Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

And the mack-10 blows up in 3..2..

buffedup said:
In case you hadn't noticed, the two strongest revenue conferences are the SEC and Big 10, both of which have equal revenue sharing for TV. Texas is more than welcome to generate more revenue from other sources outside of TV, but if you don't see the absolute retardedness of getting the lions share of conference revenue when you aren't even going to be on your conferences network often because you have your own network, then you are a moron.
Click to expand...

so.... Communism is better than Capitalism???

j/k...

what we have here is a league and the rules need to be the same for the LEAGUE to thrive....

Texas has every right to go out and maximize their revenue..... but the eventual cost may be that the league will SUCK that they are in....

The Big 10 and the SEC want a competitive LEAGUE...

Texas wants to maximize income.

There is a fundamental difference in philosophy here....
 
Coincidence that the same time the news comes out that Texas is going to get paid all this jack the news comes out that Beebe just got a 5 year extension?
 
HornBuff said:
I think it's outrageous that they are trying to generate revenue and maximize their potential!!! Everyone should be the same!!!!

Workers unite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Crush them Obama!!!

While we're at it, I don't think it's fair to keep score in football games or to give students grades.
Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, these college players should be paid to play. It's the American way to provide a profit incentive from the head coach to the 3rd string kicker.

Anyone who says differently is un-American.

The whole premise of the NCAA is socialist. Let UT pay the players and let them have infinite eligibility. If UT wants to buy national championships, then let them.

The concept of sportsmanship and a level playing field is over rated.
 
Skidmark said:
Ladies and gentlemen, these college players should be paid to play. It's the American way to provide a profit incentive from the head coach to the 3rd string kicker.

Anyone who says differently is un-American.

The whole premise of the NCAA is socialist. Let UT pay the players and let them have infinite eligibility. If UT wants to buy national championships, then let them.

The concept of sportsmanship and a level playing field is over rated.
Click to expand...
UT has a clean program. It's that school in the PAC 10 that pays the players. Kind of ironic.

---------- Post added at 07:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------
PhillyBuff said:
so.... Communism is better than Capitalism???

j/k...

what we have here is a league and the rules need to be the same for the LEAGUE to thrive....

Texas has every right to go out and maximize their revenue..... but the eventual cost may be that the league will SUCK that they are in....

The Big 10 and the SEC want a competitive LEAGUE...

Texas wants to maximize income.

There is a fundamental difference in philosophy here....
Click to expand...
Possibly, but what has the entire country been calling the PAC 10 for the last decade? SC and the little nine. That was the product of equal revenue sharing.
 
How much sharing do you want? CU has traditionally been in the top 30 schools in the country for football revenue, Iowa State outside of the top 60. Should CU have had to share our stadium revenue with them? How about direct donations to the football program and/or the AD? These are simply revenue streams like media money is.

Looking at it in that way, the Sun Belt schools are considered BCS level schools. Wouldn't it be better for competitive balance if every BCS level school got an equal share of the TV money instead of letting the conferences recieve it and divide it among only their schools. CSU fans have been arguing this idea for years for both TV money and bowl money. Makes no difference that Big XII games draw a national audience large enough to interest advertisers and the MWC ends up on the Mountain and VS. due to low ratings.

I hate Texas and everything they stand for and in. At the same time I respect them for creating a money making machine, Notre Dame as well. If they can convince a bunch of schools that would be mid-majors without them to join them but take a smaller share of the pie, so be it. That is a choice made by the schools. Fortunately CU generates enough interest, attention, and most importantly revenue, that we had options and the PAC12 invited us to join them. The PAC12 schools also have decided, without outside interfearance, that a relatively equal distribution of revenues is in their individual and collective best interest. Thankfully we had the choice, CSU like a number of other schools doesn't get that choice because they don't earn that choice.
 
Possibly, but what has the entire country been calling the PAC 10 for the last decade? SC and the little nine. That was the product of equal revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

No, it was not. The Pac-10 had a MORE unequal revenue sharing distribution. Only now, since they have expanded to 12 have they adopted the equal revenue sharing model for the future.
 
HornBuff said:
UT has a clean program. It's that school in the PAC 10 that pays the players. Kind of ironic.
Click to expand...


Ummm, you kinda missed the point. I wasn't insinuating that Texas is the cleanest program money can buy.

I'm saying that if you get on your soapbox and preach about how justified Texas (or any other school) is in pursuing the profit motive, then you might as well take one more step and advocate that the Texas players SHOULD get paid. Profit motive, and all that.
 
Skidmark said:
Ummm, you kinda missed the point. I wasn't insinuating that Texas is the cleanest program money can buy.

I'm saying that if you get on your soapbox and preach about how justified Texas (or any other school) is in pursuing the profit motive, then you might as well take one more step and advocate that the Texas players SHOULD get paid. Profit motive, and all that.
Click to expand...
Generating revenues for an institution of higher learning and paying players are totally different issues.
 
From USA Today: Formidable on the field, the Pacific-10 Conference has become much less imposing financially. Its $96.8 million in total revenue for fiscal 2009 placed it last among the nation's six major conferences and was less than half the amount generated by its Rose Bowl partner, the Big Ten, new federal tax records show.
 
HornBuff said:
From USA Today: Formidable on the field, the Pacific-10 Conference has become much less imposing financially. Its $96.8 million in total revenue for fiscal 2009 placed it last among the nation's six major conferences and was less than half the amount generated by its Rose Bowl partner, the Big Ten, new federal tax records show.
Click to expand...

Which is the reason why they are expanding and working out a new deal.
 
dply said:
Which is the reason why they are expanding and working out a new deal.
Click to expand...
Honestly, CU and UU are the factors that will propel P10 to this great wealth?

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 PM ----------

Finances for the six major conferences for the 2009 fiscal year:

Conference
Schools
Total revenue
Disbursements
High
Low

Big Ten
11
$221,990,529
$211,137,450
$19,267,047
$19,165,047

Atlantic Coast
12
172,701,498
162,535,523
15,391,696
12,538,329

Southeastern
12
148,010,406
156,337,901
14,021,093{*)
12,569,939

Big 12
12
144,018,095
137,325,773
15,395,212
8,655,531

Big East total
16
103,094,561
89,055,808

Big East FBS schools
8
66,724,810
9,783,196
6,925,603

Big East non-FBS/non- football schools
8
22,330,998
4,173,471
2,188,445

Pacific-10
10
96,830,468
86,745,825
11,479,242
6,676,774

Source:Conferences' federal tax returns.
Note:Southeastern Conference's fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2009; others ended June 30, 2009.
* -includes revenue held in escrow from previous years
 
HornBuff said:
Honestly, CU and UU are the factors that will propel P10 to this great wealth?
Click to expand...


Larry Scott is the "factor" that will propel the Pac-12 to that great wealth.

Adding CU and Utah, a Football Conference Championship game, a conference-owned television network, and expanding the overall marketability for the conference are all parts of that plan.

Basically, making up for lost time from decades of neglect on the part of the conference leadership.
 
It has been explained in detail on this site over and over. The Pac-10 has the oldest TV contract of any BCS conference. The reason why they made the moves this offseason was to anticipate the negotiations for a new TV contract when the current one expires. CU and UU add two markets that help enhance the profile of the Pac-10. Is it really that hard to understand simple concepts?

I'm so grateful to have fans like HornBuff to **** on the program continually. Pretty allsome.
 
All my friends who are SC fans are already bitching about going independent. They'll be making more money in the new Pac 12 but they want more. Texas is their idol.
 
Think about the logic.

PAC 10 was dead last in revenue last year.

Colorado AD is having a hard time giving away tickets. Just got an email for ticket offer for Iowa State game. I can bring the whole family for next to nothing. But I bet I could get the tic even cheaper at the game.

Adding a mid-major and CU to the P10 are going to create this ratings generating machine that will in turn produce this amazing TV deal?

The math doesn't work. A CCG is not that big of a deal. It's something, but not much split 12 ways.
 
Boulder Buff said:
It has been explained in detail on this site over and over. The Pac-10 has the oldest TV contract of any BCS conference. The reason why they made the moves this offseason was to anticipate the negotiations for a new TV contract when the current one expires. CU and UU add two markets that help enhance the profile of the Pac-10. Is it really that hard to understand simple concepts?

I'm so grateful to have fans like HornBuff to **** on the program continually. Pretty allsome.
Click to expand...
How is disagreeing with the move to the p10 crapping on CU?

The only way it's good for CU is if it turns out that the b12 folds and CU is without a home in a major conference and is forced into the MWC or something. Under that scenario it's obviously the right move to go to p10 now. That's the only reasoning that works. I don't think the other reasons hold any water.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------
dply said:
Somewhat. They now will have a conference championship game and they will be adding the Denver media market.
Click to expand...
CU doesn't even get ratings in the Denver market. What makes you thing Denver folks will watch p10 games with schools 1000 miles+ away. Some of the B12 schools are far away, but all of the p10 schools are far away save UU, the former mid major.
 
HornBuff said:
Generating revenues for an institution of higher learning and paying players are totally different issues.
Click to expand...

Why? Because your profit motive only applies to some Americans, but not all Americans?

Or is it that football players don't want to partake in the profit motive?

If you are going to argue that Texas is perfectly justified in running as a corporation with a profit motive, then you should be paying the employees.

If it's too different things, then you support a plantation model where the plantation owner gains the wealth through exploitation of the laborers. Is that the America you live in?
 
HornBuff said:
How is disagreeing with the move to the p10 crapping on CU?

The only way it's good for CU is if it turns out that the b12 folds and CU is without a home in a major conference and is forced into the MWC or something. Under that scenario it's obviously the right move to go to p10 now. That's the only reasoning that works. I don't think the other reasons hold any water.
Click to expand...

The fundamental issue you will never understand is the difference between Texas and CU. You celebrate Texas heightening unequal revenue distribution and yet you wonder why CU would go to a conference with equal revenue sharing. Do you realize that maybe CU fans are not so keen on being in a conference where another school in the conference is making a lot more money due to TV appearances? Do you realize that maybe CU fans are not keen on being in a conference where Texas runs everything? Of course not, you see most things (or everything) through Texas blinders.

You did not even know the new Pac-12 has equal revenue sharing. Just like you chastised CU fans for talking about being in the Pac-12 South the very same day the announcement was made that CU would be in the Pac-12 South. Excuse me if I do not buy your opinion on the Pac-12 move if you cannot even get simple facts right. Is it really that hard to do a little bit of research?

And please stop with the passive aggressive slams on CU's following and talking about Utah as a mid-major. They're top 30 TV markets and they DO impact the next round of negotiations for the TV contract. If you do not want to accept that because some ****tard out of Austin told you differently, so be it. But at least make some posts as a fan of CU without coming off as if you are posting subtle smack toward CU.
 
Me thinks this clown should just remove Buff from the handle and be done with it. You are certainly no Buff fan.
 
ScottyBuff said:
Larry Scott is the "factor" that will propel the Pac-12 to that great wealth.

Adding CU and Utah, a Football Conference Championship game, a conference-owned television network, and expanding the overall marketability for the conference are all parts of that plan.

Basically, making up for lost time from decades of neglect on the part of the conference leadership.
Click to expand...
The problem with the pac10 is that nearly every school is located in a cool place with lots of other stuff to do, especially outdoor/active stuff. Nobody in p10 country wants to sit on thir ***** and watch TV on an awesome fall day in these locations. Adding Boulder and SLC only makes it "worse".
 
HornBuff said:
Think about the logic.

PAC 10 was dead last in revenue last year.

Colorado AD is having a hard time giving away tickets. Just got an email for ticket offer for Iowa State game. I can bring the whole family for next to nothing. But I bet I could get the tic even cheaper at the game.

Adding a mid-major and CU to the P10 are going to create this ratings generating machine that will in turn produce this amazing TV deal?

The math doesn't work. A CCG is not that big of a deal. It's something, but not much split 12 ways.
Click to expand...

You might want to stop posting on the topic because you keep showing how little you understand about the topic. Go back to bowing down to your whorn faithful. That seems to be all you want to talk about. Have you really not been paying attention to where the Pac is going? It has very little to do with history which is all you continue to post about.
 
Skidmark said:
Why? Because your profit motive only applies to some Americans, but not all Americans?

Or is it that football players don't want to partake in the profit motive?

If you are going to argue that Texas is perfectly justified in running as a corporation with a profit motive, then you should be paying the employees.

If it's too different things, then you support a plantation model where the plantation owner gains the wealth through exploitation of the laborers. Is that the America you live in?
Click to expand...
So why don't you share your money with CSU? CSU is D1 football. How do you justify getting more money than CSU? It's all d1 football.
 
HornBuff said:
So why don't you share your money with CSU? CSU is D1 football. How do you justify getting more money than CSU? It's all d1 football.
Click to expand...

You are the one who watches football wearing a green visor to match your burnt orange jersey.

I didn't bring up the profit motive as the holy grail of college football. You did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top