 1/3 academicly ranked D1 schools.

I agree there's no correlation between elite academics and elite football success, which seems relevant with the discussion of the Bay Area PAC schools.

I think you pulled this out of thin air with nothing tangible to back it up. There's a major difference between institutions having good academics and also having football success and there being a correlation where you are trying to suggest there is football success because of good academics.

In fact, the Alabama case study almost proves the opposite, where their academic prestige, #of applications, acceptance rates, etc have all gotten better in the Nick Saban era, which would imply that in many places, good academics are possibly a byproduct of football success.

 

[skibum]

Just because the B1G added two academically prestigious schools doesn’t mean they give a **** about it. That’s a happy byproduct.

Except they tout their academics more than any other conference. They have never admitted a member that was not an AAU member - when NU lost their AAU designation, it was a black mark for the conference - which had 100% AAU up until that point. The PAC has never approached the total academic weight of B1G, and it's sort of hilarious that people think the B1G = SEC in terms of academics.

It's not really all that close - the B1G is (and has been for a long time) squarely the best academic conference among the "P5" conferences. Yes, they also "lower their standards" for football players, but somehow doing that hasn't hurt their academic prowess. It's something that CU admin people should look at.

I would also note that CU's academic rankings have gone down since joining a more "academically focused" conference. That's simply fact, and it's something the "we shouldn't lower ourselves again to that level" should really engage with.

 

[hokiehead]

I think you pulled this out of thin air with nothing tangible to back it up. There's a major difference between institutions having good academics and also having football success and there being a correlation where you are trying to suggest there is football success because of good academics.

In fact, the Alabama case study almost proves the opposite, where their academic prestige, #of applications, acceptance rates, etc have all gotten better in the Nick Saban era, which would imply that in many places, good academics are possibly a byproduct of football success.

1. I stated that I didn't run the numbers, but no, not thin air.
2. I absolutely never suggested, in even the most tacit manner, that correlation implied causation. please don't start that BS. Based on years of mutual posting on Allbuffs, you could come up with a long list of valid, honest, points to demean me over -- no need to make shti up.
3. I just crunched the numbers: using USNWR rankings (and teasing out non-D1 schools), and using this list of most successful FB programs of the last decade, 20/25 of the most successful football programs came form the top 1/3 ranked academic schools (exceptions: k state, louisville, okie st, lsu, alabama). I predicted 100%, but apparently only 80%. I'd contend that's still shows correlation, albeit not as significant as expected.
4. i have no doubt that athletic success often leads to academic improvements. not sure why you're raising that point about Alabama (I guess it came from your assertion that I believed correlation implied causation)

 

[steph]

So, not a one year windfall then as you claimed? I swear some people will twist themselves in knots to avoid ever admitting they were wrong.

I don't want to keep this going, but I wasn't twisting anything, I was just reading. Maybe I should have used quotes from the California LAO report "Estimated Windfall of $26 Billion in 2021‑22… Under our main forecast, we estimate the Legislature has a windfall of $26 billion to allocate in the upcoming budget process. This windfall—or one‑time surplus—results from revisions in prior‑ and current‑year budget estimates and is entirely one time. Current unknowns about the economic outlook create an unprecedented amount of uncertainty about this fiscal picture. Our analysis suggests revenues easily could end up $10 billion or more above or below our main forecast in 2021‑22. Over the budget window, the cumulative effect of these revenue differences means the windfall is more likely than not to lie between $12 billion and $40 billion."

 

[Denver_sc]

Behind a paywall, but on the surface this seems to be a great idea, IMO

This is behind a paywall, but I'm not sure what he means by "10 of the top 30 TV markets". According to Neilsen, here are the markets that I think would be counted as "in market":

• #5 Dallas/Fort Worth (TCU)
• #6 SFO/Oakland/SJ (Stanford/Cal)
• #8 Houston (Houston)
• #12 Phoenix (ASU)
• #14 Seattle/Tacoma (UW)
• #17 Denver (CU)
• #18 Orlando (UCF)
• #25 Portland (UO)

That's 8. Granted, #33 Kansas City (KU), #34 Salt Lake City (UU), #36 Cincinnati (Cincinnati) just barely miss the list, but what am I missing?

EDIT: I missed where he said to add SDSU, which locks down #28 San Diego. That still puts the list at 9.

 

[hokiehead]

This is behind a paywall, but I'm not sure what he means by "10 of the top 30 TV markets". According to Neilsen, here are the markets that I think would be counted as "in market":

• #5 Dallas/Fort Worth (TCU)
• #6 SFO/Oakland/SJ (Stanford/Cal)
• #8 Houston (Houston)
• #12 Phoenix (ASU)
• #14 Seattle/Tacoma (UW)
• #17 Denver (CU)
• #18 Orlando (UCF)
• #25 Portland (UO)

Granted, #33 Kansas City (KU), #34 Salt Lake City (UU), #36 Cincinnati (Cincinnati) just barely miss the list, but what am I missing?

San Diego #28

 

[Denver_sc]

San Diego #28

Yep, I caught that just after I posted it.

 

[patebuff]

You’re trying to frame this in a way that makes the entire discussion around academics. It’s really no more complicated than I prefer to be in a conference where it’s a consideration. Just because the B1G added two academically prestigious schools doesn’t mean they give a **** about it. That’s a happy byproduct.

BIG conference has been very clear with their stance on AAU status

 

[241Volcanos]

I don't want to keep this going, but I wasn't twisting anything, I was just reading. Maybe I should have used quotes from the California LAO report "Estimated Windfall of $26 Billion in 2021‑22… Under our main forecast, we estimate the Legislature has a windfall of $26 billion to allocate in the upcoming budget process. This windfall—or one‑time surplus—results from revisions in prior‑ and current‑year budget estimates and is entirely one time. Current unknowns about the economic outlook create an unprecedented amount of uncertainty about this fiscal picture. Our analysis suggests revenues easily could end up $10 billion or more above or below our main forecast in 2021‑22. Over the budget window, the cumulative effect of these revenue differences means the windfall is more likely than not to lie between $12 billion and $40 billion."

Since 2014 only deficit were in 2020 and 2021. Surplus in ‘15, ‘17, ‘19, ‘22. 2016 and 2018 flat.
Thank you for your interest in the CA budget.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I don't want to keep this going, but I wasn't twisting anything, I was just reading. Maybe I should have used quotes from the California LAO report "Estimated Windfall of $26 Billion in 2021‑22… Under our main forecast, we estimate the Legislature has a windfall of $26 billion to allocate in the upcoming budget process. This windfall—or one‑time surplus—results from revisions in prior‑ and current‑year budget estimates and is entirely one time. Current unknowns about the economic outlook create an unprecedented amount of uncertainty about this fiscal picture. Our analysis suggests revenues easily could end up $10 billion or more above or below our main forecast in 2021‑22. Over the budget window, the cumulative effect of these revenue differences means the windfall is more likely than not to lie between $12 billion and $40 billion."

M’kay so it was a one year windfall 2 years ago - what happened since? It’s been posted here already but the answer is it quadrupled.

 

[Denver_sc]

I’m not sure if this is correct, but seems to me that CU has four choices:

1. Stay in PAC 10, no expansion, collect $30-$35 million per school
2. Stay in PAC 10, add a couple Mtn West schools, get $30 million per school
3. PAC 10 poach the best of the Big 12 (if you can),get $40 million per school
4. Leave for Big 12, with either group of 4 or 6 teams, get $45 million per school

Again, those appear to be the figures bandied about. Correct me if I’m way off.

Scenarios 1 and 2 give CU least amount or revenue, potentially the least stability with some teams always eyeing an exit. Have the most acedemic prestige.

Scenario 3 provides more money, provide greater conference stability, maintains decent academic prestige

Scenario 4 offers most money, provides greater conference stability, most TV markets from coast to coast, conference has greater enthusiasm for football, but academic prestige takes significant hit.

Any way you slice it, CU is not monetarily competitive with either SEC or Big Ten (aka the Biggie Tupac), so all the fretting one way or another really doesn’t matter. I mean, being $50 million behind or $55 million, who cares?

If you’re a football fan, heading to the Big 12 is probably the right call. If academics, west coast ties is your thing, probably just stand pat.

EDIT...seems like heading to the Big 12 is the way to go if below is accurate.

View attachment 52756

I was trying to figure out how the B1G was going to get more than the SEC over the life but holy **** I was just looking at TV markets for my last post and with UCLA and USC, the B1G owns the following in the top 30:

• #1 New York
• #2 LA
• #3 Chicago
• #4 Philadelphia (arguably- Penn State)
• #7 Washington DC (arguably, Maryland)
• #13 Detroit (UM)
• #15 Minnesota (Minny)
• #19 Cleveland (OSU)
• #26 Baltimore (Maryland)
• #27 Indianapolis (Indiana)

The SEC has

• #10 Tampa/St Pete (Florida) (closer to UCF, which will be BigXII)
• #18 Orlando (Florida) (UCF is in this market, which will be BigXII)
• #21 St Louis (Mizzou)
• #29 Nashville (Vandy)

Granted, there are a number of brands in the SEC that are strong in certain metros (i.e. UGA in Atlanta), but it is stark.

Basically, B1G is "in market" for 5 market bigger than the biggest market that the SEC is "in market" for, and likely has about 10-15X the number of television homes in their markets vs. the SEC markets.

 

[steph]

M’kay so it was a one year windfall 2 years ago - what happened since? It’s been posted here already but the answer is it quadrupled.

Yes it did, as has been said before, because the stock market was up 29% for the year. Good luck if your retirement savings have been based on getting a yearly 29% return.

 

[hokiehead]

BIG conference has been very clear with their stance on AAU status

I actually don't think they have been all that clear. I'm not aware of any formal statement or written requirement the B1G has issued regarding AAU as a condition for membership.

while they have a history of only taking AAU members for full B1G membership, they didn't do anything when NU lost their status (e.g. force an action plan from NU that showed a path to regain membership; e.g. add AAU membership as a requirement in their by-laws) and there's plenty of reason to believe the B1G would take ND on as full members in a heartbeat, AAU status be damned (note ND is already a B1G associate member along w/ Johns Hopkins).

 

[SINKRATZ]

Yes it did, as has been said before, because the stock market was up 29% for the year. Good luck if your retirement savings have been based on getting a yearly 29% return.

Ok so again, not a one year windfall.

 

[Matt]

This thread is getting spicy. I like it.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

1. I stated that I didn't run the numbers, but no, not thin air.
2. I absolutely never suggested, in even the most tacit manner, that correlation implied causation. please don't start that BS. Based on years of mutual posting on Allbuffs, you could come up with a long list of valid, honest, points to demean me over -- no need to make shti up.
3. I just crunched the numbers: using USNWR rankings (and teasing out non-D1 schools), and using this list of most successful FB programs of the last decade, 20/25 of the most successful football programs came form the top 1/3 ranked academic schools (exceptions: k state, louisville, okie st, lsu, alabama). I predicted 100%, but apparently only 80%. I'd contend that's still shows correlation, albeit not as significant as expected.
4. i have no doubt that athletic success often leads to academic improvements. not sure why you're raising that point about Alabama (I guess it came from your assertion that I believed correlation implied causation)

Fair enough, hokie. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or demean you in any way. Reading your post within the context of the discussion about academics and football, it felt like you were trying to make that correlation = causation argument.

Using your list of top football programs, the number next to it indicates their ranking among P5 programs

1. Alabama - 52nd
2. Ohio State - 19th
3. Clemson - 32 (T)
4. Oklahoma - 50th
5. Georgia - 18th
6. Oregon - 40 (T)
7. Notre Dame - 4th
8. Wisconsin - 16th
9. LSU - 58th
10. OK State - 60th
11. A&M - 30th
12. FSU - 21st
13. Mich St - 36
14. Penn State - 27th
15. Michigan - 7th
16. Iowa - 38
17. Stanford - 1st
18. Florida - 10th
19. Washington - 26th
20. Utah - 40 (T)
21. Baylor - 32 (T)
22. USC - 9th
23. Louisville - 61st
24. K State - 54th
25. Auburn - 40 (T)

*Colorado - 40 (T)

The average ranking of the top 10 is 35th and the average of the top 25 is 31st out of 65 P5 programs. So out of peer athletic institutions, the top programs average being in the bottom half of the P5 and the top 25 average to rank almost exactly at the half way mark.

I * Colorado because it shows that we are in the bottom half of the P5 schools in academic ranking, tied with Utah, Oregon and Auburn, but behind the likes of Baylor, and SEC programs like A&M, Georgia, and Florida.

 

[Hank]

Thank you, Governor Newsom!



https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/ne...refund/middle-class-tax-refund-estimator.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stimulus-check-2022-california-inflation-relief-payments/

 

[Not Sure]

Except they tout their academics more than any other conference. They have never admitted a member that was not an AAU member - when NU lost their AAU designation, it was a black mark for the conference - which had 100% AAU up until that point. The PAC has never approached the total academic weight of B1G, and it's sort of hilarious that people think the B1G = SEC in terms of academics.

It's not really all that close - the B1G is (and has been for a long time) squarely the best academic conference among the "P5" conferences. Yes, they also "lower their standards" for football players, but somehow doing that hasn't hurt their academic prowess. It's something that CU admin people should look at.

I would also note that CU's academic rankings have gone down since joining a more "academically focused" conference. That's simply fact, and it's something the "we shouldn't lower ourselves again to that level" should really engage with.

So, we have slipped and we should keep going farther down? None of this makes any sense to me at all. Somehow, because of the mismanagement of Phil and others who have allowed the school to slip in academic rankings, we are supposed to come to the conclusion that academics is unimportant? I feel exactly the opposite. Not that we need to be making all of our decisions based on academic factors, but they should be considered. I’d prefer to be associated with schools like Cal, Stanford and UW than Baylor, WVU and whatever cabal of loosely affiliated flotsam the B12 can come up with.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

So, we have slipped and we should keep going farther down? None of this makes any sense to me at all. Somehow, because of the mismanagement of Phil and others who have allowed the school to slip in academic rankings, we are supposed to come to the conclusion that academics is unimportant? I feel exactly the opposite. Not that we need to be making all of our decisions based on academic factors, but they should be considered. I’d prefer to be associated with schools like Cal, Stanford and UW than Baylor, WVU and whatever cabal of loosely affiliated flotsam the B12 can come up with.

Baylor is a better academic school than CU

 

[Not Sure]

Baylor is a better academic school than CU

Gaaaahhhhhhhhh!

 

[Liver]

Speaking of California and bringing ti back to relevance in this thread, there is a bill in the state legislature that would require like 50% of the revenue be distributed to college athletes. if it passes, it will change the dynamics of all these conference reorgs and how the money is distributed.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Gaaaahhhhhhhhh!

Quit the discussion when you're tangibly proven incorrect.

I don't know you and I don't know about your fandom of CU throughout history, but I assume you've been a fan of the program dating back to the Big 12 and even Big 8 days. I'm curious why being in a conference that's academically inclined is all of the sudden important to you, but wasn't for most of your life as a fan, and why you have been so vocal about your disdain for being in a conference with Texas.

 

[skibum]

So, we have slipped and we should keep going farther down? None of this makes any sense to me at all.

Obviously.

The point is that:

Who CU is in a athletic conference with has absolutely no impact on CU's academic ratings.

None.

Zero.

Zilch.

And, if it did have an effect, all of the actual, real world data indicates that the effect is 100% exactly opposite of what you want to believe.

 

[Not Sure]

Quit the discussion when you're tangibly proven incorrect.

I don't know you and I don't know about your fandom of CU throughout history, but I assume you've been a fan of the program dating back to the Big 12 and even Big 8 days. I'm curious why being in a conference that's academically inclined is all of the sudden important to you, but wasn't for most of your life as a fan, and why you have been so vocal about your disdain for being in a conference with Texas.

Are you being purposely obtuse? I feel like you are just messing with me. The point, and it feels like I’ve made it constantly, is that I don’t want to be in the same conference with Baylor (specifically), and I want to be in a conference where the other members are more academically inclined (generally). The B12 is a horrible fit for us. It was a bad fit when we left and it’s a worse fit now. Academics is one part of the equation. I see little to no actual benefit from rejoining a conference we already left. The B12 does nothing for us athletically, academically or any other way you can think of. It’s a ****ty conference populated with ****ty schools in ****ty areas. The fact that the PAC 10 is a tire fire is not sufficiently persuasive to get me to look at the B12 and think it’s a worthwhile alternative. It’s not. We’re in a bad spot, and our options are limited. They might be even further limited down the road. In fact, they probably will be. Going to the B12 doesn’t change any of that calculus. It’s going from one ****ty situation where we at least share some common values with our conference peers to another ****ty situation where we don’t.

 

[Not Sure]

And if you want to know why I don’t want to be in the same conference as Baylor, just check out the **** bailer thread.