Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by InTheBuff, Apr 30, 2010.
some interesting stuff being posted-
where have you been lately
I've been around- read more than I post. Allbuffs is 'banned' from work so I only visit from home when my 15 month old isn't keeping me busy.
Here's some more chatter. Sounds like DeStiff has been putting out the feelers.
Here is a big-time "What If" that has no sources, no way to verify, no real anything behind it (so ignore if you hate that kind of stuff).
Put yourself in the Big 12 Commish's shoes, ok nevermind, Beebe gets fired and YOU get hired for the job.
"What if" the Pac-10 is not as strong as they lead on?
What if the hiring of Larry Scott, Kevin Weiberg, the marketing people, the "buzz" that they have built up is really a desparate attempt to compete as a conference that has lost ground in the media markets?
I wonder how vulnerable the two Arizona schools would be as a target for the Big 12?
Here is the scenario:
Nebraska/Mizzou leave for the Big Ten. If invited nothing the Big 12 could do would stop them, IMO.
The Pac Ten is unable to significantly increase their media rights, whether that is a traditional deal or a conference network.
Currently the Pac-10 gets $5.3 million on average per team. They divide it similar to the Big 12 with the popular teams getting the most (USC, UCLA, Washington, etc)
Arizona State most recently received a close-to but still below average amount, while Arizona was the 2nd lowest in the conference (just above Washington State).
For two programs with such a large TV market that could create an opportunity to offer them a better deal.
Losing Nebraska and Missouri to the Big Ten hurts in two ways: the Corn draw high ratings whenever they are on TV and Missouri tapped into two large media markets.
If you could offset that loss by bringing in Arizona & Arizona State the impact on the next TV negotiations would be largely minimized (not equalized). Phoenix and Tucson bring a total of 2.5 million TV sets to the plate, which would help offset the loss of St. Louis+outliers (2.1 million) and Omaha/Lincoln (700k). Keeping Kansas and Kansas State would still deliver the KC market, so I wouldn't count a "loss" there.
The Big 12 currently has much better bowl game affiliations and payouts than the Pac-10 and is accruing much better basketball credits than the Pac-10, so from the other two major conference revenue drivers, the Big 12 would be superior to the Pac-10. Having the Fiesta Bowl as the BCS tie-in could also be a selling point.
Playing in a Central/Mountain time zone would be more appealing in buidling a national audience, and tapping into the Texas recruiting market certainly wouldn't hurt.
Source............Big 12....Pac 10
TV money.........$80 mil....$53 mil
Non-BCS Bowls..$14 mil....$9 mil
NCAA hoops......$17 mil....$14 mil
TOTAL..............$111 M..$76 M
Average..........$9.25 M.$7.6 M
Certainly the big issue is back to how well the Pac-10 can market their current lineup above and beyond their current media deals.
If luring AZ/ASU away from the Pac were possible to accomplish, then I would also drop Baylor and Iowa State replacing them with New Mexico and BYU. This adds two additional Top 50 TV markets without losing much, bringing in a natural rival for Texas Tech (UNM) and Colorado (BYU), would be a huge boost from a competitive standpoint as the Lobos play good basketball and baseball (offsetting Baylor's contributions) and BYU is far superior in athletics to Iowa State across the board (wrestling excluded). BYU in the league would boost everyone's attendance for certain.
Baylor would not be a loss TV market wise but lets still count the Waco area for a loss of 340k sets and Des Moines for 430k, a total of 770k. Bringing in Albuquerque (690K) and Salt Lake (940k) would be a net gain of 860k households, the equivalent of adding another San Antonio to the conference footprint.
Utah would obviously be a Pac-8 expansion candidate but they would not have any other options that would increase market share and future TV payouts (Hawaii being the next best option for them).
I would then divide the 12-team conference as such:
Looks like the number's 16. Rationale is that it gives you a 4-team playoff for conference champion (3 games is worth a ton of money). You could still get there. Heck, maybe you could keep Nebraska and Missouri from leaving if you could get there, promise equal revenue sharing and start a conference television network. Just add Utah, BYU and New Mexico. Maybe instead of repeating a Texas market with a TCU or Houston, you pull a surprise and say you'll make an investment in the state of Louisiana because there are certainly enough recruiting prospects and football fans in that state to support 2 BCS programs. Is it U of Louisiana (Lafayette) - best academics and largest in the UofL system, but a Sun Belt member (Cajun Field = 31,000 + end zone open seating)? Is it Louisiana Tech - lesser academics but a cultural fit with much of the Big 12 along with decent WAC football and an elite women's basketball program (Joe Aillet Stadium = 30,600 capacity)? Is it Tulane - best academics and located in the heart of New Orleans (#51 media market), but smaller private university and not a great athletic tradition although they are a C-USA member (Louisiana Superdome - 71,968 capacity)?
Won't happen, but it's interesting to consider.
Interesting analysis but it fails on a couple of counts. The PAC10 media dollars you quote are based off an old, expiring deal. The Big XII dollars are from a deal than still has years to run. The BigXII, even if you make the changes you are talking about still comprises a much smaller and less influential media footprint than the PAC10 does. The reason for all this speculation in the first place is the desire of the PAC10 to maximize their upcoming media contracts. Take the Denver market out of the BigXII and add it to the PAC10 along with the SLC market (or even the New Mexico market as a first alternate) and the media potential of the PAC10 dwarfs the Big XII. If the dominos start to fall the BigXII become the clearcut loser in the deal.
The Arizona schools are much better served in the PAC10 than they would be in a revised Big XII, more money with the new media contracts, more contact with their large alumni bases in California and the Pacific Northwest, more compatibility in terms of scheduling of other sports, and not having to deal with the Texas insistence on calling all the shots in the conference.
Add to this the fact that Texas politics will not allow the Big XII to exist without Baylor which is the smallest of the Big XII schools but highly connected politically, if anything the politicians would force the Big XII to add SMU, Houston, and Rice before UNM or BYU would get a sniff.
UT itself is a desirable target due to its huge dollars, national appeal, and academic and athletic success. They may be able to drag A&M with them if things disolve and they are forced to seek a new home but their days of calling the shots would be over.
Of course, it would be nice if the Colorado athletic director were in on it ... (quote from April 29th)
[FONT=Cambria, serif]CUBuffs.com: We're not hearing as much expansion talk out of the Pac-10 Conference now as we did a couple of months ago. Is the talk simmering just under the surface or has it cooled considerably?[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, serif]MB: "It does appear to be pretty quiet. As I like to say, it's like crickets out there." :rolling_eyes:[/FONT]
You need to re-read what he said, Montana. He said it "appears" to be quiet. He confirmed the lead up to the question without ever answering the actual question. It was actually a great dodge to avoid talking about something he isn't ready to talk about. I thought that showed some savvy media handling by our AD.
This would mean that Mike Bohn is on top of things, acting coy, and has it all under control. I hope your right.
The first five years of his administration not withstanding ...
Outside of coaching hires, I don't have any issues with Bohn. Do you?
Fund-raising - no
Community relations - no
Approachability - no
Bringing Colorado back in terms of national respect after a difficult time - no
Bottom line - one winning season in 15 tries between FB, MBB, and WBB - yes.
Blaming fans who want a regime change for losses on the field - yes ...
[FONT=Cambria, serif]CUBuffs.com: How pivotal is 2010 for Dan Hawkins and the football program?[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, serif]MB: "I believe that every season and each game is pivotal for us, for the reasons we've been talking about - perceptions, recruiting, fan base, fan interest, media interest, respect in a very competitive conference. I'd like to believe every football game we play is a significant event here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, serif]"And again, when have we been best in home football games? When we have a great environment and we come out with a focused effort - then some good things happen. I'm mindful of (previous wins against) Oklahoma, West Virginia, the Texas A&M and Kansas games last season.[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, serif]"That's why sustaining that interest and indivisible presentation is so important. The kids are inspired by it, the coaches are inspired by it . . . that's why I'd like the people who follow our program to understand that (all games) are important."[/FONT]
Jerry Ford was a nice guy, and helped the nation in a turbulent time - he still didn't get to keep his job. :smile2:
Fair enough. :smile2:
Since the scenario was entirely based on the Pac-10 failing to capitalize on said upcoming TV negotiations, I must protest.
I fully understand the numbers that the Pac-10 is operating under and are HOPING to get. My point was... what if they don't? Would the AZ schools be vulnerable then?
The Pac has NEVER been able to maximize their media potential. Maybe that was entirely to blame on their previous commissioners, maybe there just isn't as much of a market for their athletics as they think. Yes they have really big media markets in Cali but are the ratings really there? Without the ratings they won't get mega-paid like the Big Ten or SEC, and a conference network won't have leverage to get broad distribution on expanded cable and standard satellite packages.
I know everyone and their brother posts what ifs, but I have been studying conference alignments for years, and the Pac-10 in depth for the last 6 months and I think they are putting all their chips in. The hiring of Scott and Weiberg, the staff decisions, the consultants and media rights people they've brought in. All of it to "sell" their product. If their product was so hot, it would sell itself. The SEC didn't have to do all of that stuff when ESPN opened their checkbook.
The Big 12 negotiated their rights with the same networks (ABC/ESPN and FSN) within 12 months of when the Pac-10 did. The Big 12 got over $1.2 million more per school than the Pac-10 did. The media markets haven't changed drastically in the last 5 years. The Pac-10 has been unchanged for nearly 30 years and was "known quantity" while the Big 12 is still developing its brand and was only 10 years old.
The Pac-10 is "stuck" without any viable expansion candidates outside of CU unless they sell the farm and go after Texas/A&M and friends.
The Arizona schools are both in the bottom half of the conference in TV distributions, as the Pac-10 has a 60/40 split between the teams that made the appearance (60%) and the conference (40%).
Even if the Pac-10 gets a 50% increase in their media rights without expansion that would only make the difference between total distributions (TV, Bowls, hoops,etc) that the Big 12 would offer and the new Pac-10 would offer around break-even.
If Larry Scott and Co. can get better than that on a per team basis with or without expansion then my "scenario" wouldn't apply and things continue as expected (death of Big 12 CU+ going to Pac and the Texas contingent in a bidding war with SEC and Pac).
But if I were the Big 12 commish I would be "in the shadows" trying to gain some leverage in the Pac-10 negotiations and specifically with the AZ schools.
The Big 12 does renew their FSN contract the same time that the Pac-10 is doing theirs. We also have an "opt-out" provision in the ABC/ESPN contract where it can be voided if the Big 12 starts its own network.
If the Big 12 "stole" the two AZ schools, and added a school like BYU to the mix the demographics would favor the Big 12. Texas and California equal out (even though I think Texas college sports is far more popular and gets much better ratings), leaving the Pac-10 with Seattle and Portland as their only other media markets. The Big 12 would have Phoenix, Denver, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake (not to mention some other mid-size cities that add up quickly). Central and Mountain time zones would trump the Pacific only time zones of the Pac-10.
Lastly, the politics of the Pac-10 are not really all that different than the Big 12 and could be worse. I don't have very much to support this, but USC has thrown their weight around more than once (getting the AZ schools in the first place as a USC powerplay) while Stanford has also pulled the "tantrum" act to get other members to do their bidding (as in the NO vote to shoot down expansion with Texas in 1994). It is much easier in the Pac-10 to have one team gunk up the works due to having to get unanimous approval for conference issues.
Texas has to at least find 3 other members to go along with anything they want. Yes I know that everyone loves to hate Texas but I don't have a problem with them wanting anything they have got in the conference. My problem is with schools like Oklahoma that are just nuthuggers going along with anything that benefits Texas. If Nebraska and Oklahoma had voted for equal revenue sharing, we would have it, it doesn't depend just on Texas. I will respect the Corn for some of their opposition to Texas but they picked the wrong battles and caved on the big ones because it put money in their pockets too.
Baylor does not have the political juice any longer to call any shots in the legislature to save their skin. The University of Arizona is more represented at the top of the Texas government right now than Baylor is. That news is past a decade of being old. No politicians are going to "force-feed" the Big 12 SMU, Houston or Rice.
The PAC10 hired the people they did for a reason, to maximize their media returns. This of course is all speculation at this point but I am seeing something that looks like a massive reorganization of major college football into fewer bigger conferences. The Big 10 is going to raid the BigXII as well as some eastern teams, the SEC will keep their teams and potentially expand as well, if they do then UT and aTm would be the logical match for them as well as OU. Outside of Texas the current or your proposed Big XII make up a second rate TV footprint, I think that if the dominos start to fall, the Big XII as we know it is a dead issue.
My comments on Baylor and the other Texas schools are based on past history, you may say that Baylor lacks the political juice but that argument was made prior to the formation of the Big XII. People in Texas take their college football very seriously and the political cost of ignoring that is to great to ignore. There are still people mad about the end of the SWC sending the non-BigXII schools to mid-major status.
BYU carries to much baggage, despite a strong fan base, in and out of Utah, and a long record of success I think they are at best a fallback choice. They have wanted into the PAC10 for years and have been rebuffed continuously.
Again, I am not proposing what I did as a solution to the "expected" chain of events. The big assumption being made is that the Pac-10 will get a very lucrative TV deal that combined with expansion will bring in a substantial bump in TV revenues for all members, new and old. While I believe that the Pac-10 can do this, there is still the very real possibility that they struggle to do so. The ACC is struggling right now to "maximize" their TV contract renewal with ABC/ESPN. Everyone forgets that the Big Ten revenue windfall is only possible because they also signed $1 billion deal with ABC/ESPN for their national games. It isn't just the Big Ten Network that is filling their coffers. Without a big national deal, it will be harder to compete.
Again, my scenario spelled out a specific chain of events that needed to happen for that opportunity to exist, it wasn't meant as a comparison to the current environment.
Saying that Texas is "logical" as an SEC expansion candidate ignores much of the same past you are bringing up with the SWC issues. The Longhorns have never wanted to be in the SEC.
And I was never proposing BYU as a member of the Pac-10. That is a non-starter, as most people should know. I proposed them as being a part of a post-Nebraska/Missouri Big 12 and going after the Arizona schools if there was an opportunity to do so. Without the Arizona schools being "stolen" then the Big 12 cannot expand their media footprint and CU and the rest will look for new homes.
Again, please read how I began that scenario as I thought it was clear what I was discussing.
Maybe I'm just beaten down from all of the recent troubles for CU, but I just don't see this happening for CU.
The first post of reason! I am not going to say that CU will not go to the PAC10 or that UNL will not go to the Big10(11), it is all speculation.
Could it be that the Big12 gets a new TV contract, and revenue sharing changes and the Big12 stays intact and expands.
Just a thought.
It will be interesting to see how it all settles out. One thing that we can be sure of is that even though schools will consider their relations with other schools, image, traditions, etc. the final decisions will be based on money.
The biggest issue is who gets what share of the pie. The mid-majors are fighting to get a bigger share of the dollars and the big revenue schools are looking to keep a bigger share while making the pie bigger. As some others have mentioned the idea may eventually become a championship system that excludes what are now considered the mid-majors. It is possible that these schools could even leave the NCAA entirely rather than share their revenues supporting the lower revenue schools.
If this all comes to pass it will be interesting to see who gets carried along and who gets left out. The proposal by Scotty that includes the Air Force in the haves is interesting as well as New Mexico and of course Utah. I can see Iowa State losing "major" status no matter how it all settles out. I can also see schools like Wyoming, CSU, SDSU left out in the cold. Their fanatics will protest but they simply do not have large enough followings and generate enough dollars to be included. Despite a large following both in Utah and across the region I can see a possiblility of BYU getting left out.
A lot of these same issues come up with schools on the eastern half of the US as well. Another issue is how do leagues look at schools that are marginal in football but strong revenue producers in basketball.
As it all washes out it makes a lot of sense for both CU and the PAC10 to join up. I have been a huge fan of the Big XII but I don't think it can or will survive in anything looking like it does now. The question for Texas will come down to if they want to compete in a top league like SEC (or less so the PAC 10) or be the dominant team in a weakened Big XII that has lost and replaced a number of members. In this scenario your idea of BYU joining may not be much of a choice for the remaining Texas schools if they want credibility. Otherwise they end up like the old ACC when Florida State dominated and had to play OOC to have a credible schedule.
I don't get the "logic" of UT, A&M, OU, and OSU to the SEC. Geographically perhaps it makes sense. But the only SEC team that has a history with any of those schools is Arkansas and that is with only UT and A&M. They might bring money in, but both geographically and historically, there are quite a few other teams that would be on the list before those four.
Simple logic $$$$. Texas and OU are both teams that sell lots of tickets for high prices and generate quality TV ratings. If the model becomes super-conferences with championship games and even playoffs then the SEC could do much worse than UT and OU. A&M is not at Texas level but they sell out a big stadium and are seen by TV viewers as a significant program. OSU has money behind them as well and would be dragged along with OU if they came to the SEC. Of the four they are the least desirable. Of course the Texas history could be an issue but they and OU are seen as "southern" enough to be a fit. The SEC has enough big, wealthy, arrogant programs that they would not hesitate to think they can deal with Texas.
Your thought is valid. We would be naive to think that Texas isn't considering or exploring all of its options... and that INCLUDES keeping the status quo. This talk of Big 10 Expansion may force Texas to change the current revenue stream in the Big 12. Texas will do what is in Texas' best interest. The Big 10 can expand without the Big 12 and Texas will surely have ALOT to say about that.
I think Texas would sooner go independent than agree to revenue sharing to keep the Big 12 together.
If I'm Texas, I'm looking long and hard at going solo and creating a Texas Sports Network. They could create an entire network dedicated to HS and college sports in Texas and kick small percentages out to the local schools they cover. They could retain the lion's share of revenue and not have to compromise with a conference that wants them to give up some of the pie.
What do they lose with that? No Conference Championship game $$$.... and what type of BCS automatic bid would they get? If they get a tier 2 bowl or below... would they have done better by being affiliated with a conference? ND used to be the model of revenue... get a TV deal. Now, they make less than Indiana and Northwestern (every Big 10 team).
Why wouldn't the SEC go for Miami and FSU. And possibly Clemson and/or VT and UVA? Is the ACC untouchable? I would think that this would be more of a probability for the SEC than the Texas/TAMU talk. Not that the Texas and OK schools would be a bad way to expand, I just think the SEC would go the other way.
Maybe a combination of the two would be possible. UT, TAMU and VT, UVA or Miami, FSU. My god that is just scary to even think about. The SEC has so many great options it's incredible and I would think that every one of those schools would jump at an offer from them.
No doubt it's risky, but if Texas could create a viable network that it controled without having to be in a conference, that would more than make up for lost Conference Championship Game $$.
Notre Dame's problem isn't a bad tv deal, it's that they aren't winning. They only have to win 9 games to "qualify" for a BCS game. What if Texas had the same deal? They win 10 games every single season, they'd be in a BCS bowl almost every year and would split the payout with nobody.
Texas would be foolish to go independent. Their scheduling would be abysmal. They'd get OU, A&M, and a long list of nobodys every year. Their network deal might be wonderful for a while, but when they aren't on any national stations, their overall relevance will drop dramatically. Remember, UT has not always been at the top of the hill. They were the definition of sucktitude 15 years ago. If they go independent, and start losing, they won't have a conference affiliation to help get them back. Then they're stuck playing an annual schedule that has heavy doses of UTEP, North Texas, Tulsa, Rice, New Mexico State, Houston, Baylor, SMU, Tech, OU and A&M. That's a craptacular schedule. They won't be able to get anybody else unless they pay them boatloads of money.
I think the most logical targets for the SEC, if they expand to 16 teams to match the Big Televen, would be Miami, FSU, Texass and aTm. They could completely lock down Florida, and add all the schools that matter in Texas. The Oklahoma schools would basically be stand-ins in case they couldn't get the Florida schools, IMO.... :huh:
You could argue that UT's schedule in the Big 12 already is OU, A&M and a long list of nobodys, so I don't see much dropoff if they left.
Not saying it's going to happen, but I really thing they might be one of the only schools that could pull it off. Their access to cash, and recruits is almost limitless, so I don't see them going back to suckitude anytime soon or staying there long if they do.
If they could create a network that generated even 1/5 of the revenue the Big 10 network does they'd be twice as paid as any Big 10 team.
Texas has even more built-in advantages than ND IMO (facilities, location, recruiting base, rich generous alumni) and they win...A LOT. Plus this is just the sort of thing that would feed the ego of horn fans if they pulled it off.
Separate names with a comma.