Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Darth Snow, Jun 18, 2010.
Dang. It just keeps getting better.
That San Jose Mercury News article talks about roughly $160 million in revenue once the Pac-10's new deal is worked out, or roughly $13 million to the Buffs each year?
thats an extremely low estimate imho.
While I'm not going to complain about getting $13MM, I would tend to think that the Pac could negotiate a deal that would pay it's member schools better than what the ACC is paying it's member schools. I think the target for the Pac should be somewhere in the $16-18MM range per team.
That didn't include the bowl, tournament and national tv bonuses that the Big 10 puts in its number. Fully loaded, the conference split should be at least $15 million per team with the potential to get to around $18 million if you have a big year. And it's not supposed to impact third-tier media rights, which include radio, local media, third-tier TV rights, corporate sponsorships, and in-stadium and arena signage for each of the teams (the deal the Big 12 is hoping to get included rolling 3rd-Tier into FSN - something the reports initially ignored and which inflated the number). Third-tier can account for a few million dollars a year for a program.
Those numbers also don't necessarily account for the growth potential due to the fact that the PAC is likely to have their own network. A network has much more potential to grow over time than a flat rights agreement for a set period. If its anywhere near as successful as the Big 10 those numbers could be pushing 20 million after a few years. Also what if they PAC and Big 10 came to some sort of joint marketing agreement to try and negotiate carriage rights together? Under Larry Brown's leadership for six years the WTA grew their revenue numbers by 250%, we are so lucky to get getting into a conference with that type of leadership rather than one run by Boobe and Dodds who don't really care about league revenues as long as Texas is maximizing their revenue.
I expect 15-16 million by most estimations once you factor in TV contracts, bowl games, basketball tournaments and the private TV network deal. I'm stoked about the future.
As for the Utah revenue side of it, we get so little money from our MWC TV deal (do any of you have that fine network the mtn) that we're going to make a fortune more even with the reduced share. The ESPN blogger was mistaken in saying its somehow to prove ourselves. Its traditional for teams to take a lesser share. I understand yours is unique to help you cover that Big 12 exit fee.
what do we get today?
ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!
All in...between $9-10 million I believe.
Sadly I do have the MTN since I've got the sports tier on my cable package. You should have seen the bitching on all the Colorado boards the day they announced the CU/CSU game was going to be on the MTN.
Ah yes, the molehill. Such a cute little idea.... :lol:
It is not really to help us cover the exit fee. It is just that we have been pursued by the Pac 10 for decades so we have a position of strength for negotiations to get into the conference. Not meant as a slight, just coming from a little better bargaining position.
No slight taken, its the truth. Like I said, any amount of money we get is going to be so much more than we were getting, I feel like screaming
WE'RE RICH BEEEEEOCTH
Now see, I'd think the network we ink a deal with would want to invest in the Pac in order to make the Pac better and more marketable. It is in the interest of the network to give us a good deal.
As I understand it, as it was explained at the signing ceremony press conference, UTAH is forgoing it's full share immediately and ramping up over a three year period so that the PAC can give CU a full share in order to pay off your exit fee. So basically, you're getting the cash to pay for your mistakes from us.
Mistakes from us? If we don't leave the Big 12, there's no exit fee to pay off and you're stuck in the MWC.
If Colorado hadn't already been invited and accepted the Pac 10 invitation they probably don't even expand right now
Very good point, RalphieSpeaks. While the Pac has wanted us for years, I think they would have held off for a better plan.
Even so, CU and UU is a good pickup for the league and there's still four seats for down the road. So it's all good.
Yeah, and then you'd still be in the TBC (Texas Bitches Conference) taking your orders from Austin.
So let's not get into a "who'd be in worse shape" argument, m'kay? UTAH's program, today, is ahead of CU's.
We would have stayed in the MWC and become AQ in two years time.
You'd still be getting backdoored by those longwhorns.
We're paying your exit fee for you. You're welcome.
And you're in a BCS conference now.
You obviously know what it feels like then, since according to you Utah is paying our exit fees. Guess if your school is willing to whore itself out to pay our exit fee to get into the Pac 10 on our coattails then you are already getting backdoored by us and get to be our bitch from day one. Way to set a precedent. #1 all time wins in Pac 10? USC. #2? Colorado. Don't let the last 4 years and 1 bad coach fool you. Colorado has been winning more against tougher competition than the yoots for a long time. Colorado was the prize the Pac sought, hence the first invite.
Utah is a solid addition to the conference, but if you are fishing for validation go elsewhere.
Dang! I nearly thanked him too. That was a close one!
You are NOT paying our exit fee. CU was going to the Pac-10 no matter what any other school was going to do.
Despite your "upstart" viewpoint on your own importance.
According to the most recent public records releases CU's athletic department brought in $21.1 MM from football, not including the $8.6 MM from NCAA and Big 12 distributions.
Utah made $12.3 MM in football plus $5.3 MM from NCAA and Mountain West distributions.
You guys are in no position to be paying anything off for anyone else.
Your 1/2 membership is only due to your own unknown value to the rest of the Pac-10 membership as they develop media rights contracts going into 2011-12.
In regards to the "what ifs" regarding no Pac-10 expansion:
Don't "overinflate" the financial windfall that the 2-year BCS AQ "golden egg" would have brought to you. The big money is in TV contracts, not the BCS. A BCS AQ status might have produced $18 MM for the MWC, of which maybe $1.5 MM (after the conference cut) would have went to Utah. You still would have only received $1.5 MM per year from your TV deal.
We might have been putting up with Whorns but we would have been banking $9 to $10 MM per year doing it.
and how in the world did you deduce that?
Based on the comments from your AD:
The Utes won't take full advantage of the Pac-10 payouts until they undergo a "three-step" process, which means they are on their own for the first year. Hill said he was fine with the agreement, understanding his school must continue to evolve.
"A lot of the revenues we have to grow," he said. "We have to grow with what we have now, the income from tickets, marketing and fund-raising and all of those things. This opportunity (of joining the Pac-10) puts that forward a bit."
Separate names with a comma.