ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Says the fan of a school in a conference that Fox has told no. Same with CBS. Think before you post. Seriously.
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
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Would you rather be in the same conference with Baylor or the same conference with CSU?
That's the question. The Pac 10 ceasing to exist as a conference will happen. Its a matter of time.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
The conference needs somebody else on top of ESPN.
If that’s an actual question, the answer for me is easy - CSU. I don’t even have to think it over.
We don't have anything in common with Stanford and Cal, either, dude. That's the point
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
MWC making $5 million per year vs Big XII making $40+ million per year? If that's how you interpreted that question then that's a dumb as **** answer.
The question isn’t whether I’d prefer $5MM or $40MM, though. It was which school I’d rather be in a conference with. Seeing as the $5MM option isn’t even a thing right now, it feels like that’s a red herring.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
My bad for assuming you based the question in some sort of reality that considers the circumstances in which the question's options would ever occur. But sure, if you were thinking SOLELY of what team do you want on the schedule, in a vacuum, I'd take CSU, because **** I miss having an actual goddamn rival in the conference.
If I were the SEC, this is what I would say.
The nearby city thing is overrated, as we’ve discussed a lot in this thread. Rutgers does not bring New York City at all, where college football isn’t even popular to begin with. Whereas, the Gators legitimately brings the entire state of Florida, where almost everyone lives and dies with college football.
I’m sure the networks have this information, but I would not be surprised if Birmingham and Mobile, as a raw number, drew a lot closer to the actual number of TV viewers as Los Angeles did. 80% of 2.1 million is the same as 10% of 17 million. I think that’s what you have actually occurring in those regions.
It’s a false narrative, though. Nobody is talking about CU going to the MWC. It’s not even an option. So why would I take into consideration what the payouts would be in a conference that nobody is suggesting we join?
I can understand this to be true in this situation, but the “there is no rush” attitude has kinda been a problem for this conference in the past, so they better not be sitting on their hands.
Last edited:
???
Stanford is pretty unique--small private university that plays Div. I football. Only Northwestern and Duke come to mind as similar. But Cal and CU have a lot in common--large public research universities. AAU members, etc.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Because that was, quite obviously, the context in which the question was asked of you. The context was "if the PAC falls apart, and CU's options are essentially Big XII or MWC, which do you want?"
Lots of those around the country. Cal is a significantly better academic school than CU, and maybe the one institution in conference that supports its football less than CU does. Very attractive school to be associated with from a football standpoint
But Rutgers DOES bring in-market, elevated carriage fees. In the tri-state area, that’s a lot of cheddar. It is an even better deal because Rutgers doesn’t even get a full piece until 2027.
Check this from eight years ago about the windfall for the B1G… https://awfulannouncing.com/2014/bi...ackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html
What I've been told on this thread is that it's all about the number of TV households in a market multiplied by the carrier fee. The carrier fee varies drastically depending upon whether the network is considered to be "in market" or "out of market" (see: earlier in this thread where the carrier fee for B1G is going to increase like 4X in the LA market once those schools are added). Happy to be proven wrong on this, by the way. It has less and less to do with viewership numbers, which drive advertising fees. Advertising fees continue to be a shrinking part of the revenue stream.
This is why Rutgers and Maryland, which I initially believed made little to no sense for the B1G, were a long term strategic play for the B1G as the economics of TV continue to change.
Now- if something happens like cable becoming completely unbundled, then actual viewership will become a much larger deal and all the dynamics change again.
If I were the B1G, outside of adding Notre Dame my next steps would be to get to 20 by adding major football programs from AAU/R1 universities in major/growing media markets. Potential fits, in tiers:
- Tier 1:
- Georgia Tech (R1, AAU, #9 Atlanta Market, OK football brand)
- Washington (R1, AAU, #14 Seattle Market, Ok to good football brand, easy to poach due to Pac status)
- Tier 2:
- Oregon (R1, AAU, big-ish and growing market, great football brand, easy to poach)
- UNC (R1, AAU, big-ish and growing market, but will they really ditch longterm ACC rivalries?)
- Tier 3 (check the academic boxes and in big or growing markets, do they give a **** about football?)
- Stanford
- Duke
- Colorado
- Cal
- Pitt
- UVA
- Tier 4 (check the academic boxes, smaller markets, clearly do not prioritize football)
- Arizona (maybe)
- Kansas
Notre Dame?
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Baylor, TCU, Rice, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, SMU, Tulsa...
sacky's hate for baylor in particular and the texasssss schools in general is well founded. the biggest mistake the big 8 made was letting the texassss schools in. it literally wrecked the conference and ultimately forced our move to the pac. but, the time to wax nostalgic is long over. the issue before us now is how to get reasonably un****ed in a situation that seems to be dictating we are ****ed.
a shortish term commitment to the pac as currently comprised while all this shakes out may not be the worst possible outcome. absent an invite to the big (not happening now) or the sec (AHAHAHAHAA) we are ****ed on tv dollars no matter what, whether we are in the big 12 or the pac.
ultimately we hav a large, strategic, and growing tv market in an underserved time zone. what we can control is creating a more successful program over the next few years, relative to whatever **** conference we are situated in.
i would think this whole thing is ultimately going to land at maybe 48 teams or so in regionally rational divisions across the us. we "should" have a shot at landing in that group if we don't keep totally sucking at football.
a shortish term commitment to the pac as currently comprised while all this shakes out may not be the worst possible outcome. absent an invite to the big (not happening now) or the sec (AHAHAHAHAA) we are ****ed on tv dollars no matter what, whether we are in the big 12 or the pac.
ultimately we hav a large, strategic, and growing tv market in an underserved time zone. what we can control is creating a more successful program over the next few years, relative to whatever **** conference we are situated in.
i would think this whole thing is ultimately going to land at maybe 48 teams or so in regionally rational divisions across the us. we "should" have a shot at landing in that group if we don't keep totally sucking at football.
Yes, I understand. I was really speaking to actual viewers of the game versus cable subscribers getting hit with carriage fees. I understand carriage fees are dollars and eyeballs are not. This is one reason why carriage fees are starting to be a bigger portion of the pie versus advertising. However, there is a time when non-sports viewers will no longer subsidize sports. For the most part, cord cutters will choose packages that do not include Fox Sports and ESPN. That transition is happening now. The network statisticians have all the data and they know what they are doing in the short, medium and longer-term. So, in short, yes, Rutgers does bring the NYC market today, but maybe not for long.
I’ll allow Vanderbilt, Rice, and Tulane as being Stanford-like if you squint. None of the others are AAU-it’s not clear **** Baylor even believes in science.
I think they have a pretty respected medical school, but it's its own entity iirc.
Do you have a wine mixer you have to go to ?
I prefer the P12 even minus USC/UCLA and adding some others, but given those numbers, I don't see how we don't dip for the B12 asap
If nothing else we need the money to fire RG and KD
If nothing else we need the money to fire RG and KD
After reading those numbers I am even more convinced the "stay the course" choice will be the one made by Dr. Phil and crew.
That’s a step in the right direction, away from, “we are all galvanized and on the same page. We are looking forward to moving forward with the Pac 10 and our new media rights deal, when it gets negotiated”
I like the transparency. He didn't totally dodge the questions he asked himself.
He did not say how long it would take then to react....so there's that.