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

hokiehead said:
lots of thoughts, but chief among them is that I struggle with a scenario in which Oregon State remains in a Power conference while NC State and Louisville are out.
Click to expand...
It's the only way to keep geographic balance. This would amazing and makes a ton of sense. So I agree with everyone else, it won't happen.
 
HudsonBuff said:
It's the only way to keep geographic balance. This would amazing and makes a ton of sense. So I agree with everyone else, it won't happen.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't see why geographic balance would all of a sudden become a driving factor in re-alignment. recent trends suggest the opposite.

further thought, in the scenario where the ACC dissolves and the Pac stays intact to invite those members, I guess they need to carry OSU and WSU for contractual reasons.
 
hokiehead said:
I guess I don't see why geographic balance would all of a sudden become a driving factor in re-alignment. recent trends suggest the opposite.

further thought, in the scenario where the ACC dissolves and the Pac stays intact to invite those members, I guess they need to carry OSU and WSU for contractual reasons.
Click to expand...
Good point about the contract with the Pac.

I don't think geographical realignment is the driving force, but it could be a tiebreaker for keeping WSU/OSU over NCST/UL etc.
 
hokiehead said:
I guess I don't see why geographic balance would all of a sudden become a driving factor in re-alignment. recent trends suggest the opposite.

further thought, in the scenario where the ACC dissolves and the Pac stays intact to invite those members, I guess they need to carry OSU and WSU for contractual reasons.
Click to expand...
Divisions are being dropped pretty much in every conference. The only reason this person creates this idea with two divisions is because of the regional travel stuff, which we know doesn't matter, especially if you're talking about $60m+ per school.

So in this hypothetical, I think the more likely scenario is OSU and WSU also get dropped, Louisville and NC State remain and it's 10 ACC a 6 Pac programs, or more ideally, 9 ACC, 6 Pac and ND, with no divisions, but with a schedule built with the regional travel in mind.

Three locked in/annual opponents and 6 rotating opponents every 2 years.

CU's 3 annual opponents: Utah, Cal/Stanford, Oregon/Washington
 
RalphieSpeaks said:
We will leave snark out.

Go find data that contradicts the data and charts posted. If association, whether athletic or whatever, doesn’t matter you should be able to show that. Seems like personal opinion at this point.
Click to expand...
Well, why shouldn’t you have to find data that proves your point? I don’t like the, “Oh yeah? We’ll prove it!” arguments.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
You've made a claim, given no data that actually supports your claim, then asked for data that "refutes" your claim. I'm a scientist. Your arguments wouldn't be getting you any grant funding, my friend.
Click to expand...
My daughter worked in the CU patent office back in the day. I was pretty amazed at how much money patents developed by CU researchers brought in. Millions.
 
Denver_sc said:
I haven't watched the video or listened to the podcast or whatever the source of this claim is. Two questions for those who have:
  1. Does he have any evidence to show that these relationships and research partnerships would NOT have happened if not for the jump to the P12? In other words, is the P12 relationship the driving factor or is it that the vast majority of R1/AAU accredited universities that are in the Western part of the US are in the P12?
  2. Does he account for any non-obvious confounding variables, such as a change in the priority from university leadership towards research funding?

Because I have to say, if the argument is that "CU went to the P12, then CU increased the research funding they receive, ergo CU going to the P12 caused the increase in received research funding" I find that less than compelling. Pretty much a textbook example of "correlation does not equal causation."
Click to expand...

I am playing devil’s advocate on this, so keep that in mind as I respond to your questions.

Does he have any evidence to show that these relationships and research partnerships would NOT have happened if not for the jump to the P12? In other words, is the P12 relationship the driving factor or is it that the vast majority of R1/AAU accredited universities that are in the Western part of the US are in the P12?

Does he account for any non-obvious confounding variables, such as a change in the priority from university leadership towards research funding?

The short answer is no, there is not significant evidence to support causation. It‘s a podcast, not a peer reviewed academic paper.

The longer answer is that both CU and Utah had a major bump in research funding after joining the pac 12. Perhaps both just had a leadership push toward that goal, although I think it would be safe to say that all leadership of major universities are making the same push. He also shows, somewhat tangentially, that other schools that moved into the Big 12 did not have the same bounce. And existing Big 12 schools had no bump at all. In fact CU and Utah’s bump was in many cases almost equal to the entire R&D for many of the Big 12 schools. So, it did not appear to be a “rising tide lifts all boats” scenario. It appeared that CU and Utah got a bump unlike others. And joining the PAC 12 was one common denominator. I have no idea if his figures are correct, and there absolutely could be other factors in play.

I found his arguments to be generally logical. He was essentially trying to answer the question, would any PAC 12 school go to the Big 12? Based on research funding, alumni reach, the rotten Big 12 grant of rights, the academic prestige, and the actual dollars involved, he made a credible argument that no school would leave over $5 million per year because everything else is a downgrade.
 
torero said:
View attachment 59073
What do those trend lines look like on those "still reliable" platforms Dennis. Such a hack-tastic article.
Click to expand...
Recently the trend was about 10% per year decline for Cable and satellite. Linear services are about 4 times the size of streaming on a revenue basis. Bob Iger was recently quoted as saying - “linear and satellite TV is marching toward a great precipice, and it will be pushed off. … I can’t tell you when, but it goes away.” Pay TV subscribers fell to 50.5% of the occupied households in the US - the lowest level in 30 years.

Both Charter and Comcast (the two biggest cable providers) do not see video as a critical piece of their business. Charter is very frustrated with media partners that make decisions that are counter to their best interests -such as raising prices and shifting expensive programing like sports to direct-to-consumer products.

I am bringing this up because I think there is something being missed (which Dodd touched upon) and that is I do not believe the money is there for a big media deal for the PAC 12.

I disagree with a lot of what Dodd wrote but he is correct about the current state of affairs in broadcasting. Demand just is not there at the moment to justify a big deal for the PAC12.
 
Big Jim said:
Dodds is clearly on the east coast as he thinks the 4-corner schools are in the Pacific time zone.
Click to expand...
posters on Allbuffs often erroneously state that "Arizona is in the PZT more than half the year". Dobbs didn't actually say that he thought they were, only that the XII had a goal of getting into all four CONUS time zones.
 
InTheBuff said:
The Big12 has been aggressive while the PAC12 has been asleep.
Click to expand...
Big Woop. The BigXII has nearly zero exciting or compelling football programs. And they added programs that were even more of a snoozer Except maybe TCU.

The BigXII will NEVER be on the same tier as even the ACC let alone the B1G and SEC.

If the rumors are true, Down the road the TV money Gods will do to the BigXII exactly what theyre currently doing to the Pac12. Why? In this billion dollar payouts game only ONE thing matters now: marquee matchups that produce big ratings. Without that you cant sell enough advertising to recoup your contract costs. The B1G and SEC have those matchups and the B12 doesnt. So when the B1G SEC want more money tv will sacrifice the other conferences with lower ratings

Keep an eye on UCLA in the B1G. I bet they get very little prime time TV unless and when playing tOSU, UM, PSU. In fact, Watch USC and UCLA get most of the bedtime timeslots for the rest of their time in that conference.
 
Fox and ESPN have all of their time slots filled. They don’t have to have PAC 12 content. CBS doesn’t have as many linear channels, and has its time slots filled too with Big Ten games. These media groups will only low ball the PAC 12. This is what happens when you are last to the market.

The only ones that need content are new market entrants - an Amazon or Apple. Neither seem like they want to go big into college football.

The combination of Larry Scott, USC back-stabbing, and last to market have put the conference in a position with zero leverage to negotiate a favorable contract.
 
am I the only one who first encountered the "linear" term in this context today?
 
Creebuzz said:
Fox and ESPN have all of their time slots filled. They don’t have to have PAC 12 content. CBS doesn’t have as many linear channels, and has its time slots filled too with Big Ten games. These media groups will only low ball the PAC 12. This is what happens when you are last to the market.

The only ones that need content are new market entrants - an Amazon or Apple. Neither seem like they want to go big into college football.

The combination of Larry Scott, USC back-stabbing, and last to market have put the conference in a position with zero leverage to negotiate a favorable contract.
Click to expand...
ESPN needs the 10pm ET time slot, but that's really it. They can fill everything else with ACC, SEC and Big 12 content. Couple that with Amazon supposedly only wanting the Pac 12 game of the week, and I'm just wondering where the market is for this conference right now?
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
ESPN needs the 10pm ET time slot, but that's really it. They can fill everything else with ACC, SEC and Big 12 content. Couple that with Amazon supposedly only wanting the Pac 12 game of the week, and I'm just wondering where the market is for this conference right now?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true, although they could toss a BYU game in the late night slot here and there I think. And if the Big 12 adds a Mountain West school like SDSU or Fresno State that changes too. I think that’s why you hear the Big 12 commish say they want to go west because ESPn is telling them to for that TV slot.
 
Creebuzz said:
Yes, that’s true, although they could toss a BYU game in the late night slot here and there I think. And if the Big 12 adds a Mountain West school like SDSU or Fresno State that changes too. I think that’s why you hear the Big 12 commish say they want to go west because ESPn is telling them to for that TV slot.
Click to expand...
I was about to add to my post that it sounds like the Big 12 is trying to add Fresno State at the least, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are also trying for SDSU or another MTZ school like Boise. At that point, ESPN just pays an extra $60m/year for the Big 12 to add two more properties that gets it's late night inventory and that pretty much kills off the Pac 12 altogether
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I was about to add to my post that it sounds like the Big 12 is trying to add Fresno State at the least, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are also trying for SDSU or another MTZ school like Boise. At that point, ESPN just pays an extra $60m/year for the Big 12 to add two more properties that gets it's late night inventory and that pretty much kills off the Pac 12 altogether
Click to expand...


Yes, B12 adding Fresno State and Boise State will kill off the Pac 12 altogether. /s
 
Big Jim said:
Yes, B12 adding Fresno State and Boise State will kill off the Pac 12 altogether. /s
Click to expand...
It could potentially give ESPN the inventory they are missing at a far cheaper price than what the Pac is looking for. At that point, what's left? A single bidder of Amazon? Maybe Apple (doubtful)? Great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top