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!
2018 Offseason Realignment Thread (because Duff loves this ****)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Because going to Provo, Utah for a road game sounds horrible. No nightlife, scenery we already get in our own state and a non P5 team.
Other than for LDS I don't get the love for playing BYU. They aren't like playing Notre Dame which gives you national attention. Beating BYU doesn't get the attention of national fans, losing to BYU is seen as losing to a G5 team.
In no way should they get the kind of treatment the ACC gives ND, they are not ND in terms of public reputation or prestige, or most importantly revenue generation.
The only way the PAC should add new members is as full and equal members and the reasons why that won't happen with BYU have been discussed here before.
Unfortunately for the PAC there aren't any schools in the existing footprint that justify full membership with their revenue potential. No UNLV, Boise, UNM, etc. will not generate enough TV interest to justify a share of the conference revenues.
The only way that expansion makes financial sense is to step outside the footprint and take schools from the B12. I hate what Texas does to conferences but they would definitely increase the conference revenue potential. Oklahoma would do it also. Kansas could potentially. Most of the rest either would cost the conference schools money or would simply be unacceptable to most of the existing members for non-athletic reasons.
Provo isn't that far from Salt Lake City. And if you think BYU fans are required to follow their Honor Code, I have this photo to show you.
Sat Lake is fine but we already have a road trip there every other year so why would we want another one? People like to spend time in college towns, not have to drive an hour to enjoy themselves in some other city that is also LDS dominated W/O a great nightlife.Provo isn't that far from Salt Lake City. And if you think BYU fans are required to follow their Honor Code, I have this photo to show you.
True. It's a cycle, though. Some of that is that unlike some other institutions they actually take some of that religious imperative seriously and don't pay their coaches anywhere close to market rate. They are going to have to decide whether they're willing to pay like a Power conference school or whether they want to be like St. Mary's with football and huge facilities.
Keep convincing yourself that Houston would be a big get but it's not a school that would move the needle
Agree, Houston is NOT UNLV.
Last edited:
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
The only way to significantly improve revenue per-school in the Pac-12 is to:
1) Add Texas and Oklahoma -or-
2) Drop Oregon State and Washington State -or-
3) Do both 1 and 2.
Trading Oregon State or Washington State for Kansas could have some improvement but it wouldn't be as significant.
Texas delivers Austin/San Antonio/Houston TV Markets; Oklahoma delivers OKC/Tulsa; and the pair of them deliver DFW TV market. There is no need to add any other current Big 12 program except the fact that Texas and Oklahoma want to still play their rivals to maintain local/regional interest/ratings. Doing that starts to dilute the revenue per school once again.
The biggest problem is the lack of diehard fans towards Pac-12 football/basketball compared to SEC, Big Ten, and even Big 12 and ACC.
USC is the "flagship" program of the conference and would only rank in the bottom half of SEC attendance and in the middle of the Big Ten; they would be 3rd in the either the ACC or Big 12.
Average attendance for the Pac-12 was 35% below the SEC and 25% below the Big Ten. The ACC is slightly below the Pac-12 but they have much higher profile and successful top end programs like Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville, and Virginia Tech and play on the East Coast so they are much more TV friendly than the Pac-12. The same could be said for the Big 12 who are 15% higher in attendance, but with Oklahoma the flagship school being a top 10 powerhouse in front of 90k fans and healthy rivalries with Okie State, Texas, and TCU, and in the Central time zone, it makes for better TV ratings.
The West Coast ambivalence towards football is similar to the Northeast U.S (how come a NY based school doesn't dominate in football?) There are just too many other things that compete for the attention of TV watchers and fans. There are many pros and cons to having football be a "religion" and not every school wants that profile so the trade off is only natural that advertisers won't pour money in that direction with the same ratio. I think this is exactly why CU left the Big XII is to get away from the "football school" arms race mentality in the Big XII. The administration has been trying to keep football "in its place" for two decades now and joining the Pac-12 was a big step in doing that. While everyone wants (hopes) to be competitive in all sports, they don't want to sell their soul to do it. This past year should show to everyone that doing those things just isn't sustainable anymore (see Arizona, Baylor, etc) and even a relatively small incident like Tumpkin situation could have much bigger program impact than it would have in the past (being covered up/swept under the rug).
This means the presidents are willing to forego several millions of dollars per year to not allow that to happen. If the football fans want this from CU going forward it just isn't going to happen. Unless there is a paradigm shift from elite recruits and TV networks/advertisers to have the same values when selecting programs to attend/sponsor; the future is not to return to the past program like Coach Mac but rather one that resembles the current one.
There are certainly some steps that can be taken with respect to maximizing revenue that should have some improvements and CU can explore some on their own (like using the Rocky Mountain Showdown at Mile High Stadium as a way to host an extra home game via it being a "neutral site game" every year against national opponents like Nebraska, Notre Dame, BYU, Air Force, Miami, etc.
1) Add Texas and Oklahoma -or-
2) Drop Oregon State and Washington State -or-
3) Do both 1 and 2.
Trading Oregon State or Washington State for Kansas could have some improvement but it wouldn't be as significant.
Texas delivers Austin/San Antonio/Houston TV Markets; Oklahoma delivers OKC/Tulsa; and the pair of them deliver DFW TV market. There is no need to add any other current Big 12 program except the fact that Texas and Oklahoma want to still play their rivals to maintain local/regional interest/ratings. Doing that starts to dilute the revenue per school once again.
The biggest problem is the lack of diehard fans towards Pac-12 football/basketball compared to SEC, Big Ten, and even Big 12 and ACC.
USC is the "flagship" program of the conference and would only rank in the bottom half of SEC attendance and in the middle of the Big Ten; they would be 3rd in the either the ACC or Big 12.
Average attendance for the Pac-12 was 35% below the SEC and 25% below the Big Ten. The ACC is slightly below the Pac-12 but they have much higher profile and successful top end programs like Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville, and Virginia Tech and play on the East Coast so they are much more TV friendly than the Pac-12. The same could be said for the Big 12 who are 15% higher in attendance, but with Oklahoma the flagship school being a top 10 powerhouse in front of 90k fans and healthy rivalries with Okie State, Texas, and TCU, and in the Central time zone, it makes for better TV ratings.
The West Coast ambivalence towards football is similar to the Northeast U.S (how come a NY based school doesn't dominate in football?) There are just too many other things that compete for the attention of TV watchers and fans. There are many pros and cons to having football be a "religion" and not every school wants that profile so the trade off is only natural that advertisers won't pour money in that direction with the same ratio. I think this is exactly why CU left the Big XII is to get away from the "football school" arms race mentality in the Big XII. The administration has been trying to keep football "in its place" for two decades now and joining the Pac-12 was a big step in doing that. While everyone wants (hopes) to be competitive in all sports, they don't want to sell their soul to do it. This past year should show to everyone that doing those things just isn't sustainable anymore (see Arizona, Baylor, etc) and even a relatively small incident like Tumpkin situation could have much bigger program impact than it would have in the past (being covered up/swept under the rug).
This means the presidents are willing to forego several millions of dollars per year to not allow that to happen. If the football fans want this from CU going forward it just isn't going to happen. Unless there is a paradigm shift from elite recruits and TV networks/advertisers to have the same values when selecting programs to attend/sponsor; the future is not to return to the past program like Coach Mac but rather one that resembles the current one.
There are certainly some steps that can be taken with respect to maximizing revenue that should have some improvements and CU can explore some on their own (like using the Rocky Mountain Showdown at Mile High Stadium as a way to host an extra home game via it being a "neutral site game" every year against national opponents like Nebraska, Notre Dame, BYU, Air Force, Miami, etc.
I made it through two cups of coffee reading this. Impressive.
....but at the same time we bemoan out of jealousy the revenues of those other guys that are in conferences that totally serve the interests of TV.
This thread is a new version that rehashes the same old problems;
- There is no school within the current footprint that moves the needle in terms of a bigger TV contract for the Pac12 if they joined.
- There are not many good options outside the Pac12 footprint but there are a few (that all said they are not interested) that *might* get P12 a bigger contract.
- There is more population density east of the Mississippi river as well as a more fervent set of fans inside a smaller geographic area (all of which is Larry Scott's fault).
I don't think the subject of conference contraction gets enough attention. Regarding schools who are not holding up their financially workload, I absolutely favor giving them a path to either correct or to exit the conference. I would love to see the ACC jettison Wake Forest and Boston College.
My first reaction to OSU and WSU was that you weren't being fair to Wazzou, but I tried to research the numbers a bit. It's hard. UU is bringing up the rear in revenue of Pac schools, but revenue to a school (or even athletic funding surplus/deficit) doesn't necessarily correlate to the value that school brings to the conference as a whole (especially since the private schools don't report). I'm sure that the conference commissioners have models for estimating this and would be fascinated to see how that his considered.
The TV market is changing and I believe that in the next round of TV negotiations, having a school in any given metro area will not be nearly as important as having quality content (e.g. Rutgers and the NY TV market they allegedly bring won't mean shjt to the B1G in a decade).
This thread is a new version that rehashes the same old problems;
- There is no school within the current footprint that moves the needle in terms of a bigger TV contract for the Pac12 if they joined.
- There are not many good options outside the Pac12 footprint but there are a few (that all said they are not interested) that *might* get P12 a bigger contract.
- There is more population density east of the Mississippi river as well as a more fervent set of fans inside a smaller geographic area (all of which is Larry Scott's fault).
Now that the Pac-12 leadership has overtly stated that revenue is secondary, we need to start looking at this differently.
It's about western research universities that increase interest from international graduate student candidates. UNLV is definitely in the picture if it attains Carnegie Tier 1 Research status in the next ratings. New Mexico is definitely in the picture as the partner for a Pac-14 if UNM maintains that status in the next ratings. Or CSU.
ABQ or LAS? Or more DEN?
I'd say your on the mark there.
Maybe the Univ of British Columbia will shorten their fields to the normal size so we can add their football team. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBC_Thunderbirds
Globally ranked Univ in the top 50 too.
Last edited:
Careful what you wish for . We haven't been setting the world on fire.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Certainly it isn't always about on-the-field performance, although that should factor in if it is really poor; but Wazzou and Oregon State only cannibalize existing markets that the Pac-12 wouldn't lose if they left. Ratings always matter, not just the size of the market but it does speak to the potential value. Arizona is in a mediocre market as well, but probably move the needle enough in Phoenix to stay relevant. I would think CU would be just fine during such a review.
Another alternative would be for conferences to form larger alliances. It felt like something along those lines was possible before the realignment craze hit hard and fast.
For example, the Rose Bowl Affiliation of the Big Ten and Pac-12 now becomes a formal bargaining group to negotiate TV contracts, content, and licensing deals for all of its member schools with one commissioner. Each "conference" is now like a division of a conference as far as inter-scholastic scheduling but a single administrative group can handle the running of conference business affairs, marketing, rules/officiating, etc for all 26 programs. If a conference office can run a 9 or 10 team conference just as easily as a 14 team conference; why would going from 14/16 to a 26 team affiliation be any different; there would just be a few incremental staff additions but you would probably have lots of overlap that could be managed more efficiently.
Now the group would have programs in every time zone and no delivery system or content carrier could resist them in negotiations. Quite possibly, the ACC and Big XII would form a similar group to stay competitive. Maybe this also is a trigger for more conference reshuffling as big teams in smaller conferences would then jump at the chance to join in.
Revenue would have nothing to do with OSU & WSU being potentially shown the door...it's more of a fit issue for the conference. Every Pac-12 school save for those two are located in large urban cities or within a large metropolitan area. Pullman is about 1 hour and 30 mins to Spokane. Corvalis is 51 minutes away from Eugene and 1 hour 31 minutes away from Portland. Pac-12 isn't that much different from C-USA or the ACC. VT might be in the smallest metro area in the ACC but the Wikipedia page says about at least 150k in that area and the same could be said about Western Kentucky. Pullman does not even hit 50k for its own county and Corvallis still is below 100k for its county or area. BC and WF would qualify for the ACC under those circumstances.
I don't think the importance of TV markets are going to be lessened. If so, Gonzaga wouldn't be as attractive as they are since they are in Spokane along with the Couer D Alene area in Idaho which has about 800k people. You still would rely on those large urban areas for streaming since it's still a numbers game especially when it comes to attendance at football games which could become a big deal again.
Utah is a long term project and the PAC in the past did the same way with both Arizona schools before they exploded in population. Just drive up and down I-15 in Salt Lake City and you will realize that area's population will be definitely higher in the future.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
**** UTerus and anyone that wants them in the Pac.
Agreed, I'd rather dry hump a sweaty Sean Miller.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
The only thing that makes sense with respect to BYU is a type of arrangement like the one Notre Dame has with the ACC (minus allowing all their other stuff in our league). They play 2-3 Pac 12 teams a year.......give em a couple more games with Pac 12 teams. Its better for us as a league because there's less of a chance for Oregon and WSU to beat up on the little sisters of the poor or whoever they're playing (all I know is none of those six happen to be P5 teams). As far as us playing BYU, its gotta be a two for one or at the minimum something like Arizona did with them (home and home plus a game in Phoenix). In fact, give me them over CSU any day. Let's do it 2023-25. I want at least a decade without seeing that game on our schedule after 2020.
So Tulane and Houston?
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
That ain't happenin'. The politicians in those two states wouldn't allow it. As far what @SuperiorBuff says.......that's the only expansion for this league that makes sense. BYU isn't an expansion candidate for us because of the religious issue. San Diego State and UNLV? We've got enough alums in those markets to where we practically have them anyway. Boise? Not good enough academically from what I know. New Mexico? A little bit of a case can be made there......but you'd have at least add another school with them. The only way expansion makes sense for this league is pulling out of the Big 12, and that's going to have to start with UT or Oklahoma. What concerns me about the shape this conference is in under Larry Scott is we're getting far enough behind the other major conferences to where making a move like that and making more concessions to Texas than we should is becoming more and more of a possibility.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Falling further behind as a conference is far, far, really ****ing far better than having UTerus come over to destroy their 3rd conference.
BYU doesn't bring enough to the table to justify regular membership or a special ND type deal.
Notre Dame gets away with it because they are possibly the single biggest national name in college football. Like em' or hate em' they draw attention and generate revenues. That's the same reason they get special consideration in the P5 and why P5 schools are willing to play them at sites of Notre Dame's choosing.
BYU is none of that. BYU is the school that gets the Thursday night slot on a minor ESPN channel, they are the school has to schedule 2 for 1s to get top 20 historic schools to schedule them. They are the school that gets beat by Boise and nobody notices much.
If CU could get them to do a 2 for 1 I'd be fine with that. We have been trying to recruit Utah and have had some success signing LDS kids from the Pacific Coast states. I wouldn't give them a special deal though.