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!

Not so fast, my friend ... (was: P12 finalizing details ....)

Spiff

Reports out of Texas today -- from credible outlets -- indicate Texas is in talks with the Pac-12. Highly placed sources expect that Oklahoma and Texas (and Oklahoma State and Texas Tech) might formally apply for invitations to join the league soon -- perhaps even Monday (when Oklahoma and Texas both have conference alignment on the agenda at regents' meetings).

Hold on. After digging all day, it's clear the cart has gotten way ahead of the horse.

The applications might come soon. But the Pac-12's response is unclear.

Pac-12 sources have made clear that the league's presidents are satisfied with the league's size now. With its recently signed TV rights deals and the coming Pac-12 Network, they don't believe expansion is an urgent imperative. It's a big change from a year ago.

Given the shifting happening around the country, I think it's very probable the Pac-12 will determine it must expand too, and will respond. Texas' sudden interest is something many thought would happen all along once the Longhorns had fully examined their options and finished posturing for leverage.

It's likely Larry Scott will get the Pac-12's presidents into a room (or on a teleconference) and sell them on the idea that the league must act now; if the Pac-12 waits, the opportunity might not be there in a year or two or five, and the Pac-12 would be locked at 12 while other leagues had moved to 16.

I think that argument will ultimately be persuasive.

xxx

BUT: Texas' Longhorn Network remains an issue. Today's reports indicated some give on Texas' part, a willingness to slightly downsize its network while keeping at least a portion of the media rights -- and the revenues -- for itself. (It's more complicated than that, but see the Austin American Statesman's story, which does a nice job of laying it out.)

It's certainly possible the Longhorns are still trying to leverage the best deal. I don't blame them. But it probably needs to be the Longhorns' opening position in bargaining.

The slightly, sorta-kinda-downsized Longhorn Network we're reading might be a part of the deal? I'm not sure that's enough for the Pac-12 members.

They went all-in a year ago, agreeing to equal revenue-sharing and giving up all individual school media rights to the conference. That was not an easy decision, but the members agreed to it.

Whenever Larry Scott has spoken about the potential of expansion, the Longhorn Network has been a non-starter. Fold it into a Pac-12 regional network and give all revenue to the league? Yeah, that would fly.

But that's not quite what's being offered, according to today's reports. I'm led to believe the Pac-12 remains unwilling to compromise on the issue.

Branding? Maybe the league would be willing to give a little, though maybe not. Rights and revenue? I don't think so.

The Pac-12 might expand, and soon. But it isn't going to do anything that's seen as bringing in a new school and providing it with special rules or preferential treatment. Nope, not even Texas.

xxx

Would Scott be able to persuade Pac-12 presidents to act on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State without Texas (and Tech)? Signals have been mixed. But ultimately, the answer is probably yes. Scott would persuade the presidents to move, even to a Pac-14, for the same reasons I listed above.

The league could also get to 16 teams without Texas. The point here is, despite reports:

Nothing is certain, even now. Pac-12 expansion may happen, but it's not close yet. There's a long way to go.

xxx

While we're at it, don't forget things are happening elsewhere on the giant chessboard. We shouldn't be surprised if Texas continues to explore other options.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see the Big 10 going to 16.


And so what we never expand past 12? People seriously think the conference is going to lose its BCS status if it doesn't expand? Absurd.
 
JimmyBuff said:
I don't see the Big 10 going to 16.


And so what we never expand past 12? People seriously think the conference is going to lose its BCS status if it doesn't expand? Absurd.
Click to expand...

Very important point. The fact is that the superconference idea isn't something that we have heard from the conferences themselves, it has been a building media speculation. The simple fact is that the superconference idea isn't going anywhere unless the conferences decide to take it there and it isn't going anywhere without the Big 10, the PAC, and the SEC. The SEC will be at 14 soon but has given no indication that it will expand beyond that, they have not been entirely happy with their options for a #14 after A&M, I don't see any great rush to add two more just to add them.

The Big 10 is very happy at 12. Reports and indications are that any future Big 10 expansion would only happen if Notred Dame was a part of the package. Again I don't see a great deal of excitement on their part for any candidate for school 14 to balance.

This is all important because the only real reason for the PAC to expand would be if that is the format that the others went to. The PAC and the Big 10 administrators have traditionally had very close ties and I don't see the PAC making a major shift without the presidents consulting their counterparts in the Big 10.
 
White_Rabbit said:
All I know is they better not let them keep that stupid network unless it's fair. I find it pretty hard to believe the Cali schools would cave to Texas anyway. Then again.. greed does cloud the thoughts.
Click to expand...

At least one school won't

2893875876_7a238a713c.jpg


GO BEARS!
 
My hope is the Pac12 and Big10 sit on 12 for at least a few years and watch what unfolds in the other expanding conferences. There is no need to just jump at this so fast because I really don't see it being a good move.
 
MtnBuff said:
Very important point. The fact is that the superconference idea isn't something that we have heard from the conferences themselves, it has been a building media speculation. The simple fact is that the superconference idea isn't going anywhere unless the conferences decide to take it there and it isn't going anywhere without the Big 10, the PAC, and the SEC. The SEC will be at 14 soon but has given no indication that it will expand beyond that, they have not been entirely happy with their options for a #14 after A&M, I don't see any great rush to add two more just to add them.

The Big 10 is very happy at 12. Reports and indications are that any future Big 10 expansion would only happen if Notred Dame was a part of the package. Again I don't see a great deal of excitement on their part for any candidate for school 14 to balance.

This is all important because the only real reason for the PAC to expand would be if that is the format that the others went to. The PAC and the Big 10 administrators have traditionally had very close ties and I don't see the PAC making a major shift without the presidents consulting their counterparts in the Big 10.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Larry Scott in June of last year:
"The only constant is change," Scott said, "so I wouldn't rule out the super conference idea. I think that it's been proven in this process that it is a compelling concept for the TV networks and schools."

ACC commissioner John Swofford discussed the possibility of expansion with CBSSports.com in July."We want to remain nimble enough so if we want to look in that direction we'll be ready to do that in very short order," Swofford said. "Twelve [teams] works. It's not to say 14 or 16 can't work, it can. I don't think [16 team conferences] is inevitable, it's possible."

The Big Ten considered it:
"We thought a lot about 12 to 14 and 16 when we had the opportunity last year," Delany told the Times. "I don't think that our thinking will change by what others will do. Our view, really, is that it's about quality and not quantity."
 
ScottyBuff said:
Not true.

Larry Scott in June of last year:
"The only constant is change," Scott said, "so I wouldn't rule out the super conference idea. I think that it's been proven in this process that it is a compelling concept for the TV networks and schools."

ACC commissioner John Swofford discussed the possibility of expansion with CBSSports.com in July."We want to remain nimble enough so if we want to look in that direction we'll be ready to do that in very short order," Swofford said. "Twelve [teams] works. It's not to say 14 or 16 can't work, it can. I don't think [16 team conferences] is inevitable, it's possible."

The Big Ten considered it:
"We thought a lot about 12 to 14 and 16 when we had the opportunity last year," Delany told the Times. "I don't think that our thinking will change by what others will do. Our view, really, is that it's about quality and not quantity."
Click to expand...

You are correct but the only conversation from the conferences has been in response to media questions and then it has been much more of the "we won't close the door to any potential idea in the future." vein.

None of the comments have been what I would consider to be a positive lean towards the idea.

It is very possible that one conference or more goes to 16 but that doesn't mean that all will. On the contrary I think the Big 10 going is very unlikely and as I stated the PAC often works in communication with the Big 10. The idea that the presidents of the PAC schools will be overly enthusiastic about going to 16 is a bit premature.
 
huskermark said:
Sorry pal, been there for all five.
Click to expand...

No you weren't, you were sitting in your doublewide fretting about CU. You hang out in the chat room while your Nubs are playing -- that's legitimately a strange thing to do. What is it exactly that you're looking for?
 
Cal Bear said:
Really? The real issue is TV viewers for TV revenue.

Honestly, the Pac is stuck with Colorado and its small base of whining "fans" that seem more disinterested than anything else. I'm still trying to figure out why the Buffalos are in OUR league. You bring nothing but moaning and groaning.
Click to expand...

A mod should check the IP on this one. The screen name indicates Berkeley, but the tone seems more like Austin.
It might be "a Nebraska fan" who works for UT.
 
Andy Staples of SI tweeting that Missouri likely to become 14th member of SEC. West Virginia may be target if the SEC goes to 16 teams.

Big twelve is toast.
 
Wasn't it last year that one of you degenerates posted a presumed convo betwixt Larry Scott and DeLoss Dodd's that went a little something like this?

DD: "So here's our last minute needs for the contract."
LS: "You gentlemen have a nice day."
DD: "Well, hol' on a minute there son, I wadn't quite finished yet."
LS: "Yeah, you were."
 
No way in hell that Larry Scott is going to sit around and wait for dominoes to fall. That's not his style. It's also not his style to expand for no other reason than "keeping up with the Joneses". He has a vision. He will move aggressively to make that vision happen. That vision is not a 12-team PAC.
 
Jens1893 said:
LHN remains a big issue
Click to expand...

It's only a big issue for Texass. And they've already came back to us after shopping our bid to each and every conference in the land. So by reading their behavior rather than their words or their leaked media articles, we already know it's not actually a big deal to them either. They just want to make it seem like it is.
 
Buffsoldier said:
Wasn't it last year that one of you degenerates posted a presumed convo betwixt Larry Scott and DeLoss Dodd's that went a little something like this?

DD: "So here's our last minute needs for the contract."
LS: "You gentlemen have a nice day."
DD: "Well, hol' on a minute there son, I wadn't quite finished yet."
LS: "Yeah, you were."
Click to expand...

DeLoss Dodds =
images
 
Cal84 said:
It's only a big issue for Texass. And they've already came back to us after shopping our bid to each and every conference in the land. So by reading their behavior rather than their words or their leaked media articles, we already know it's not actually a big deal to them either. They just want to make it seem like it is.
Click to expand...

My read on this:

Both UT and ESPN know that the LHN was a colossal mistake.
Both UT and ESPN have too much ego to admit it was a colossal mistake.
Larry Scott has enough media connections and media business savvy to know that it was a colossal mistake.
Both UT and ESPN know that Larry knows it was a colossal mistake.
ESPN wants a way out of the deal.
UT wants a way out of the deal.
UT needs to posture publicly that the LHN is a valuable asset that it would never give up.
Everyone wants UT to be part of the new Pac-16

So...

UT, ESPN and Larry Scott are working privately to figure out how to reconfigure the LHN as a Pac-16 regional network in a deal structure that allows ESPN to recoup its investment and UT to save face while giving the Pac-16 its Texas carrier.
 
ACC still considering Texass to be #15 or #16 ?? Their Plan A & B.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The ACC is considering three options as it awaits decisions from Texas and Oklahoma, according to an official. The first one is the league's home run swing at luring both Texas and Notre Dame. Plan B is to invite Texas and Texas Tech. Rutgers and Connecticut are Plan C, with a college official saying Connecticut and the ACC have had discussions the past two days.

we can only hope though I highly doubt Plan A or B happens...
 
JimmyBuff said:
I don't see the Big 10 going to 16.


And so what we never expand past 12? People seriously think the conference is going to lose its BCS status if it doesn't expand? Absurd.
Click to expand...


The Big 10+1+1 will expand if Notre Lame ever agrees to come in. And if they take them, they'll add at least one more team. Pitt, always a popular suspect in Big 10+1+1 is on their way to the ACC. So is Syracuse. Mizzou is headed to the $EC. Texass isn't going to get any more LHN concessions from them than from the Pac-12. It's starting to look a little sparse out there for expansion candidates for the Big 10+1+1....
 
Buffnik said:
Both UT and ESPN know that the LHN was a colossal mistake.
Both UT and ESPN have too much ego to admit it was a colossal mistake.
Larry Scott has enough media connections and media business savvy to know that it was a colossal mistake.
Both UT and ESPN know that Larry knows it was a colossal mistake.
ESPN wants a way out of the deal.
UT wants a way out of the deal.
UT needs to posture publicly that the LHN is a valuable asset that it would never give up.
Everyone wants UT to be part of the new Pac-16

So...

UT, ESPN and Larry Scott are working privately to figure out how to reconfigure the LHN as a Pac-16 regional network in a deal structure that allows ESPN to recoup its investment and UT to save face while giving the Pac-16 its Texas carrier.
Click to expand...

Could...not...agree...with...you...more.

My only take on this is that we can afford to be less accommodating now than we were three weeks ago. For the simple reason that we already know we have the high bid. We can drop it some and still be the top bid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top