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!

Big 12 Buyout: $15 million+

Hawk Love said:
Another thing to consider: The presence of a buyout/liquidated damages provision in the bylaws is one thing. The enforceability of such a provision is another. Although the circumstances were different, the Big East sought $5M from BC and the court decided they were only entitled to $1M.
Click to expand...

i wonder where the matter would be litigated. ... probably texas if i had to guess. and, if so (and if ut and the other texas schools, including possibly CU's replacement are still in the b12), do you think we are likely to get a good outcome in front of the modern equivalent of judge roy bean (who will probably be a texas law school alum, too)?
 
Liver said:
i wonder where the matter would be litigated. ... probably texas if i had to guess. and, if so (and if ut and the other texas schools, including possibly CU's replacement), do you think we are likely to get a good outcome in front of the modern equivalent of judge roy bean (who will probably be a texas law school alum, too)?
Click to expand...
I thought of that. But decided not to post. :lol:
 
SINKRATZ said:
Would UCLA or Stanford be willing to give an equal share of revenue to CU if they only maintain the minimum number of sports? Me thinks no.
Click to expand...

Yes, if giving there would mean a bigger overall deal? Absolutely.

The only way these moves can work is if the conference does equal money-sharing. I don't know why that's not standard. The fact the Big 12 does what they do proves they don't care what happens to non-UT and non-OU schools.
 
SINKRATZ said:
If this happens, one big question IMO will be how the new conference divides up revenue. A Pac 12 network would be a great revenue generator in part because the Pac 10 is very deep in non-football sports which would carry the network in the off-season. Would UCLA or Stanford be willing to give an equal share of revenue to CU if they only maintain the minimum number of sports? Me thinks no.
Click to expand...

The Pac10 shares all revenue equally now. Their commissioner has stated "you are only as strong as your weakest school" when talking about revenue sharing.
 
the p10 shares equally and everyone has an equal vote. does this not sound better than the b12? sure, we've traditionally done well with unequal tv revenue because we've traditionally been on tv a lot (because of our scheduling practices, not because of inherent greatness). but, what is better in the long run for every conference member?

oh, and while we may not be in the top 4 in terms of power in a newly constructed p12, we won't be at the bottom either. CU will find itself in the middle of the pack in terms of funding, facilities, academics, etc. it isn't ideal, but it isn't horrible either. right now, we are in the top third academically in the b12 but in the bottom third in terms of funding and facilities.
 
Hawk Love said:
Another thing to consider: The presence of a buyout/liquidated damages provision in the bylaws is one thing. The enforceability of such a provision is another. Although the circumstances were different, the Big East sought $5M from BC and the court decided they were only entitled to $1M.
Click to expand...
I had totally overlooked this. Excellent point. Liquidated damages provisions are not treated well by courts. (Off the top of my head) The Big XII would have to prove that these damages are approximate to the cost to the Big XII in losing CU with little notice. Frankly, I think CU could definitely get the damages reduced ala BC.
 
@newb lawyer to be snow...

theory v. practice.

texas court. texas judge. doooooooooooooooom for CU! they'll view it as a lovely parting gift for the republic of texassss.

it won't be litigated. it'll be settled. the only way we don't get stuck for a significant amount of cash is if the whole conference comes off the rails, with ut fleeing itself.
 
Darian3Hagan said:
The Pac10 shares all revenue equally now. Their commissioner has stated "you are only as strong as your weakest school" when talking about revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

Their commissioner may say that, but the member schools who will vote on this may have a different opinion. Ultimately it will get worked out if everyone is to benefit finacially, but if I'm the president of Stanford and I'm fielding 30+ Division 1 sports teams, I'm going to raise the issue if CU wants an equal share.
 
@sink...

i think CU would have to commit to increase the number of sports it fields. ... easier said than done, of course... but, i don't think the # of sports will be a blocking factor for revenue sharing upfront. this is due to the fact that we are talking about adding non-revenue generating sports (which don't interest the networks in any case).

where it would be an issue is if the p12 forms its own network. CU might find itself in a position where it receives reduced shares from that animal until it increases the number of sports it fields. it would be about providing "content" to the p12 network.
 
What's the goddamn delay with this? ****ing get it done, people! ****!
 
Liver said:
@sink...

i think CU would have to commit to increase the number of sports it fields. ... easier said than done, of course... but, i don't think the # of sports will be a blocking factor for revenue sharing upfront. this is due to the fact that we are talking about adding non-revenue generating sports (which don't interest the networks in any case).

where it would be an issue is if the p12 forms its own network. CU might find itself in a position where it receives reduced shares from that animal until it increases the number of sports it fields. it would be about providing "content" to the p12 network.
Click to expand...

The conference network is what I'm getting at. Sure ABC won't have any interest in the Pac12 softball tournament, but the conference network would and CU really doesn't add much outside Skiing, Xcountry, and maybe golf.
 
Darian3Hagan said:
The Pac10 shares all revenue equally now. Their commissioner has stated "you are only as strong as your weakest school" when talking about revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

Liver said:
the p10 shares equally and everyone has an equal vote. does this not sound better than the b12? sure, we've traditionally done well with unequal tv revenue because we've traditionally been on tv a lot (because of our scheduling practices, not because of inherent greatness). but, what is better in the long run for every conference member?

oh, and while we may not be in the top 4 in terms of power in a newly constructed p12, we won't be at the bottom either. CU will find itself in the middle of the pack in terms of funding, facilities, academics, etc. it isn't ideal, but it isn't horrible either. right now, we are in the top third academically in the b12 but in the bottom third in terms of funding and facilities.
Click to expand...

Correction: The Pac-10 does NOT share revenues equally right now. The BigTen, SEC, and Big East all do this currently. The ACC is looking at it under their TV renewal (which is the next conference to renew, after the 2011 season).

The Pac-10 has a very similar revenue sharing process from TV as the Big 12 it is a point of contention within the members, just as it is the Big-12. Also they share gate receipts for their main rivalry games, which totally screws the Huskies vs the Cougars, but the other teams are all fairly comparable.

Washington AD Scott Woodward pushes for Pac-10 schools to share all revenue

The quote from the Deputy Commissioner Kevin Weiberg about only being as strong as your weakest member financially comes from his time as Big 12 Commissioner, after he resigned because of the Big 12 not doing an equal revenue share and forming a Big 12 Network in 2007.
 
BlackNGold said:
The best idea I heard so far was for the PAC 10 and the Big 12 to form a joint network - that is the only way that CU will approximate the revenue of the Big 10.
Click to expand...

This is the best alternative if we are to stay in the Big 12, IMO.

And it might lead to more OOC games with Pac-10 teams and eventually a formal invitation. If we can't get there in one big jump, one step at a time.

The bottom line with a Pac-10 or Big 12 network and whether or not CU has added value, despite being in the Denver market, is how many subscribers will sign up for the channel?

If 200,000 people in the TV market are willing to increase their cable bill or satellite subscription by $4.99 per month to get the Big 12 network or Pac-12 Network or even a BigPac Network, then CU brings in $12 million in market value for the conference TV channel and has some leverage. If only 50,000 people will do so then we only bring in $3 million a year in value and then the Pac Ten/TV Network would think twice about forking over $15 million+ to invite us in.

The upfront cost to start a TV network and gain distribution rights into all of those markets with all the providers is another part of their analysis.

FSN currently carries both Pac-10 and Big 12 secondary rights and non-revenue sports games, if they don't make a competitive offer to retain those rights then it makes you wonder how financially sound such a proposal can be.

Despite all these issues, I still think it is in the best interest of CU to pursue joining the Pac-10 whenever possible.
 
OKCBuff said:
Yes, if giving there would mean a bigger overall deal? Absolutely.

The only way these moves can work is if the conference does equal money-sharing. I don't know why that's not standard. The fact the Big 12 does what they do proves they don't care what happens to non-UT and non-OU schools.
Click to expand...

The decision whether to go to a 100% revenue sharing model (all schools receive equal revenue) vs. a revenue-based-on-television-appearances approach was considered by the Big 12 and its schools.

The schools voted 9-3 in favor of the revenue-based-on-television-appearances model.
 
Liver said:
@newb lawyer to be snow...

theory v. practice.

texas court. texas judge. doooooooooooooooom for CU! they'll view it as a lovely parting gift for the republic of texassss.

it won't be litigated. it'll be settled. the only way we don't get stuck for a significant amount of cash is if the whole conference comes off the rails, with ut fleeing itself.
Click to expand...

@cynical ex lawyer Liver: Why does it have to be in Texas? Couldn't CU file it in Colorado? Unless the bylaws say that any disputes are settled in Texas by Texas law.... and I HOPE TO GOD we weren't that stupid even though we did allow the league offices to move down there...
 
@civ. pro snow...

you can pretty much be assured that there is a forum/venue selection and choice of law specified in the agreement of the members. it would be very shocking for them to have been silent on such an issue. there may even be a requirement for alternative dispute resolution, including mandatory confidential and binding arbitration. there would have been if i had been driving the train.

as to what choice of law and venue is specified, i do not know. but, there are plenty of ways to back into something you didn't anticipate. for example. let's just say the member agreement specifies that all disputes will be heard and resolved in the jurisdiction and under the law where the league office is located. someone would have thought about the ramifications of this when the league offices weren't in texas, but when they moved them down there, do you think it is possible that no one went back and looked at the original venue/law provision and thought about what the move meant in that context? i can certainly envision such a scenario.

and, even if they did think about it at the time of the move, do you think it is also possible that they felt they couldn't raise an objection and/or a request for a contract amendment at that time? i mean, how would that look? "uh, you texans agreed to resolve disputes up here when we formed the league and now we don't want to afford you the same courtesy when we move the league office."

and, i am a member of the bar. yes to the cynical accusation, of course. :lol:
 
Liver said:
@civ. pro snow...

you can pretty much be assured that there is a forum/venue selection and choice of law specified in the agreement of the members. it would be very shocking for them to have been silent on such an issue. there may even be a requirement for alternative dispute resolution, including mandatory confidential and binding arbitration. there would have been if i had been driving the train.

as to what choice of law and venue is specified, i do not know. but, there are plenty of ways to back into something you didn't anticipate. for example. let's just say the member agreement specifies that all disputes will be heard and resolved in the jurisdiction and under the law where the league office is located. someone would have thought about the ramifications of this when the league offices weren't in texas, but when they moved them down there, do you think it is possible that no one went back and looked at the original venue/law provision and thought about what the move meant in that context? i can certainly envision such a scenario.

and, even if they did think about it at the time of the move, do you think it is also possible that they felt they couldn't raise an objection and/or a request for a contract amendment at that time? i mean, how would that look? "uh, you texans agreed to resolve disputes up here when we formed the league and now we don't want to afford you the same courtesy when we move the league office."

and, i am a member of the bar. yes to the cynical accusation, of course. :lol:
Click to expand...

Agreed as to the analysis. It would b eshocking if there wasn't a choice of law/venue provision. If not tho, CU's got a good shot to win.
 
DP. (damn iPhone)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
buffaholic said:
Based on what the SEC and B10 have done, compared to the B12 and the fact that the population bases for Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Nebraska are what they are and will only shrink going forward, while the states of AZ, UT, CO continue to grow..... The expected TV revenue from here to Infinity is not going to be close imo. As such, the state can certainly bankroll the short term losses for future contract guarrantees.

The Big12 is the state of Texas, plus St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver markets. The Univ of Texas dominates that number in Texas, with the Aggies roughly having a poplulation following similar to the other markets listed for TV viewing. But the aggregate pales in comparison to:

SoCal, NorCal, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake, Phoenix, Tucson, and Denver..... That constitutes a powerhouse for TV.
Click to expand...

Your post got me to do a little homework courtesy of Wiki-Table of US Metropolitan Statistical Areas. From what I've pieced together, the relative sizes of the major conferences are:

Pac 10 - 37.4M
BigTeleven - 37.1M
B12 - 37.4M. Note: Texas MSAs =16.8M or 57%
SEC - 27.6M

If CU/Utah joined the 12-Pac, the pops increase to 41.9M

It's clearly not just pops, but also neilson ratings, or the SEC wouldn't have gotten the contract it did. The SEC had plenty of options, like cherry picking the ACC for big Florida markets like Miami or could go into football crazy Texas.


Inside the B12, the growth of the Texas MSAs are impressive.
#4 DFW 6.3M & 22% growth
#6 Houston 5.7M & 21%
#28 San Antonio 2.0M & 19%
#36 Austin 1.7M & 32%!!!

Compared to the other B12 big metros
#18 St Louis 2.8M & 4%
#21 Denver 2.5M & 15%
#29 Kansas City 2.0M & 9%
#44 OKC 1.2M & 10%
#60 Omaha 0.8M & 9%
#155 Lincoln 0.3M & 11%
#157 Boulder 0.3M & 9%


The Pac's MSAs of note
#2 LA 12.9M & 4%
#12 Phoenix 4.3M & 32%!!!
#13 San Fran 4.3M & 4%
#14 Riverside/San Bernadino 4.1M & 26%
#15 Seattle 3.3M & 10%
#23 Portland 2.2M & 15%


Since we're talking about Utah, BYU, AFA, UNLV & New Mexico

#30 Las Vegas 1.9M & 36% (****ing sinners & retirees)
#49 Salt Lake 1.1M & 15%
#59 Albuquerque 0.8M & 16%
#83 Colo Springs 0.6M 15%
#92 Provo 0.5M & 44%!!! (****ing Mormons)
 
buffaholic said:
This isn't that complicated. The PAC12 or PAC14 will lay down a number on the table that says here's your allocation for the next N years - do you want in?

CU will look at their expected NET revenue from their Big12 contract, with penalties incurred, over that same N years.

Then they will look at what the long term TV revenue picture looks like for both conferences. And they will have a clear financial option imo.

Based on what the SEC and B10 have done, compared to the B12 and the fact that the population bases for Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Nebraska are what they are and will only shrink going forward, while the states of AZ, UT, CO continue to grow..... The expected TV revenue from here to Infinity is not going to be close imo. As such, the state can certainly bankroll the short term losses for future contract guarrantees.

PAC10 if they will have us. Period. No questions need be asked about philosophical and academic alignment, blah, blah, blah.

The Big12 is the state of Texas, plus St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver markets. The Univ of Texas dominates that number in Texas, with the Aggies roughly having a poplulation following similar to the other markets listed for TV viewing. But the aggregate pales in comparison to:

SoCal, NorCal, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake, Phoenix, Tucson, and Denver..... That constitutes a powerhouse for TV.

My only question is whether Univ of Texas will panic and try to join the B10 or PAC10 first, making this complicated.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that California and Arizona are suffering population loss while Texas and its more stabile government and employment market is gaining thats quite an assumption.
 
@val and d3h...

15 bucks? i'm hurt. you think i am working in lincoln or something? easy there...

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top