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!
Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable
- Thread starter Duff Man
- Start date
Good Lord. Out of that entire thing, the one point you want to argue is whether the PAC 12 really wants Texas? Are you conceding everything else?
Ok, I'll bite, the rest of the conference has a long memory. They have been burned (spurned?) twice by them. It's not hard to see how they act with their conference brethren. money isn't an issue for Stanford, Oregon, and USC. They have all the money they need, and aren't interested in the disruption that UT would bring. Obviously Colorado knows what it's like to be in a conference with UT and likely has no interest in re-living that experience. That's four of twelve schools that would, in my opinion, vote against UT. I think all you need is three.
But even if they don't, it's largely irrelevant because UT ain't coming here anyway. The idea that expansion is inevitable completely ignores the stark reality that even if we wanted to expand, the only two schools that would be accretive simply aren't interested.
You are calling me out for treating opinion as fact (fair) and I cannot do the same?
The reason why I pushed on your Texas opinion is because the Pac-12 knows consolidation is coming IMO. So yes, some sort of expansion will happen. The "we just have to shut down every possible choice because we are the Pac-12" is a losing strategy.
The reason why I pushed on your Texas opinion is because the Pac-12 knows consolidation is coming IMO. So yes, some sort of expansion will happen. The "we just have to shut down every possible choice because we are the Pac-12" is a losing strategy.
larry scott would orgasm on national tv if he can convince texassss to join the p12. anyone who thinks otherwise is disconnected from the real world.
texassss is going to have choices... and leverage. that's how this goes.
to pretend otherwise, just because texassssss pissed us off in the past is really myopic.
texassss is going to have choices... and leverage. that's how this goes.
to pretend otherwise, just because texassssss pissed us off in the past is really myopic.
Again, the only two schools that would be accretive are not realistic. Given that reality, I still view expansion as anything but certain.
I wouldn't write UT off as being completely uninterested. We turned down the Pac 10 once upon a time too. They have twice, doesn't mean they will again.
Lots of rumors at various times out of Norman that the land thieves would at least be open to looking at the possibility.
Duff's right, the worry isn't "the long game;" the worry is 3 years from now when Minnesota, Illinois and Mizzou's revenues are as far ahead of us as LSU or Michigan's are today.
"at least we're ahead of CSU and WSU" is not a good measurement for success.
Just like our football has been getting better, but you don't see it because the competition has also been getting better - so too is our revenue going to get better, but it won't mean much when NU and MU are cashing much bigger checks than we are...
Lots of rumors at various times out of Norman that the land thieves would at least be open to looking at the possibility.
Duff's right, the worry isn't "the long game;" the worry is 3 years from now when Minnesota, Illinois and Mizzou's revenues are as far ahead of us as LSU or Michigan's are today.
"at least we're ahead of CSU and WSU" is not a good measurement for success.
Just like our football has been getting better, but you don't see it because the competition has also been getting better - so too is our revenue going to get better, but it won't mean much when NU and MU are cashing much bigger checks than we are...
I'll concede Larry Scott would love to have them. I'm not certain the rest of the conference would be as enthusiastic.
Also, I think it's important to note that the relationship is not strained at all between CU and UT at the university level. That's just we fans. Some of the admin players at CU hate Baylor in a big way, but UT was seen as more of a partner and it wasn't a bad breakup when the Buffs left for the Pac-12. Going back to the early 1990s, the working relationship between CU and UT is a big reason why the Big 12 was able to form.
Last edited:
ostrich behavior won't eliminate the facts or create an alternate reality.
texasssss is going to do something. with the bIG doing what they are doing, the market is moving. as long as we have a seat at the big kids table when the music stops, count us lucky. our leverage right now is near a historical low.
It's a little hard to understand your concern given that we just put a bow on facilities that are considered to be on par with the best in the country.
And you're sitting here worrying about Purdue and Indiana? Chev would slap you in the mouth and then whisper in your ear, "the rise is real".
I think you're putting too much faith in the conference to pass up huge amounts of new revenue. Texas is a bully in the Big 12 but there will be plenty of Pac 12 CEOs who will convince themselves that they bring more benefit ($$) than problems. I don't see Stanford, USC, and Oregon (or any school for that matter) taking the "we have plenty of money already" position.
It's like you don't understand what a $20 million difference is. Cool we just completed a $160 million facility, do you not get how quickly one of those schools can out do that, on top of what they already have, when making money like that? Again this isn't hard to understand.
Disney is cracking down on ESPN because the financial woes are impacting the publicly traded parent company. ESPN being a uniquely sports franchise that has to buy all its content seems to be making it more expensive than ABC oddly.
There is no ACC network either. ESPN apparently owns the contract and is supposed to launch it. But its on hold for financial reasons last time I looked it up.
I'd like to see KU, OU, Houston, and freaking Texas, , even though I hate them. They will bring money and not just in football. That's what this is mostly about right money?
Yup. The only compelling, revenue increasing move is to add teams from the state of Texas because of its large TV markets. All of the schools left in the current footprint do little more than increase the fraction past 1/12 divison of revenue. Adding UT & OU should bring enough new revenue to make 1/14 division worth it.
It's more than just adding TV markets, it's about adding TV markets that are infatuated with college football. Oklahoma is an unsaturated market that is coveted by the Pac-12 because it is different than every other market except for SLC and Portland. Texas is the best football state in the country so that goes without saying.
To that point, Alabama just paid its strength coach over $500k a year. That's more than 10 of the MAC head coaches.
We will start seeing those types of differences between the SEC or B1G and the Pac-12 if something isn't done. When their coordinators are making more than our HCs and their position coaches are making more than our coordinators, it's going to be hard to compete. That's not far off right now.
It is already happening. If you include cost of living which makes it even more impressive, SEC salaries are a lot higher than the Pac-12 norm.
If the P12 considers expansion. UT must be a consideration. No other school, besides ND, can bump the viewership needle as they can. I agree with Sacky that UT must be avoided at all costs as they are a proven conference cancer, but that swag is exactly why they are so valuable as a conference bedfellow. Expanding to central time zone will also increase viewership, and thus, the TV/media value of P12.
To maximize expansion $ you need to make runs at UT, OU and ND.
LHN gets acquired by P12 Net. P12 gets assets and non-compete. Captured revenues flow back to UT, no net loss/gain to either party, but the P12 conference deals could be reworked to reflect new members.
ND, as a member of P12 could potentially maintain USC and Stanford rivalries and still schedule annual MiState game. Navy game the loser or rotate on/off schedule. Their national audience and time zone add value to P12.
Of course, if there is no true impetus for expansion or if P12 has conceded that we just don't have the same population density nor engaged fan bases as enjoyed in other conferences then let's focus on P12 Net and put some lipstick on that pig.
To maximize expansion $ you need to make runs at UT, OU and ND.
LHN gets acquired by P12 Net. P12 gets assets and non-compete. Captured revenues flow back to UT, no net loss/gain to either party, but the P12 conference deals could be reworked to reflect new members.
ND, as a member of P12 could potentially maintain USC and Stanford rivalries and still schedule annual MiState game. Navy game the loser or rotate on/off schedule. Their national audience and time zone add value to P12.
Of course, if there is no true impetus for expansion or if P12 has conceded that we just don't have the same population density nor engaged fan bases as enjoyed in other conferences then let's focus on P12 Net and put some lipstick on that pig.
You're absolutely right. We're doomed.
Deleted member 807
Guest
If you were to poll the Pac-12 fanbase and ask the question "would you be willing to trade the membership of Colorado and Utah in the conference with Texas and Oklahoma?" what would be the answer?
The thing about the B1G deal is that other conferences can spend more that CU can on coaching staffs, recruiting events, take facilities arms race into student housing, and be in a better position to pay athletes when the damn breaks on letting athletes share on NCAA profits.
The thing about the B1G deal is that other conferences can spend more that CU can on coaching staffs, recruiting events, take facilities arms race into student housing, and be in a better position to pay athletes when the damn breaks on letting athletes share on NCAA profits.
"What time does the Yo Yo Ma concert begin?"
Without expansion, you need USC to become a top 5 program again, Stanford to fall, and Colorado and Washington to go back to being good programs consistently.
In terms of expansion, Texas and OU. Houston could be a long term play but probably doesn't bring the eyeballs.
Better negotiators that realize it might be important to make the network more than a regional channel. I know, I know, they have contracts with cable providers that state blah, blah, blah. Scott signed crappy contracts with cable companies which have hampered his ability to sign with DTV. As a manufacturer, you sell your product at a higher price to a retailer like Target than you do to a retailer like Wal-Mart. You take the price hit per unit in order to reach a broader audience. And it wasn't DTV's fault that Scott hamstrung the network from the start.
DTV, after the AT&T merger, asked for too much, admittedly. I think that ship has sailed. But don't worry, all of us will cut the cord by 2055. So we got that going for us, which is nice.
Short of that, I think the Pac would need to add Tex-ass, ND, the Chiefs and the Denver Broncos in order to get on DTV in the near future.
If you add more teams to your conference you are also bringing more mouths to the table to feed. Those already with a seat at the table have to vote in agreement because their 1/12 will become 1/14 or 1/16 of the total if they vote yes. So you add teams that are assured to make it compelling for a larger TV contract. Hence, you add the state of Texas and it's flagship school. If memory serves a majority of OUs out of state alums come from Texas. Double dip.
That being said the P12s decision to own its channel could make for amusing future contract negotiations because the conference can sell the channel to the next partner at most. And at least agree to a revenue sharing arrangement with the new partner.
I get it that this is bad blood from the past. Texas carved their fiefdom out of the BigXII and assured that they dominated at the expense of the 11 others. But where has that gotten them? The departure of Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado, all prominent teams. And the loss of in state rival A&M that allowed the SEC to get a foot hold into the large and lucrative Dallas and Houston TV markets. Next they added the Longhorn Network, a largely worthless venture outside of the state that gets them less eyeballs and a check from ESPN. But one that has further and further divided the remaining conference partners and frozen their negotiating power in a bad place.
Thus, Texas has already weakened its own position due to greed and self interest. And some of the administrators behind that initial hubris that created this mess have moved on. At some point the rest of the conference is likely going to implode because a. more partners will leave forcing Texas to the table with someone. Or b. Texas will leave first for someone with more money.
I suspect it will be a. because they cant set aside their ego. Once that LHN money dries up they have a problem; They will be getting far less revenue than their peers and they will be in a conference of angry have nots.
But at the end of the day, like it or not, engineering a 2 or 4 team expansion that includes UT and OU would financially benefit the Pac 12.