1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Winners and Losers

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by MiamiBuffs, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Losers

    1. Pac-10. Commissioner Larry Scott went from potentially nabbing Texas and Oklahoma to instead getting Colorado and most likely Utah. That is not an upgrade for a conference that is desperate to gain the respect — and the eyeballs — of people on the East Coast. Colorado is in disarray. Utah had had very solid football program but does it add ratings and interest to a league that is going to struggle now that USC is going to hit bottom thanks to NCAA sanctions?

    2. Colorado. While the Buffs have always wanted to align themselves with the Pac-10, they probably didn’t envision this scenario. Losing an alliance with Texas and Oklahoma is going to hurt. Both are more powerful than any team remaining in the Pac-10. They also are going to be losing out on a windfall of cash. It’s yet to be seen whether the Pac-10 will be able to start its own network with a 12-team lineup and how successful it could be with cash flow.

    3. Mountain West. Back to the drawing board. The Mountain West added Boise St. but is poised to lose Utah, leaving it essentially where it was a week ago. Losing Utah means its chances of becoming an automatic qualifying school would drop significantly.

    4. FOX. The appeal of starting a Pac-10 network is not nearly as great now.

    5. Jerry Jones. The Cowboys owner had brokered a deal to have his new stadium host the Big 12 championship game through 2013. But there will no longer be a Big 12 championship game after the 2010 season.



    Winners

    1. Texas. Sheer genius for the Longhorns here. They get between $20 to $25 million a year to stay, if you believe the reports. They get the green light to start their own network. They get rid of the irksome conference championship game. They get even more power. They get rid of Nebraska, which had been a headache. What more could have gone right? Now, Texas is perfectly positioned when the superconference era begins. Why? Because it will have already started its own network and will bring it along wherever it lands. The major sticking point for joining the Pac-10 was just that. If you want Texas going forward, you gotta take the network, too.

    2. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and Missouri. Whew. Just last week it appeared the Oceanic 5 would be left without a BCS conference. Now each is expected to rake in double the amount of revenue from TV money.

    3. Dan Beebe. From goat to savior in a three- day span. But this was not all his doing …

    4. ESPN. The network essentially won this round with FOX, which wanted nothing more than to start a Pac-10 network with a super-sized conference that featured Texas, Oklahoma and company. Now ESPN gets to keep its foothold into Texas, and keep FOX from essentially spanning the nation (FOX owns 49 percent of the Big Ten network).

    5. SEC. Right there with ESPN is the SEC and commissioner Mike Slive. If you read between the lines of this story about a wide group of people coming together to stop the Pac-10 from going to 16 teams, you can guess Slive was most likely involved. Why? Watching the Pac-10 grow to 16 teams is against the interests of most of the influential people in college football — and obviously against the interests of the most powerful league in America. The SEC wants Texas and Oklahoma but is not in position to get them at this time. No way was it going to let the Pac-10 wrestle them away.
     
  2. SteelCity Buff

    SteelCity Buff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    6
    Can't argue much with the losers, but I think the winners could be revised. I seriously doubt the big Tex will survive long. I still think Mizzou will eventually land in the b10; it may be 5 years down the road, but the b10 will keep making googoo eyes at ND, and should ND continue to suck, they'll eventually take the offer, which would probably require taking another team to keep divisions at equal numbers. Should UT have to go looking for a new conference in a few years, their network won't be coming along.

    The SEC is the real winner. I know they just cut a new TV deal, but a Pac 16 could've cut into there leverage come time for their next deal. Me thinks Aggie got played to the hilt by the SEC, only to be left sucking UT's tit.

    Short term, the Buffs don't look as good, but I think long-term that the Pac is such a better deal. UT will eventually devour the big12.
     
  3. TheEvilBeak

    TheEvilBeak Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    20
    I'm not so sure about #2. What Mr. Beebe estimates the new figure to be and what is actually is in a few years when Stations get a load of the lower ratings will be 2 entirely different things.

    I think the other B12 teams were blindsided by all of the movement and really had to take what they were force fed. The B12 will implode sooner rather than later and then all those teams will have to adhere to whatever the adopting Conference dictates.
     
  4. SanDiegoBuff

    SanDiegoBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    56
    Not sure you can call CU a loser for losing out on a windfall of cash. Looking at things long term, which no one wants to do in today's society, you can pretty much flip the winners and losers.

    If CU, NU or both had stayed, there never would've been this much turmoil to drive the TV deal, and Beebee would've gone with the status quo crap TV deal he's good for.

    OK, the members staying got more money, great, when their TV contract is up in 18 years, the Pac-12 will be making, per team, double what the Big 12 is making.

    The Pac-10 has an old TV deal that's being renegotiated, even without their own network, they'll still be looking at, AT LEAST, the $14-$17m a year that UTs prison brides are getting.

    Ultimately, this was the first move in the inevitable. Larry Scott swung for the fences, didn't get the home run, but still got a solid double. CU, Utah and the Pac-10 are all better for the recent events. The UT and it's 9 dwarves conference is better for the recent events... for now.
     
  5. TheEvilBeak

    TheEvilBeak Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    20


    Good list here but I think long term CU may come out ahead. I don't think they had a chance in the B12 to surpass Texas, OU, NU and maybe even Mizzou as it stood. Just too many disadvantages to overcome.

    I do think they can make some noise in the PAC 10 now that they aren't stuck in the P12 South as was anticipated. I think the P10 will still struggle to land a massive TV Contract due to the time zone and East Coast bias. The P10 was really banking on the 2 big names to come along.
     
  6. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,654
    Likes Received:
    523
    Good summary MB. Alot of people are thrilled about UT not becoming part of the Pac but the reality is that this greatly diminishes the Pac's negotiating power when it comes to their new TV contract.
     
  7. Matt

    Matt Nerd Drone Pilot Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    8,046
    Likes Received:
    785
    I totally agree with everything but Colorado. I think they are winners for getting out of the Big 12. The school is a better fit for the 12 Pac. While I didn't want to be in a conference with Texas and their entourage, you can not ignore the fact Texas and their market would have been a huge $$$ to the Pac 10. Will be intereresting to see what kind of TV deal the Pac 12 can get with just a really bad CU football team and Utah added.
     
  8. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,534
    Likes Received:
    4,527
    I don't think the P10 was banking on Texas. I think the idea that Texas might come along was attractive to them for obvious reasons, but I don't think it was part of their model going into this.

    The Pac just wrapped up every major media market west of Kansas. They now control 6 of the top 16 media markets in the country. They are in states that are all increasing in population. The Pac would have been in great shape with or without UT. The money won't be as good as it would have with them, but the headaches will be considerably less.

    The idea that any conference that controls that many media markets is somehow a loser is absurd.
     
  9. Del

    Del Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    24
    Winners - 1. Athletic Directors, Coaches at all levels, University Presidents, and Conference Commissioners and the BCS - They are really the only people who benefit with the mega sized TV deals - just more money for them to line their pockets and up the anti for coaching contracts.

    Losers- 1. Fans - especially Texas fans - increased prices for season tickets to pay for the increasing costs in the coaching and facilities arms race and a poorer on field product i.e. less exciting home games against Iowa State, K-State, Baylor. Prolonging a college football playoff now that the realignment has slowed.
    2. Have nots - An even bigger gap between the haves and have-nots in revenue - the rich get way richer and the poor get a couple of extra food stamps and lotto tickets. -- Honesty the whole thing stinks and college athletics has lost a lot of respect as a whole in the process
     
  10. GoBuffs08

    GoBuffs08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    647
    How you can say CU is a loser in this makes no sense. CU being done with all things Texass is a win every day. Worse case CU still makes more in PAC than they did in the Big12. CU would have been a big loser in all of this if PAC went to 16 and we would have been in a conference with UT, OU, and everyone else from the Big12. Yeah the tv $ would have been great, but getting stuck in a conference with the big12 south would have been worse than staying in the big12 north.

    Everyone left in the Big12 not named UT or OU are the losers, especially the north teams like KU and MU. Sure they are happy today because they have a conference to play in but with the new UT network UT and OU will get $20-$25mil, but with the revenue sharing, if you are not UT or OU, you will be lucky to get $10-$14. What did ISU make is conference distributions last year, maybe $8 mil? They will be lucky under the new tv contract if they get more than $10-$11 mil.

    Basically the two powers in UT and OU will continue to bring in much more money, making it even harder for everyone else to compete. UT strong armed everyone except OU into agreeing to this, because the alternative was KU and MU without a conference or in the MWC. Things like the proposed UT tv network are the reason that the Nubs could not leave fast enough, and it is a good thing CU got out when they did.
     
  11. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,534
    Likes Received:
    4,527
    And is Texas really a winner in this? Short term, no doubt about it. They'll be free to negotiate a new TV deal and make gobs of money. What happens when the B12 goes the way of the SWC, though? As has been mentioned a bunch of times, a conference is only as strong as it's weakest member. Iowa State, Kansas State & Baylor could decide that they can't afford to try to keep up with UT, and they'll quit. They'll go down a division. Or they'll seek out a minor conference affiliation. The conference that UT just created is about as fragile as it can be. There's no long-term sustainability built in to this conference. Every conference member is looking for a way OUT.
     
  12. Saulbadguy

    Saulbadguy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    8
    Winners = EMAW
    Losers = Everyone else.

    :silvercup:
     
  13. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,534
    Likes Received:
    4,527
    I know you're joking. KSU got a death sentence reprieve. I suppose that's a win for them. If I were you, I'd be scared to death. Enjoy big boy football for as long as you can. The clock has started.
     
  14. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,472
    Likes Received:
    2,360
    Disagree,

    Winners:

    Nebraska - Lots more money, don't have to deal with Texas, similar schools in their part of the country. They should be beyond happy.

    Colorado - Gets out from under the thumb of Texas and it's tag-a-long allies. The TV contracts in the future for the PAC are going to be richer than the Big Texas conference gets and Colorado will receive much more equitable payouts. Colorado also gets schedules against much more appealing teams and exposure on the west coast. Playing ISU and KSU didn't do squat for us year in and year out.

    PAC10 - Texas would have added a bunch of eyeballs and increased the TV value but bringing along their buddies (TT, OSU as a result of OU, aTm) would have simply dilluted that money back out again, Texas also wanted, as usual, a bigger piece of the pie for themselves and to call the shots, and their buddies would back them on that. The PAC10 loses some viewers but saves themselves a ton of grief that would not have resulted in any substantial gain for them. The PAC is down right now but their national appeal for TV is still higher than the Big XII overall, kind of like ND, they get attention even when they suck.

    FOX - adding Colorado and Utah means that a PAC 10 network would have strong appeal over not only the west coast but also throughout the mountain time zone. This is a bigger and richer footprint than the Big X has. FOX isn't dissapointed, especially since they don't have to contend with a Texas network with Texas schools playing in the PAC. FOX puts the PAC 10 network in a bundle with the Big X network and tells the Big X to F-off.

    Texas - Texas was going to win no matter how this all turned out, they have the wallets and the power that that brings. Now they don't even have to pretend to care about the other schools in their conference. The only ones who can make any attempt to stand up to them is OU and they are really Texas north anyways. Now they get to keep even a bigger share of the money, don't have to argue with CU and NU, can make their own network, and have all the championships in their own backyard.

    Losers

    KU, ISU,KSU,MU, - Bend over and take it and pretend like you like it. They were screwed either way with reorgainzation but now they are completely under the thumb of Texas and their cartel. They didn't have much choice and are going to suffer for it. Mizzou may eventually escape if ND decides to stay independant due to the KC and St Louis media markets. The rest may end up wondering if they were not better off with the MWC.

    For the rest it is fairly neutral. ESPN is still going to have to contend with FOX. The Big X/PAC 10 alliance is alive and well and will be a force in the cable TV world.

    The SEC would like to have Texas and OU, again they don't want all the baggage. I think eventually UT and OU end up in the SEC, a conference full of schools with similar priorities and attitudes about football and money.

    Dan Beebe - Still has a job, but with even less authority than before.

    Jerry Jones - Despite what they are saying (and their long history of honesty and openness) I think the Texas X adds a couple more schools so they can have their CCG and Jerry Gets it. If/when UT/OU go to the SEC he will be a player for that CCG as well as some other big games. Guys like Jerry manage to come out okay in the end.

    MWC - likely still get their autobid based on Boises record, having Utah along with Boise, TCU, BYU would have given them a much higher profile but on the other hand their bottom schools were saved (for now) from a complete reorganization that would have left them out in the cold entirely.
     
  15. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    25,004
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    UT got a lot of what they wanted, but one salient fact remains, ANY time it comes down to an SEC, ACC, Pac 10 school with a similar record for MNC purposes, the B12 (or UT and the 9 bitches league) will lose out because the B12 will be percieved to be the weak sister, UT prison bride league they are. Winning that one won't mean much more than winning the MWC.
     
  16. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    25,004
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    I was wondering where yo were in all this. Doesn't it bother you for KjSU to be a dingleberry on Bevo's sack? I'm not even sure the MWC was looking at KjSU if the B12 imploded. You guys should be happy the Big Texas league survived.
     
  17. Saulbadguy

    Saulbadguy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    8
    Not at all. Kansas State has a limited appeal due to it's small population, and not having a strong football tradition. The former won't change dramatically anytime soon, and the latter probably won't change, and even if it did, I doubt it would matter due to the former.

    The MWC and Big East were possible destinations for Kansas State if the Big XII imploded. I see this as the best case scenario. I'd say the conference is about the same football wise due to each team having to play one another now. Losing Nebraska is almost canceled out by losing Colorado. In basketball, we are much better off without the 2 worst teams in the conference.

    Texas is Texas. They will be competitive regardless of what conference they are in, and being linked to them only helps us when recruiting for all sports.
     
  18. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,596
    Likes Received:
    4,722
    Clearly the Pac wanted Texas and the others. However, if it wasn't important enough for them to take Texas under Texas' terms, then I believe the Pac must be comfortable with the situation they are in. I don't think you can call them "losers." If Texas was THAT important, then they would have given in.
     
  19. SuperiorBuff

    SuperiorBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,765
    Likes Received:
    1,126
    Nobody who refuses to bend over and take something they don't want is a loser.
     
  20. The Guest

    The Guest Guest

    Holy Jesus, DBT, for the second time today (I forget the first, somewhat ironically) you've synthesized a lucid point from a bunch of loose ends. Well done.
     
  21. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,534
    Likes Received:
    4,527
    I'm pretty sure that Scott was given instructions along the lines of "we want Texas, but we won't change our model to accommodate them". Obviously, UT wanted the Pac to change it's model, just like the Big 8 did. I'm very proud of the Pac for telling UT to go screw themselves. In another 10 years, the Pac will still be around. The Big 12 won't.
     
  22. SINKRATZ

    SINKRATZ Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,183
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Bingo. I'm increasingly impressed with Larry Scott. Many people would have been blinded by the money Texas would haver brought in, but his job is also to preserve the longterm viability of his conference. It takes some big stones to look Texas in the eye and say "thanks anyway, we'll pass". The media outlets will all report that Texas turned down the Pac 10, but really UT was there for the taking, but the Pac 10 wasn't prepared to bend over to get them.

    Bravo Larry Scott, I'm more sure than ever that this was the right move.
     
  23. rodrigo

    rodrigo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    96
    Winners: CU fans.

    Something to talk about other than Hawkins.
     
  24. The Guest

    The Guest Guest

    I think you underestimate BuffWings.
     
  25. Corn_Fan

    Corn_Fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    15

    I agree with this NU and CU are both big time winners especially compared to the rest of the Big XII North.

    The irony of the original post which had CU a loser and ISU, KSU, KU and MU winners is that the remaining North schools have CU (and NU) to thank for them getting more money in 2 parts: No way Beebe gets the tv deal without NU and CU leaving because it was an act of deperation. Why didn't Beebe make that tv deal happen a month ago? Secondly, Beebe used the possible penalty money for CU and NU leaving as incentive for the remaining schools to stay. Without CU and NU leaving, this negoation tactic does not exist.

    Texas could be a winner and a loser. A winner because like you said, they were bound to be but a loser in the sense that now everyone has seen their hand. Texas does NOT want to leave the Big XII nor let the Big XII fail because they control it. Also, conferences like the SEC, Pac 10 and Big Ten just got a big eye opener about how Texas "negotiates." I have read more than one writer in Big Ten country say over the past couple of days they had no idea Texas was so power hungry and greedy.
     
  26. NW Buff

    NW Buff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,125
    Likes Received:
    741
    You forgot one...

    Winner
    Me - Buffs playing more on the West Coast :smile2:
     
  27. boulder77

    boulder77 Certified Organic Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,170
    Likes Received:
    356
    Gotta agree with MtnBuff across the board.

    Lost potential revenue does not mean that we don't come out ahead anyway (winning $100 rather than a jackpot on a $2 lotto ticket is better than not winning anything at all). Reading between the lines, I'm getting the sense that CU wasn't banking on a 16 team conference, and in fact have been planning for a 12 team one all along.

    Goodbye, dysfunctional Big XII. We did the very best thing for us.
     
  28. Unleash Hell

    Unleash Hell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,246
    Likes Received:
    654
    I would have to agree more with this list than Miami's. And I still think in the long run, Texas will come out losers in this.
     
  29. BuffNut99

    BuffNut99 Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    13,088
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Sorry Miami, I couldn't disagree more, except for the Jerry Jones and Fox part because they're already going to hell. Colorado and the Pac 10 are WINNERS today - the new deal will be awesome and will dwarf what CU would have seen in the Big 12 or anywhere else, short or long term. The Pac 10 is going to jump from $50M/year to $200-$300M a year, even without Texas.

    And Texas is a total loser in this. Sure, they'll get a bigger piece of the pie (a pie they already owned, but no new deal yet) but it's a nasty pie with maggots that is going to implode within 3-5 years. They'll probably be in the Pac 10 eventually anyway, so now they're stuck with a ****ty conference and missed out on a larger ultimate payday and more prestige. They're already richer than anyone else so, is a few extra million a year worth being the captain of a sinking ship, not to mention pissing off your fanbase? What happens to the Big 12 when one of the maligned North teams grabs the next available parachute? See Conference, Southwest.
     
  30. FChairbanks

    FChairbanks muthaka slayer Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,678
    Likes Received:
    712
    my question is, does beebe actually have a tv deal to deliver? i don't see it happening, and certainly not on a sustainable basis. unless they are looking at something equivalent to the quality of "the mountain"...

    the other issue is, what is the actual split between the remaining teams for the "penalty money"? i read somewhere (possibly that shaggybevo.com link) that ut, ou, and atm get to split over half of it among themselves, with the remaining going to the other seven teams...

    we escaped in the nick of time, imho...
     

Share This Page