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

Buffnik said:
Some permutation of that would be an avalanche of dominoes.
Click to expand...
I mean, all that has to happen is for 8 ACC schools to vote to dissolve and they can break their GOR. If ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are will to redo their media deals with the B1G, SEC and Big 12 to account for this movement, I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Pretty sure this would also force the Pac to dissolve as I don't see the conferences stopping at just those schools. This would essentially force the consolidation of CFB into three conferences now with the Big 12 still a pretty distant third.

B1G would be at 20
SEC would be at 18
Big 12 would be at 16

BC, Cuse, Duke, Wake and the 10 Pac programs would be up for grabs.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I mean, all that has to happen is for 8 ACC schools to vote to dissolve and they can break their GOR. If ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are will to redo their media deals with the B1G, SEC and Big 12 to account for this movement, I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Pretty sure this would also force the Pac to dissolve as I don't see the conferences stopping at just those schools. This would essentially force the consolidation of CFB into three conferences now with the Big 12 still a pretty distant third.

B1G would be at 20
SEC would be at 18
Big 12 would be at 16

BC, Cuse, Duke, Wake and the 10 Pac programs would be up for grabs.
Click to expand...
Those 4 remaining ACC schools to the Big East would make a helluva basketball league.
 
Denver_sc said:
So- every position you've taken in this thread is a reaction to this one experience?

That's how I read it.
Click to expand...
That's part of it. I want Colorado with Coach Prime to get as many eyes on them as possible.
I'm not confident being on Apple would do that.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Here's some red meat to get this thread moving a little faster again!
Click to expand...

Gag Throw Up GIF by Anime Crimes Division
 
I have to believe there has to be some discussion about BIG12/PAC12 tv contracts.
Nothing official will take place.
 
Agent Dave Kujan said:
Georgia Tech to the BIG!?!?
We picked the wrong time to suck!
We should be part of this discussion.

Every time I read this thread I want to punch Phil in is big fat f****** face!
Click to expand...
The B1G is motivated to get into the South, so Miami and GT make a ton of sense, along with their academics.

However, would they stop there or would they just go to 24 by adding Oregon, UW, Stanford and Cal? That would make the most sense and in that scenario, the SEC would only be at 18, and I would assume ESPN would almost require the SEC to expand West, where it's CU, Utah, AZ, ASU and then maybe WSU and OSU (or maybe SDSU gets one of those invites.

If what this guy says is true and the B1G, SEC and Big 12 have basically guaranteed acceptance to 10 of the 14 ACC programs, I don't think an expedited consolidation is out of the question.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
The B1G is motivated to get into the South, so Miami and GT make a ton of sense, along with their academics.

However, would they stop there or would they just go to 24 by adding Oregon, UW, Stanford and Cal? That would make the most sense and in that scenario, the SEC would only be at 18, and I would assume ESPN would almost require the SEC to expand West, where it's CU, Utah, AZ, ASU and then maybe WSU and OSU (or maybe SDSU gets one of those invites.

If what this guy says is true and the B1G, SEC and Big 12 have basically guaranteed acceptance to 10 of the 14 ACC programs, I don't think an expedited consolidation is out of the question.
Click to expand...
do you know anything about the crediblity of the source? I never heard of the Swain Show until a few minutes ago.
 
hokiehead said:
do you know anything about the crediblity of the source? I never heard of the Swain Show until a few minutes ago.
Click to expand...
No idea. Likely not credible, like that big 12 guy, although he does have 67k followers and has been in the radio business for a long time apparently. He's also not anonymous as his name (Greg Swain) is in his bio.
 
would the B1G have taken us if we were the first ones to talk to them about jumping ship from the PAC? Because that’s what we should’ve been doing before anyone else
 
hokiehead said:
now that I got passed my involuntary vomitting reaction, I'm calling BS on the B1G inviting a non-AAU school with horrible fan support.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much the B1G cares about AAU membership? When we talked about this earlier, I completely discounted Miami immediately due to their status as a non-AAU university.

The Alabaster Yak said:
The B1G is motivated to get into the South, so Miami and GT make a ton of sense, along with their academics.

However, would they stop there or would they just go to 24 by adding Oregon, UW, Stanford and Cal? That would make the most sense and in that scenario, the SEC would only be at 18, and I would assume ESPN would almost require the SEC to expand West, where it's CU, Utah, AZ, ASU and then maybe WSU and OSU (or maybe SDSU gets one of those invites.

If what this guy says is true and the B1G, SEC and Big 12 have basically guaranteed acceptance to 10 of the 14 ACC programs, I don't think an expedited consolidation is out of the question.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say here (although would the SEC want to expand West vs. expanding North?).

The skeptic in me has to do with specifically what he says the SEC is going to do- FSU and Clemson are currently good brands, but they don't alter the footprint at all. The other thing that's fishy to me is the guy specifically mentions "BC and Syracuse not being left homeless" but isn't Duke as big of a brand as those two? It might be tough going for Wake Forest and Louisville in that scenario.
 
Denver_sc said:
I wonder how much the B1G cares about AAU membership? When we talked about this earlier, I completely discounted Miami immediately due to their status as a non-AAU university.



I agree with everything you say here (although would the SEC want to expand West vs. expanding North?).

The skeptic in me has to do with specifically what he says the SEC is going to do- FSU and Clemson are currently good brands, but they don't alter the footprint at all. The other thing that's fishy to me is the guy specifically mentions "BC and Syracuse not being left homeless" but isn't Duke as big of a brand as those two? It might be tough going for Wake Forest and Louisville in that scenario.
Click to expand...
I think it's 100% fair to question how 'hard' a requirement AAU is for the B1G.

but broadenting the question, I know Miami has a distant history as a CFB power, but I just don't think they offer much as a realignemnt candiadate:
  • no recent success in football
  • no AAU (counter: NU lost their status after joining B1G)
  • no fan support (counter: Rutgers, Maryland)
  • poor TV ratings -- more people watched Rutgers' games last year than Miami games (counter: 1/2 the teams in the B1G)
  • metro area more likely to decline in population than increase over the next decades, (counter: maybe football becomes a water sport)
OTOH, they offer:
  • entry into Florida recruiting (counter: Sanders and other coaches are showing that regionality isn't as important in recruiting as it used to be)
  • addition of the Miami metro area TV market (counter: as we move from linear to streaming, I believe quality of content will be a bigger factor than designated TV markets but clealry don't konw the details of the contract between B1G and the networks)
 
Denver_sc said:
I wonder how much the B1G cares about AAU membership? When we talked about this earlier, I completely discounted Miami immediately due to their status as a non-AAU university.



I agree with everything you say here (although would the SEC want to expand West vs. expanding North?).

The skeptic in me has to do with specifically what he says the SEC is going to do- FSU and Clemson are currently good brands, but they don't alter the footprint at all. The other thing that's fishy to me is the guy specifically mentions "BC and Syracuse not being left homeless" but isn't Duke as big of a brand as those two? It might be tough going for Wake Forest and Louisville in that scenario.
Click to expand...
I'm operating under the assumption that the networks are (have been) pulling the strings here and if ESPN is all in with the SEC and tells them, they need the conference to expand West, that's what they'll do. Obviously it would have to mean more money per school, but I'm wondering if the conferences have kind of surrendered their authority on expansion to the networks in exchange for $80-$100m+/school instead of the $20-$30m that has been the standard for a long time now.
 
I believe what is going on with the media contract is the media business is going through another evolution and everyone is trying to figure out where the money is going to be.

Linear programming has always had a financial model where the consumer pays for things they are not consuming. The widow who has watches Judge Judy and reruns of Law and Order still pays $10 per month for ESPN even though she does not consume it. This has resulted in a windfall for services like ESPN - but as cord cutting accelerates, linear subscribers are decreasing meaning fewer and fewer consumers are paying the $10 per month. With predictions of a further 28% loss of subscribers over the next 5 years carriage fees will not be able to sustain the rights fees that ESPN is paying out. There was a study that ESPN would have to charge almost $37 per subscriber to achieve the same revenue as streaming service.

Sports have been attractive to linear programing because they do have a stickiness some other programming does not but with subscriber losses they are no longer willing to increase carriage fees which is how ESPN was offsetting the loss of subscribers.

We are seeing a shift in media - Regional Sports Networks are collasping, Altitude cannot get a tv deal, PAC12 cannot get a new TV contract, etc.

I don't believe any media company wants to the PAC12 to fail, but I also believe the days on ever expanding funds for sports programming has come to end. The Big 12 is not more attractive than the PAC12 but they had better timing - it was musical chairs and the Big 12 got the last chair. There are schools in the ACC and PAC12 that want a bigger share of pie like the Big10 and SEC schools are getting. Clemson, FSU, Washington, Oregon, are all more valuable than Rutgers, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Indiana but unfortunately are not in a conference with the big payout. I doubt that all the complaining they are doing is going to change that.

I also doubt that some of these networks are anxious to pay out more money for realignment or expansion. Money drives these things and money is drying up.
 
BlackNGold said:
I believe what is going on with the media contract is the media business is going through another evolution and everyone is trying to figure out where the money is going to be.

Linear programming has always had a financial model where the consumer pays for things they are not consuming. The widow who has watches Judge Judy and reruns of Law and Order still pays $10 per month for ESPN even though she does not consume it. This has resulted in a windfall for services like ESPN - but as cord cutting accelerates, linear subscribers are decreasing meaning fewer and fewer consumers are paying the $10 per month. With predictions of a further 28% loss of subscribers over the next 5 years carriage fees will not be able to sustain the rights fees that ESPN is paying out. There was a study that ESPN would have to charge almost $37 per subscriber to achieve the same revenue as streaming service.

Sports have been attractive to linear programing because they do have a stickiness some other programming does not but with subscriber losses they are no longer willing to increase carriage fees which is how ESPN was offsetting the loss of subscribers.

We are seeing a shift in media - Regional Sports Networks are collasping, Altitude cannot get a tv deal, PAC12 cannot get a new TV contract, etc.

I don't believe any media company wants to the PAC12 to fail, but I also believe the days on ever expanding funds for sports programming has come to end. The Big 12 is not more attractive than the PAC12 but they had better timing - it was musical chairs and the Big 12 got the last chair. There are schools in the ACC and PAC12 that want a bigger share of pie like the Big10 and SEC schools are getting. Clemson, FSU, Washington, Oregon, are all more valuable than Rutgers, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Indiana but unfortunately are not in a conference with the big payout. I doubt that all the complaining they are doing is going to change that.

I also doubt that some of these networks are anxious to pay out more money for realignment or expansion. Money drives these things and money is drying up.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd agree that Oregon is more valuable than Indiania (need to think more about the others). I think the sheer size and number of alumni from IU trump the recent success Oregon has had.
 
BlackNGold said:
I believe what is going on with the media contract is the media business is going through another evolution and everyone is trying to figure out where the money is going to be.

Linear programming has always had a financial model where the consumer pays for things they are not consuming. The widow who has watches Judge Judy and reruns of Law and Order still pays $10 per month for ESPN even though she does not consume it. This has resulted in a windfall for services like ESPN - but as cord cutting accelerates, linear subscribers are decreasing meaning fewer and fewer consumers are paying the $10 per month. With predictions of a further 28% loss of subscribers over the next 5 years carriage fees will not be able to sustain the rights fees that ESPN is paying out. There was a study that ESPN would have to charge almost $37 per subscriber to achieve the same revenue as streaming service.

Sports have been attractive to linear programing because they do have a stickiness some other programming does not but with subscriber losses they are no longer willing to increase carriage fees which is how ESPN was offsetting the loss of subscribers.

We are seeing a shift in media - Regional Sports Networks are collasping, Altitude cannot get a tv deal, PAC12 cannot get a new TV contract, etc.

I don't believe any media company wants to the PAC12 to fail, but I also believe the days on ever expanding funds for sports programming has come to end. The Big 12 is not more attractive than the PAC12 but they had better timing - it was musical chairs and the Big 12 got the last chair. There are schools in the ACC and PAC12 that want a bigger share of pie like the Big10 and SEC schools are getting. Clemson, FSU, Washington, Oregon, are all more valuable than Rutgers, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Indiana but unfortunately are not in a conference with the big payout. I doubt that all the complaining they are doing is going to change that.

I also doubt that some of these networks are anxious to pay out more money for realignment or expansion. Money drives these things and money is drying up.
Click to expand...
Within these 300+ pages, I’ve made a similar point several times.

The forced subsidy from non-sports fans is ending. And there are far fewer sports fans than people think.
 
Creebuzz said:
Within these 300+ pages, I’ve made a similar point several times.

The forced subsidy from non-sports fans is ending. And there are far fewer sports fans than people think.
Click to expand...
The forced subsidy from non-sports fans is ending for linear TV, but it's just beginning for streaming. When Amazon and Apple eventually get live sports content, those subscription costs for everyone are going up, and the model for which CFB programs are attractive becomes less about brand and live ratings, and more about the sheer number of fans who are going then sign up for a subscription.

The value of live sports is not going down, exactly the opposite actually, but the revenue model is changing.
 
Creebuzz said:
Within these 300+ pages, I’ve made a similar point several times.

The forced subsidy from non-sports fans is ending. And there are far fewer sports fans than people think.
Click to expand...

The Alabaster Yak said:
The forced subsidy from non-sports fans is ending for linear TV, but it's just beginning for streaming. When Amazon and Apple eventually get live sports content, those subscription costs for everyone are going up, and the model for which CFB programs are attractive becomes less about brand and live ratings, and more about the sheer number of fans who are going then sign up for a subscription.

The value of live sports is not going down, exactly the opposite actually, but the revenue model is changing.
Click to expand...
Yak, you coudl be right -- I don't claim to understand macro-level marketing. but, two points:
  • pieces like this indiciating that younger people aren't as generally interested in organized spectator sports have been posted mulitple times on Allbuffs. we even are seeing schools like Wisconsin and Florida State remove seating because they can't fill them. I think that, as a percent of the US population, there's good reason to believe the number of consumers of sports content is decreasing.
  • I think an argument could be made that streaming services won't be able to subsidzie sports by increasing everyone's subscription, due to the number of competing services. e.g. if AppleTV and Prime increase their monthly fees for everyone to get football, Netflix and Hulu will keep their prices low to steal market share of non-sports fans.
I'm open minded to being shown why I'm wrong, but not currently convinced that the value of live sports is increasing (at least not with respect to other streaming entertainment)
 
hokiehead said:
I'm not sure I'd agree that Oregon is more valuable than Indiania (need to think more about the others). I think the sheer size and number of alumni from IU trump the recent success Oregon has had.
Click to expand...

have you seen how many alumni Arizona St has? P12 should get $100M a year if value was based on alumni
 
hokiehead said:
now that I got passed my involuntary vomitting reaction, I'm calling BS on the B1G inviting a non-AAU school with horrible fan support.
Click to expand...

Forget who it was I heard last week in an interview but he was saying the B1G very much wants to get into Florida. Which of course could also mean FSU if the B1G would be ok with their academics.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
The forced subsidy from non-sports fans is ending for linear TV, but it's just beginning for streaming. When Amazon and Apple eventually get live sports content, those subscription costs for everyone are going up, and the model for which CFB programs are attractive becomes less about brand and live ratings, and more about the sheer number of fans who are going then sign up for a subscription.

The value of live sports is not going down, exactly the opposite actually, but the revenue model is changing.
Click to expand...
Possibly, if these media corporations are able to force “all or nothing” packages like the linear cable bundle.

I’m skeptical that the competitive landscape will allow that. I think you will see non sports fans gravitate to streaming channels that fit their need for scripted TV and films (Netflix and HBO Max, for example). I think Amazon knows it can pass along some costs (like the NFL) for its basic annual charge. However, it cannot keep adding sports and increasing fees without cannibalizing its primary business model.

I also believe that the sports entertainment market will become very fragmented. As a result, you might get SEC fans subscribing to ESPN+ to watch their teams, B1G fans subscribing to Fox+(that doesn’t currently exist), and PAC 12 fans subscribing to Apple+(assuming that was the partner).

The biggest loser in all of this, beyond the media companies, is the “total” sports fan. That person who loves golf, nba, mls, nfl, college, hockey, etc. will pay through the nose.

I admit that there are a lot of unknowns on how this all shakes out.
 
I have often wondered about the prospect of forced subsidies for sports viewing. Also, just how many sports viewing fans are there?
 
leftybuff said:
I have often wondered about the prospect of forced subsidies for sports viewing. Also, just how many sports viewing fans are there?
Click to expand...
So far, there are only a few instances where a sports package has been pulled out as a standalone. Bally Sports fka Sinclair went bankrupt over regional sports broadcasting, and the MLS on Apple+ is well below projections on subscription rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top