What's new
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!

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

corn fan, let's turn this question around, how do you figure that the bugeaters will bring in $25 mm a year to the big 10? according to the 2000 census your state had around 650,000 folks in it. neb. is growing at less than 1% a year, so maybe you added around 50,000 more people in the last 10 years, but 85,000 of them are at the stadium(your 3rd largest city!), not infront of the tv. i realize you have a national following, top 5 all time wins, but come on, it ain't an nd type of following.

Have not read anything about how much the corn bring to the Big Ten but I trust Delany knows what he is doing. The national following is huge don't discount it. The Big Ten Network is already proven to work they know what they are doing. Contrast that with Pac 10 network projections for a Network that does not even exist yet.
 
The math on how Nebraska makes the Big 10 $20 million more valuable is much more elusive.

Yeah way harder to figure out how Nebraska could make an existing conference network money compared to a conference who is just guessing how much their network can make because their network does not even exist yet.
 
Have not read anything about how much the corn bring to the Big Ten but I trust Delany knows what he is doing. The national following is huge don't discount it. The Big Ten Network is already proven to work they know what they are doing. Contrast that with Pac 10 network projections for a Network that does not even exist yet.

This entire post is hypocritical.

The Pac-10 has the Big Ten's experience to draw on (Kevin Weiberg), a strong commissioner (Larry Scott), and CAA Sports Media to draw on in getting this network off the ground and up and running. In addition to all that, the Big Ten is a "big brother" to the Pac-10 and wants them to succeed, so will help to ensure that the network takes off.

I'm not "attacking you" but c'mon, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with posts like this.

CU and Nebraska both improved their stock financially with these moves, the biggest price we had to pay is that we end our rivalry and on-field relationship that dates back over 60 years.

I love the matchups we have in the Pac with Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, USC, and the two Arizona schools. As a college football fan, the Fuskers playing Iowa and Wisconsin, in addition to Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State is pretty intriguing also.
 
That is with Texas. My post is what if Only CU and Utah go to the Pac?

Maybe this will help. rward, who is a statistics junkie, pulled this together on another site back when a bunch of scenarios were on the table. The figures only look at the number of households from the top 210 markets, but it's close enough for our purposes :

From the list of 210 markets (TV sets/% of country):

Current Big 12:
18,223,300/15.868

Current PAC 10:
18,932,120/16.48

PAC 12 with Utah and Colorado:
21,825,300/18.998

PAC 16 with the south minus Baylor with CU:
30,968,320/26.961

PAC 10 with all the south:
29,019,200/25.265

I then added the following analysis (since I like to get my nerd on sometimes):

Current PAC 10: Each Pac member is tied to 1.89 million tv sets.

PAC 12 with Utah and Colorado: each member is tied to 1.82 million tv sets, a net loss of 70k households per member. But a small one that is more than offset with a championship game, additional games to put on television, more merchandising, etc.

PAC 16 with the south minus Baylor with CU: each member is tied to 1.94 million tv sets, which is only a net gain of 50k per member. But this is easily the best deal for everyone involved and the numbers get even bigger because of the number of network games available from a 16 team pool, national appeal of the matchups, more bowl tie-ins, and the possibility of adding 2 semi-final games to the conference football championship.

************

I should add that losing Texas A&M from the deal, which looks like a possibility, may actually increase the value of the PAC 16. We lose no TVs in the state of Texas but gain a bunch in Utah. Probably hurts merchandising and national audience a bit, but Aggie's also got an AD that's near bankrupt and their football program has done a hell of a lot less than Utah's in the past decade.

I hope this answers your question. Really, I don't know that you're going to see anything more than that. It's not like Larry Scott and his team are going to make public the metrics they have developed to calculate the value of each potential scenario in terms of expected media contracts and overall conference revenue.
 
This entire post is hypocritical.

The Pac-10 has the Big Ten's experience to draw on (Kevin Weiberg), a strong commissioner (Larry Scott), and CAA Sports Media to draw on in getting this network off the ground and up and running. In addition to all that, the Big Ten is a "big brother" to the Pac-10 and wants them to succeed, so will help to ensure that the network takes off.

I'm not "attacking you" but c'mon, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with posts like this.

CU and Nebraska both improved their stock financially with these moves, the biggest price we had to pay is that we end our rivalry and on-field relationship that dates back over 60 years.

I love the matchups we have in the Pac with Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, USC, and the two Arizona schools. As a college football fan, the Fuskers playing Iowa and Wisconsin, in addition to Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State is pretty intriguing also.

Fair enough. I do wish the Buffs good luck in the Pac 10. I think what I was really wondering is if Buff fans want Texas to join the Pac (more money) or would you rather join with just Utah so you get away from all things Big XII?
 
Maybe this will help. rward, who is a statistics junkie, pulled this together on another site back when a bunch of scenarios were on the table. The figures only look at the number of households from the top 210 markets, but it's close enough for our purposes :

From the list of 210 markets (TV sets/% of country):

Current Big 12:
18,223,300/15.868

Current PAC 10:
18,932,120/16.48

PAC 12 with Utah and Colorado:
21,825,300/18.998

PAC 16 with the south minus Baylor with CU:
30,968,320/26.961

PAC 10 with all the south:
29,019,200/25.265

I then added the following analysis (since I like to get my nerd on sometimes):

Current PAC 10: Each Pac member is tied to 1.89 million tv sets.

PAC 12 with Utah and Colorado: each member is tied to 1.82 million tv sets, a net loss of 70k households per member. But a small one that is more than offset with a championship game, additional games to put on television, more merchandising, etc.

PAC 16 with the south minus Baylor with CU: each member is tied to 1.94 million tv sets, which is only a net gain of 50k per member. But this is easily the best deal for everyone involved and the numbers get even bigger because of the number of network games available from a 16 team pool, national appeal of the matchups, more bowl tie-ins, and the possibility of adding 2 semi-final games to the conference football championship.

************

I should add that losing Texas A&M from the deal, which looks like a possibility, may actually increase the value of the PAC 16. We lose no TVs in the state of Texas but gain a bunch in Utah. Probably hurts merchandising and national audience a bit, but Aggie's also got an AD that's near bankrupt and their football program has done a hell of a lot less than Utah's in the past decade.

I hope this answers your question. Really, I don't know that you're going to see anything more than that. It's not like Larry Scott and his team are going to make public the metrics they have developed to calculate the value of each potential scenario in terms of expected media contracts and overall conference revenue.

Thanks for the post this makes sense to me.
 
Fair enough. I do wish the Buffs good luck in the Pac 10. I think what I was really wondering is if Buff fans want Texas to join the Pac (more money) or would you rather join with just Utah so you get away from all things Big XII?

Personally I would not mind having just UT in the conference, it is silly to have 3 or 4 Texas schools however. If it is just UT, then I think the "don't mess with Texas" attititude is diluted within the larger conference; and therefore palatable.

The money would obviously also be bigger and more sustainable with UT, as well as the national "prestige" for the sports in the conference; and maintaining a dual-Texas/Cali recruiting access.

If OU comes along, which is also perfectly fine, then I would like Utah as our "rivalry game" being another Mountain state flagship school.
 
Back
Top