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!

State of the Big 12 - feedback please...

You are either a Horn, Aggie, Sooner, Horn Frog (recent phenomenon...most people would not admit it until recently), Red Raider, Cowboy (OSU), or Bear (they do not admit it...). All others (including Buffs) are worthless piles of cow manure..

Yeah, down in the Republic they don't pay attention to the North schools unless they're playing them. NU is probably the exception just because of their past. Our past is totally forgotten by the clowns down here.

There is definitely still a lack of connection of the two sides. Another reason to blow up the geographic divisions and go to an ACC format.
 
Yeah, down in the Republic they don't pay attention to the North schools unless they're playing them. NU is probably the exception just because of their past. Our past is totally forgotten by the clowns down here.

There is definitely still a lack of connection of the two sides. Another reason to blow up the geographic divisions and go to an ACC format.

Suppose we go to an ACC format, how would you organize the divisions?
 
Suppose we go to an ACC format, how would you organize the divisions?

How about alphabetically?

A-M division:

Baylor
Colorado
ISU
Kansas
KjSU
MU

N-Z Division:

Nubs
Okie
Okie Lite
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tortilla.

Looks good to me.
 
Suppose we go to an ACC format, how would you organize the divisions?

I think I've posted it before, but here is what I think: basically split the two divisions in half and cobble them together. Then, pit all the arch-rivalries cross-division. Five in-division games, one locked cross-division game and two rotational games in two-year sets:

Div 1/Div 2
Colorado/Nowledge U.
Okla St./K-State
Oklahoma/Texas
Texas Tech/A&M
Baylor/Iowa State
Mizzou/Kansas

That would balance things out more and save all of the rivalries, as they would either come from the same division or locked in with an arch-rival. Baylor-ISU is really the only two teams without a true rival in the league, so they are the remainder. Sorry!

But with that setup, it should normally ALWAYS guarantee two competitive leagues, as OU and Texas are always good, CU and NU SHOULD be good most years and then Mizzou and KU have been good recently and they're split as well.

For the most part, this conference isn't too big in terms of travel aside from us. I think it could work and if it was already in this setup, I contend that there wouldn't be as much griping about things because the league would be better off.

I don't foresee the North schools ever truly competing all the time with the South, so it's got to be mixed up. And hey, a CU-NU title tilt would be great!
 
I think I've posted it before, but here is what I think: basically split the two divisions in half and cobble them together. Then, pit all the arch-rivalries cross-division. Five in-division games, one locked cross-division game and two rotational games in two-year sets:

Div 1/Div 2
Colorado/Nowledge U.
Okla St./K-State
Oklahoma/Texas
Texas Tech/A&M
Baylor/Iowa State
Mizzou/Kansas

That would balance things out more and save all of the rivalries, as they would either come from the same division or locked in with an arch-rival. Baylor-ISU is really the only two teams without a true rival in the league, so they are the remainder. Sorry!

But with that setup, it should normally ALWAYS guarantee two competitive leagues, as OU and Texas are always good, CU and NU SHOULD be good most years and then Mizzou and KU have been good recently and they're split as well.

For the most part, this conference isn't too big in terms of travel aside from us. I think it could work and if it was already in this setup, I contend that there wouldn't be as much griping about things because the league would be better off.

I don't foresee the North schools ever truly competing all the time with the South, so it's got to be mixed up. And hey, a CU-NU title tilt would be great!

Flip-flop CU and Nubs in their divisions and that would balance the big money teams and also have the Fusker-Sooner game as in-division.
 
Big 12 Commish Dan Beebe made some public response to the perceived threats to the conference:

Beebe: Big 12 can remain among best

among the most notable comments:

"I certainly am not trying to fiddle while Rome burns, and I'm not sticking my head in my sand," Beebe said Friday in an interview. "We're actively looking at all the options that may be available to us and making sure that our institutions understand the value we provide for them. I'm not taking anything for granted.
"But I feel pretty comfortable with where we are, and I think we're going to be in a good place in the future."
"I think you have to consider any change to your membership or where there's an interest in doing more with your membership in terms of having more institutions," Beebe said.
At the same time, he didn't push the issue, saying anything more than 12 could become cumbersome.

He acknowledged talking about a shared TV network possibility with both the Pac-10 and Atlantic Coast Conference. The proposal would also allow Big 12 schools a chance to maximize individual TV revenue. Think a possible Longhorn or Cornhusker cable network, for example.
"I don't think you can come out and say, 'We're going to do a traditional deal or we're going to do a network deal,' " Beebe said. "I think we have to be open to all possibilities."

"My understanding from our administrators ... is, 'If something moves, we have to look out for our best interests.' That's understandable," Beebe said.
 
Yeah Beebe...the answer to keeping the Big 12 together is definitely to arrange a TV setup to allow Nebraska or UT to set-up their own television networks...that will definitely help keep Colorado and Missouri in the fold. His responses are still all about what's best for the biggest schools rather than the conference as a whole. I dunno maybe the answer truly is they can't cobble something together that is competitive and FAIR given the league demographics. If that is the case maybe they are better breaking it up. The thing that people always seems to forget is that sports require competitors...worthy competitors...to provide an entertaining product and that takes resources. If the big 4 aren't interested in helping even the playing field then maybe we are better off looking for another conference that is.
 
Yeah Beebe...the answer to keeping the Big 12 together is definitely to arrange a TV setup to allow Nebraska or UT to set-up their own television networks...that will definitely help keep Colorado and Missouri in the fold.

Yep. The answer to what ails the conference is to make UT stronger and give them even more money. Brilliant move.
 
Fusker AD opens up (a little bit) about the expansion rumors taking over college football:

nothing earth-shattering, but interesting to hear the same talk from the "inside" as we hear on our board:

All I can tell fans right now is don’t think for one minute that we’re asleep at the switch, that we’re just sitting here waiting for something to happen to us.

“It’s much better to be proactive than reactive. I don’t think I’m free to say much more than that. We are very aware. We don’t plan to get left at the gate, although we could be. I just don’t know what’s going to happen in this environment.”

“it’s hard for me to believe that Texas could get a better deal”

“Now, with Missouri and Colorado — that’s a little different,” Osborne said of those teams possibly leaving the Big 12. “I don’t know what would happen there.”

“I think everybody right now is keeping their cards pretty close to the vest,” Osborne said. “I think if I called somebody and asked, ‘What are you going to do?’ I may not get a very accurate answer.”

Tom Osborne watching expansion talk
 
we were a lot hotter property in 1994 than we are now.
Absolutely. But I think the PAC10 is looking at us in the long term. I fully believe we will always be a competitive team. I expect us to turn it around soon. The first step when hitting the PAC12 would be hiring a brand new coach.

...I know. There's nothing that says we will be competitive in the future. I'm just wired a bit differently as a fan. I think CU should always be a ranked team. I just wish the school felt the same as I do. Maybe a conference change will inspire that attitude here. Not just with football, but all sports at CU.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. But I think the PAC10 is looking at us in the long term. I fully believe we will always be a competitive team. I expect us to turn it around soon. The first step when hitting the PAC12 would be hiring a brand new coach.

...I know. There's nothing that says we will be competitive in the future. I'm just wired a bit differently as a fan. I think CU should always be a ranked team. I just wish the school felt the same as I do. Maybe a conference change will inspire that attitude here. Not just with football, but all sports at CU.

For the record, I'm right there with you on your thought. I too see CU as a program that should be a default top 25 team year in, year out. I too see the Pac-10 looking at this as a long-term move. Take away the past few years and CU would have a much more positive rep. I'm thinking the Pac realizes that, and, with time, will turn it around in spite of what's going on now.
 
Since the name of the game in 2010 is media revenue, we are just as hot in 2010 as we were in 1994... and maybe hotter. Colorado has added nearly 2 million residents in that time, almost all in the Denver metro area.
 
Since the name of the game in 2010 is media revenue, we are just as hot in 2010 as we were in 1994... and maybe hotter. Colorado has added nearly 2 million residents in that time, almost all in the Denver metro area.

I disagree with this...CU has not been a hot media draw the last few years even locally. The CU - Nebraska game the last 2 years has been horrible rating wise (otherwise also) and ABC is pushing the Big 12 for a different game on that day.

Anyway the growth in Colorado does not necessarily translate into more loyalty to CU football/sports. Many of those people are from the midwest and bring their Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc loyalties.
 
That doesn't necessarily make us non-desireable as a media market. CO and Denver have one of the highest percentages of college graduates of the major media markets. Just like the rest of the CO growth boom, the majority of those folks were educated outside the state, probably most of them from the PAC 10 or Big 10 markets.
 
I disagree with this...CU has not been a hot media draw the last few years even locally. The CU - Nebraska game the last 2 years has been horrible rating wise (otherwise also) and ABC is pushing the Big 12 for a different game on that day.

Anyway the growth in Colorado does not necessarily translate into more loyalty to CU football/sports. Many of those people are from the midwest and bring their Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc loyalties.

You're sort of right, but it's less about the ratings you draw than the number of TV sets in your draw area. Ratings x Number of TVs translate to ad revenue (1 factor). TV sets alone translate to fees paid to get the station, which is huge if you can convince the Denver area Comcasts to put a Pac 10 Network on basic cable (bigger factor).
 
I disagree with this...CU has not been a hot media draw the last few years even locally. The CU - Nebraska game the last 2 years has been horrible rating wise (otherwise also) and ABC is pushing the Big 12 for a different game on that day.

Anyway the growth in Colorado does not necessarily translate into more loyalty to CU football/sports. Many of those people are from the midwest and bring their Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc loyalties.

The fact is the television ratings are pretty good. Check out this comparison from and article discussing CU to the Big 10.

bigten-1gif-cafc3a6ce509bd0a.gif


Article: http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2010/03/how_the_big_ten_network_makes.html
 
You're sort of right, but it's less about the ratings you draw than the number of TV sets in your draw area. Ratings x Number of TVs translate to ad revenue (1 factor). TV sets alone translate to fees paid to get the station, which is huge if you can convince the Denver area Comcasts to put a Pac 10 Network on basic cable (bigger factor).

Advertisers pay on ratings not TV sets. You are correct that subscription fees are key but you are not going to get any conference network on a basic cable package. Basic cable is priced to get people to sign up so it is loaded with low subscription fee networks.
I maintain the TV sets are more valuable in Big 12 region versus PAC 10 due to a much higher conversion ratio to watch Big 12 sports. Why do you think the Big 12 has a better contact vesus the PAC 10.
 
I guess I look at that and I don't see it as pretty good. We beat out Rutgers and Syracuse....but we are way behind the other teams and about even with Missouri.

I am assuming that it is the rating within the 16th largest TV market which is pretty good overall TV number.
 
Advertisers pay on ratings not TV sets. You are correct that subscription fees are key but you are not going to get any conference network on a basic cable package. Basic cable is priced to get people to sign up so it is loaded with low subscription fee networks.
I maintain the TV sets are more valuable in Big 12 region versus PAC 10 due to a much higher conversion ratio to watch Big 12 sports. Why do you think the Big 12 has a better contact vesus the PAC 10.

You're right about "Basic". I should have said "Extended Basic": in the package deals but not a "pay if you want it" channel or part of a special sports package only (and also on DirectTV and Dish). BTN is on Extended Basic pretty much nationally and also in Canada. Those fees matter more than advertising.

But advertising matters and advertisers certainly pay based on the number of televisions reached. Both ratings and market size are primary metrics used. A small share in Los Angeles is worth a hell of a lot more than a large share in Spokane.

For overnight ad revenue (long-form infomercials), tv households becomes much more important than the lead-in or overall network ratings. Rates are almost totally set by the number of households reached.
 
I am assuming that it is the rating within the 16th largest TV market which is pretty good overall TV number.

Pretty sure it was the average national rating for all national broadcasts. Totally skewed, actually. CU Sunday game vs. CSU was in there on FSN, so was CU Friday game at Toledo. Nebraska #s didn't have games like that on their national schedule and also had the Big 12 Championship plus its Bowl game, which are going to help its numbers. Not an apples-to-apples look. Heck, any ranked team is going to get a ratings bump. I'm actually shocked we pulled as well as Missouri considering the games we had nationally and the fact we sucked.
 
Since people are talking about TV contracts and Networks - here are some things to think about.

The SEC megacontract was signed when advertising rates were much higher. (Read before the downturn in economy).
GM was the largest Television Advertiser before bankruptcy and has cut its advertising significantly. It is refocusing is switching to targeted advertising...pulled out of the Superbowl and is going after shows that women watch.
NBC expect to lose money on the Winter Olympics.
Advertising revenues for TV and Cable are down sharply - 17% is a good average over the last two years. TV ad revenue peaked in 2007.
Pepsi pulled out of Superbowl Advertising.

What does all these things mean? It may not be that easy to sign a long term Mega Contract like the SEC did.

The PAC 10 TV contract due to expire in 2012 and obviously want to start negotiating soon but now is not a good time to be negotiating TV deals.

What sort of guarantee can the Pac 10 offer CU right now, without a contract in hand it seems difficult to guarantee anything.

The Network sounds interesting but I think it becomes more interesting if the Big 12 and PAC 10 did a joint Network.

Everyone is trying to spin the PAC10 but financially I suspect it is not going to be all that great - this year the PAC 10 might only have 1 team in the NCAA tourney and the Big 12 might get 7.

I am in favor of doing whatever has the most financial benefit for CU (I don't care about the rest of it). I remain skeptical that the PAC 10 is that solution and I am definitely in favor of a long look before making any move.
 
Pretty sure it was the average national rating for all national broadcasts. Totally skewed, actually. CU Sunday game vs. CSU was in there on FSN, so was CU Friday game at Toledo. Nebraska #s didn't have games like that on their national schedule and also had the Big 12 Championship plus its Bowl game, which are going to help its numbers. Not an apples-to-apples look. Heck, any ranked team is going to get a ratings bump. I'm actually shocked we pulled as well as Missouri considering the games we had nationally and the fact we sucked.

According to the notes at the bottom of the graphic the ratings were only based on national games that were on ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN, or ESPN2, therefore the CSU game wouldn't be included in those ratings. They have us listed as having had 5 national games on these networks, which off the top of my head were the Toledo, OSU, WV, Texas, and Nebraska games.

But having said that, your point is still valid about it not being an apples-to-apples comparison. :smile2:

I'm surprised that Pitt's ratings were so good, that has to get the attention of the Big 10, especially given that their opponents other than ND and possibly Cincy weren't all that attractive.
 
Last edited:
The Pitt/Cincy snow game got a huge number on that Sat..


It should be interesting to see what the Big 10 does in there expansion pick.. I think Pitt is by far the best candidate in terms of location, facilities, academics and athletic program history but I'm not sure they add a whole lot to the Big 10 since they already have Penn State..
 
Back
Top