Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

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

I can’t imagine that the media entities that are considering media rights are not dictating a merger deal that they prefer as part of a new contract.

Could, say, ESPN be working behind the scenes with select programs to form a sort of “ESPN 12” or “ESPN 16?” In other words a hybrid conference?
 
RalphieSpeaks said:
It could be that Turner and CBS are out because another bid was selected. The announcement of them being out does not necessarily mean it was because of interest.
Click to expand...

Darth Snow said:
I don't have any idea what's going to happen with realignment or the P10 going forward, but this absolute certainty coming out of nothing more than bias is amusing AF.
Click to expand...

torero said:
I don't know ****, but it is possible that these entities are saying they are out on bidding Pac-12 because there is another bid that blows what they were willing to offer away. The logic of groups saying they are out weakening the position of the Pac is not sound.
Click to expand...
I want to remind you guys that hope is not a strategy.
 
Agent Dave Kujan said:
I want to remind you guys that hope is not a strategy.
Click to expand...
the line "hope is not a plan" comes up a lot in my field.

a few months ago, I was in a meeting where a project manager was reminded of that.

PM: "... and we really hope the design gets done by this date so we don't lose schedule"
leadership: "hope is not a plan"
PM: "our plan is to get the design done on time. I hope it works out"
 
hokiehead said:
the line "hope is not a plan" comes up a lot in my field.

a few months ago, I was in a meeting where a project manager was reminded of that.

PM: "... and we really hope the design gets done by this date so we don't lose schedule"
leadership: "hope is not a plan"
PM: "our plan is to get the design done on time. I hope it works out"
Click to expand...
Well, I hoped that CU football would become relevant again and it worked out great!!
 
RalphieSpeaks said:
🤷🏻‍♂️

Click to expand...

Is he using stats from how the conferences were arranged in 2019, or how they will be arranged post realignment? Because that would completely alter the conclusions you could reach from it. Regardless, the only factors that will decide whether a conference is a "downgrade" or an "upgrade" is how much money it brings in and, secondarily, what its viewership/ exposure is.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Is he using stats from how the conferences were arranged in 2019, or how they will be arranged post realignment? Because that would completely alter the conclusions you could reach from it. Regardless, the only factors that will decide whether a conference is a "downgrade" or an "upgrade" is how much money it brings in and, secondarily, what its viewership/ exposure is.
Click to expand...
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’m confused. Is this individual suggesting CFB realignment is happening with academics as the primary driving force? That Texas and OU went to the SEC and USC and UCLA went to the B1G because of those two conferences academic prestige? L.O.L.
Click to expand...
No he is basically showing why the PAC teams are not going to the Big 12. Although the moves by those 4 teams were moves that resulted in an increase in academic prestige if measured by conference.

The end result, which I agree with, is no pac teams move. Even if money is slightly below, which I don’t think it will be, it will not matter. CU grants and research has increased over 350M since joining the PAC and is over 1B now.

The million here and there in TV deals for these universities is, as I heard this week, a rounding error in the whole scheme of things.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Soooo... is he averaging in UCF, Houston, BYU and Cincy when he calculates the athletic dept. budget for 2019? Four then-G5 schools lumped in with 8 then-P5 schools? Because if he's doing that he's clearly biasing the data to say something he wants it to say.
Click to expand...
Go ask him. He is very responsive in that thread.
 
RalphieSpeaks said:
No he is basically showing why the PAC teams are not going to the Big 12. Although the moves by those 4 teams were moves that resulted in an increase in academic prestige if measured by conference.

The end result, which I agree with, is no pac teams move. Even if money is slightly below, which I don’t think it will be, it will not matter. CU grants and research has increased over 350M since joining the PAC and is over 1B now.

The million here and there in TV deals for these universities is, as I heard this week, a rounding error in the whole scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Help me understand the relationship between grants and research and conference affiliation. Serious question. CU has always been a top notch research school and their academic prestige has actually spiraled downward since joining the Pac 12.
 
Creebuzz said:
The first 12 minutes are rough. Most would just turn it off. However, once they turn it over to Tony and his charts, there is some credible arguments in there.

Around the 49 minute mark, when they discuss the “blood oath” the Big 12 schools have signed and new schools would have to sign, there is zero chance they‘re poaching anyone from the PAC 12. And there is zero chance the PAC 12 is poaching any of them. The Big 12 members essentially are locked in for life.

Overall, a much better than expected listen, especially between 12 minute mark and 55 minute mark.
Click to expand...
@The Alabaster Yak See what I wrote about Tony’s video from a few days ago. The case he lays out isn’t poor. You may not agree with it, but there is logic to it. Like I said, skip the first 12 minutes, ignore the bad radio voices on some other guys and listen to his argument.

 
RalphieSpeaks said:
Grants and research data

Click to expand...

Yes, but I believe the point of @The Alabaster Yak's question was how does research money relate to conference affiliation. The proper answer would be, it doesn't. The PAC schools don't produce more research by virtue of being in the PAC, they will continue to produce as much if they're not in the PAC, and other schools won't suddenly produce more if they join the PAC. If athletic affiliation mattered to research output, U of Chicago would never have left the B1G. Research grants are awarded (mostly) by the merit of the proposed research, and collaborations that happen between labs at different institutions have nothing to do with athletic affiliation (and often the people getting said grants couldn't even name the other members of a university's athletic conference).
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Yes, but I believe the point of @The Alabaster Yak's question was how does research money relate to conference affiliation. The proper answer would be, it doesn't. The PAC schools don't produce more research by virtue of being in the PAC, they will continue to produce as much if they're not in the PAC, and other schools won't suddenly produce more if they join the PAC. If athletic affiliation mattered to research output, U of Chicago would never have left the B1G. Research grants are awarded (mostly) by the merit of the proposed research, and collaborations that happen between labs at different institutions have nothing to do with athletic affiliation (and often the people getting said grants couldn't even name the other members of a university's athletic conference).
Click to expand...
Grants are fairly political and based on association.

And if associations didn’t matter CU wouldn’t have increased as much as they did.

Notice where the Big 12 teams are.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Yes, but I believe the point of @The Alabaster Yak's question was how does research money relate to conference affiliation. The proper answer would be, it doesn't. The PAC schools don't produce more research by virtue of being in the PAC, they will continue to produce as much if they're not in the PAC, and other schools won't suddenly produce more if they join the PAC. If athletic affiliation mattered to research output, U of Chicago would never have left the B1G. Research grants are awarded (mostly) by the merit of the proposed research, and collaborations that happen between labs at different institutions have nothing to do with athletic affiliation (and often the people getting said grants couldn't even name the other members of a university's athletic conference).
Click to expand...
Also U of Chicago left the Big 10 in 1946. Not sure that is relevant.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Yes, but I believe the point of @The Alabaster Yak's question was how does research money relate to conference affiliation. The proper answer would be, it doesn't. The PAC schools don't produce more research by virtue of being in the PAC, they will continue to produce as much if they're not in the PAC, and other schools won't suddenly produce more if they join the PAC. If athletic affiliation mattered to research output, U of Chicago would never have left the B1G. Research grants are awarded (mostly) by the merit of the proposed research, and collaborations that happen between labs at different institutions have nothing to do with athletic affiliation (and often the people getting said grants couldn't even name the other members of a university's athletic conference).
Click to expand...
And that’s a fair counterpoint. However, there is some prestige to being in a conference with good academics. I have no doubt that CU joining the Ivy League for sports would bump its academic prestige. The argument holds that every school that has left for another conference upgraded their academic peers. Texas and OU to the SEC was a big academic lift over the Big 12. No school has actually shifted down in the modern era within the last 40 years.*

*There have been some lateral moves (Maryland from ACC to Big Ten, Miami from Big East to ACC, for example)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top