Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Liver, Mar 7, 2010.
i sure hope this happens.
I want this to happen as much as you or anyone else here. The one item of intrest to me, and currently the most important. Is if the P10 sends CU the invite, and then gets turned down. I might have to go crawl in a hole somewhere.
An interesting note I haven't read before, if the vote would have taken place a month later we would already be in the Pac 10. 3 regents that were for the move weren't allowed to vote. No way CU turns down them down this time around.
CU wouldn't pay off to get rid of a losing football coach and now you guys think we are going to eat 9 million dollars of potential revenue? Too funny..
Let's run to the Pac 10.. That will solve all our problems.. :rofl:
Jimmy, I'm pretty sure everyone has said that the only way CU makes the move is if the numbers work.
And I don't know of anyone who has said that CU should make the move because it would "solve all our problems". Actually, the only people who seem to say that's the reason people want to move to the Pac are the people who are against it and choose that as an easy argument to shoot down. :rofl:
The problem with this "move" and anyone even contemplating such a move - its a gamble. An unknown. In this economy, and with CU facing the cutbacks from the state - are these regents ballsy enough to take those kinds of gambles.
Whereas, we know exactly how much money we are going to get from the Big 12.
Are you familiar with the concept of opportunity cost? We may know what we have with the Big 12, but what would we be giving up by staying? Impossible to predict with complete accuracy, but I think we have a pretty good idea. At least we should. No way do you make the move without knowing that first.
I hope CU does not leave a real athletic conference - money may talk but all around and year in and year out the PAC 10 is a second class conference compared to the B12. Maybe CU should just join the WAC so they can really feel warm and fuzzy. Imagine a San Jose state - CU football game on a beautifull fall afternoon; gives me the chills.
Lots of unknowns with the Pac-10 right now, and most importantly with their current contracts. It seems doubtful to me that the television contract will be resolved prior to sending an invitation to CU -- simply because the prospect of adding the Denver market is likely a big selling point for the conference in the television renegotiations.
Just too many risks right now, in my opinion.
Year in and year out the Pac10 is a second class conference athletically? um, how so?
They don't know EXACTLY what they're getting from the Big XII and that is part of the problem. The revenue is not shared equally throughout the conference. That could mean this year with no ESPN games a huge loss of revenue.
And it is the Big 12's fault that CU isn't on TV?
CU sucks - that's why it isn't on TV. So rather than manning up and demanding improvement as a football program, CU is ready to tuck tail and run to a conference where they can continue to be sh!tty and get paid for doing so.
Yeah we definitely don't want to get into an equal rev-share situation that is working terribly for the big10. Why on god's green earth wouldn't we want to be in a conference that is going to potentially pay us more, and allow us to work more closely with our alumni base? exactly what is so bad about that?
That's ridiculous. They're supposed to stay in a conference that has bad demographics and a bad revenue sharing model for them just because you think it looks bad for them to change to the Pac-10 when they aren't good?? The fact that they aren't demanding excellence has NOTHING to do with the relative merits of the Big XII and Pac-10. That's a bitch for a different thread.
Again - you're talking about UNKNOWNS.
We don't KNOW how much the Pac-10 revenue is going to be. Nobody does. The contracts don't exist. We DO KNOW what the Big 12 revenue stream is going to be - because the Buffs have been living it since the formation of the conference more than a decade ago.
The difference in TV revenue is not what you make it out to be. Texas got the most revenue last year. Baylor got the least. The difference was $2.7 million.
I'm guessing that if CU is serious about making this move, they will know just as much about the Pac-10s revenue for the last 15 years as they do about the Big XII's. This isn't going to be some closed book negotiation. As for the next contract, they don't know what that will be for the Big XII either. But at this point, it seems like the Pac-10 has a lot better options for expanding that pool, as long as Texass is refusing to participate in any Big XII network...
Slade, look at the media markets alone, the Pac12 rev will not only be better for us due to equal revenue sharing but the contract will be much bigger than the big12's.
And where is this idea that the Pac-10 shares revenue?
That isn't true right now. The Pac-10 shares bowl revenue (as does the Big 12) and shares revenue from the NCAA basketball tournament.
In the Big 12 - the revenue from television games is split 50/50. 50% is shared equally. 50% is based upon appearances.
The current Pac-10 is 40/60. 40% is shared equally. 60% is based upon appearances.
Comments from the current Pac10 commissioner, his intentions around expansion, and his previous work in setting up the Big10 model are where that is coming from.
The conferences with equal revenue sharing (SEC and Big 10) are making the most money of their tv deals. The professional league with equal revenue sharing (NFL) is making the most money off its tv deal. Any conference that doesn't follow those blueprints is making a mistake. Honestly, if the Pac invites us into a situation where there is unequal revenue sharing (and all the California teams in the same division), then I wouldn't see joining the Pac as being such an upgrade over our Big 12 situation.
And if this is not what the final offer looks like, CU will know that prior to making the move...
to all those that are wringing their hands over the so-called "uncertainty"... the tv contract thing is going to be pretty well understood before the move is made. it will not be signed, i suspect. but, there are people who make their livings by estimating value for things like this.
the "value" for a ccg is pretty well-baked. if you read all the various articles, including the recent ringo article, you'll see there is consensus on how much money a ccg would add to the p10 package.
next, you have to consider the additional tv markets. those 2 new markets (presumably utah and colorado) bring a certain level of new projected revenue to the package. again, this is calculable and smart people looking at it will have some very solid forecasts on how much additional money that will mean.
next, you have to consider the timing of the negotiations for a new tv contract. this is where it gets a bit more speculative but folks do this all the time. the b12 didn't do as well the last round, in part, because the sec and b10 had already inked big deals so there was less availability for the b12 to get a good deal. this is known as a timing problem. the p10 renewal will occur at a favorable time and there will be several networks in the mix bidding for the rights. the b12 also believes it can do better next time if it is not "off schedule" on its renegotiations. this would probably be true IF no current b12 teams defect. but, in comparing the proposed p12 to the reduced b12, the p12 will be in a much stronger position to get the best network deal. i think the one edge that the b12 has in these negotiations is basketball. we'll see how that plays out, of course.
next, you have to consider the impact of a conference tv network. the b10 has shown the way on this and there are plenty of metrics out there to establish the financial value of such an arrangement. the p10, because it fields so many sports and it wins championships in so many sports, is an excellent candidate to start its own network, modeled after what the b10 has done.
so, when you guys talk about unknowns and uncertainty, you have to consider these factors (all of which are being looked at by people who make it their business to understand value like this). also, you have to consider that the b12 is not a static value. if schools are lost (CU and mizzery for example) or if those schools stay and others are added (utah and tcu, maybe?), the value of the contracts will change. also, ut's position on a lot of these issues significantly impacts the money for the rest of the conference. they don't want a conference tv network-- they want their own tv network. they don't want equal rev sharing. there are tons of unknowns related to STAYING in the b12.
we need to be smart and proactive. if the b12 can successfully defend itself, add teams, find a way to neuter texas to an extent, and then get an sec or b10 sized tv deal, then we'd be better off staying. but, i think it is more likely (and this is just my opinion, of course) that the b12 is going to get poached instead.
we will see.
"Smart" and "proactive" are not two words I would use to describe the University of Colorado Regents and their athletic department.
I find it interesting that most of the folks that oppose the move are in the Texas OK area. Hmmmmm.
i think they will be looking at things from a macro-perspective and i think they are more than smart enough to realize that they can't just turtle up and hope and pray that somehow the status quo works out for CU. texas is going to take care of texas. period. it may be that we can ride their jocks and get more $ if the b12 can hold itself together, but i am very skeptical about that. the p10 is more democratic by its nature than the b12. there is a reason that mizzery, CU, and even the fuskers are looking around. we are all disadvantaged by ut's self-interests.
there are lots of smart folks out there who will be advising CU, the p10 and the b12 on this thing. look at what ut's ad has been saying... he's a very smart guy and he knows what he wants. CU may not be the most aggressive player out there, but we are collectively smart enough not to shoot our own johnsons off by not being proactive.
i think if CU can satisfy itself that the money is likely to be NO WORSE than what the b12 can do, then CU will vote to move. all of the non-money factors are the X factors that swing it decisively in favor of the p10.
things are fluid, however. maybe the b12 will shock me and manage to hold off the wolves, get a better tv deal, etc. that's no more certain than the risk of a move to the p10. risk abound everywhere. that's life.
That's true, but in my mind a conference should take a "All for one, one for all" approach. A conference is only as strong as its weakest member. Even sharing of revenues would be a rising tide that lifted all boats, to steal a line from Reagan.
Some of you are forgetting that the Pac 10 is the Conference of Champions. Indeed, many of these titles come from tennis, swimming and softball. But calling it an inferior athletic conference is factually untrue. Further, the Pac 10 is home to arguably the greatest college hoops program (UCLA) and football program (USC).
Add to this its academic prowess, and this seems like a no-brainer (as long as we can get the economics to work).
Any move will have to come with certain financial considerations and concessions. With the move to a 12-team conference, there will be a conference championship game. I think CU should lobby to have that game held in Denver once every 6 years or so. Even if CU weren't playing in the game, it would bring a lot of attention to college football in Colorado and would generate revenue for the local area. That would put them in the good graces of the folks in Denver, which could, theoretically, help with the whole funding issue. Admitedly, this is a stretch, but am I the only one who was kind of pissed that the B12 said, in essence, that they would NEVER have their championship game in Denver?
Good point. No reason we couldn't get the basketball tournament at the Pepsi Center (and that might be easier). A Pac 12 should definitely look at rotating that since there are NBA arenas in Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake, LA, San Jose, Portland and Seattle. That would be a great 6-year rotation.
Buffnik, you bring up a good point about a rotating basketball CCG. I wonder if there is precedence. In the ~15-year history of the Big Ten Tournament, they have only held it in Indianpolis & Chicago, with Indy getting a lion's share of those. This despite 4 other NBA arenas within the conference footprint. I know economics play into this, but I think a large part is simply being geographically centered for all teams, thus minimizing any unfair travel/fan advantages the best they can.
With all this said, Vegas might be an ideal stationary spot for the new Pac 12 hoops CCG, as long as its arena is large enough to hold about 20,000 (which I doubt).
Separate names with a comma.