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!
Could this have worked out any better for CU?
- Thread starter Sportsfan101
- Start date
Idot Buff
Guest
ok, I rounded up....but, close to $20M plus no penalty for leaving....add the $5M per year in unpaid "fines" and you are at $20M.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672
Feel free to take Beebe's word at face value. I won't. Especially since nothing is close to actually existing on that front.
Idot Buff
Guest
This goes way beyond Beebe (he is a dumb ass, it would appear to me). This was a power broker job involving the NCAA, television executives, and God knows who else (the mob, for all we know).
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
I am confused by the penalty info. The Big 12 bylaws say that a team leaving after 2 years (i.e. leaving in 2012) has to forefeit 50% of their revenue. I don't know how much revenue CU got in 2009 - but I would guess they only have to give up $5 mil per year.
Idot Buff
Guest
times two equals $10M
SCB
Well-Known Member
Not sure why everyone is thinking we gave up $20 million by not staying with the B12-2 (or as I'm going to call it, the UTD - UT and the Dingleberries.)
It was made VERY clear to us that we were a "have not" in the new UTD - thus we wouldn't have been able to be at the $20M table with UT, OU, and aTm. Hell, aTm is lucky to be there and OSU and Tech (who have had MUCH better teams than aggy over the last 10 years) are wallowing down with the remnants of the North and those Baylor asshats.
Don't fool youselves fellas, we would only be getting the $10-12M pittance the little 7 are getting in this deal. Thank you Larry Scott and our Pac 12/12 Pac brethren. F U C K Texas! (and I effing LIVE here!)
It was made VERY clear to us that we were a "have not" in the new UTD - thus we wouldn't have been able to be at the $20M table with UT, OU, and aTm. Hell, aTm is lucky to be there and OSU and Tech (who have had MUCH better teams than aggy over the last 10 years) are wallowing down with the remnants of the North and those Baylor asshats.
Don't fool youselves fellas, we would only be getting the $10-12M pittance the little 7 are getting in this deal. Thank you Larry Scott and our Pac 12/12 Pac brethren. F U C K Texas! (and I effing LIVE here!)
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
The 50% is definitive. That is written in the Bylaws.
The question is how much should CU have received. Given that CU won't be on TV so much next season, their number is actually probably down a little bit.
Keep in mind the Pac-10 has pledged to pay for this, so it isn't going to come out of CU's pocket.
Idot Buff
Guest
It is $14-17M (see post #32), plus the saved penalty costs of $5M per year for the next two years.
I wonder if Comcast/DirecTV/Dish Network will readily agree to take them on? What teams besides t.u. and OU will anyone want to watch?
Idot Buff
Guest
Not what I heard...they will give us a loan...sortta like the Barnett loan we are still paying off...
Meh. Fine whatever. We're still rid of those UT asshats, and in the long run, that one HELL of a better deal than having to suck at their teat for the next 5-7 years until the next realignment wars started. Lovin' me some Pac!
Idot Buff
Guest
Asshats? I prefer rat bastards. I agree...we made the right move. But the financial analyst in me makes me think we will not be better off in the short-term from this move.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
They are going to pay the penalty for leaving, and then pay us less until the penalties are paid off.
I.e. it isn't going to come directly out of CU's pocket.
Notice I said LONG RUN in my post my friend. Our move was definitely an investment over time vs. the "quick hit" on the stock market.
Idot Buff
Guest
Dude...what is the difference?
Idot Buff
Guest
I am an NPV guy....this may be a negative NPV deal for us...
Sorry, I are an engineer, what's NPV?
Idot Buff
Guest
Net Present Value.....an MBA term.
Idot Buff
Guest
I will pull together a discounted cash flow analysis, run it by Skiddy (I think he is financial guy), then report back.
This may be a dumb question, but why can't the Pac 12 create a network that is at least as lucrative as the current Big 10 deal?
The Big 10 deal is 3 years old so a new network would have the benefit of a model to follow and 3 years of inflation in the market for college football on TV. The Pac 10 is more competetive top to bottom than the Big 10 where nobody but Ohio St or Penn St. really have a chance to win the conference title (until Michigan comes back). The Pac 10 has more national championships than every other conference and most schools carry a lot more than the minimum number of sports (which will benefit a conference network when it's not football season). And I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I have to believe the Pac 10's media markets are much, much better than the Big 10.
So someone please explain to me why the $20million Big 10 number is so untouchable?
The Big 10 deal is 3 years old so a new network would have the benefit of a model to follow and 3 years of inflation in the market for college football on TV. The Pac 10 is more competetive top to bottom than the Big 10 where nobody but Ohio St or Penn St. really have a chance to win the conference title (until Michigan comes back). The Pac 10 has more national championships than every other conference and most schools carry a lot more than the minimum number of sports (which will benefit a conference network when it's not football season). And I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I have to believe the Pac 10's media markets are much, much better than the Big 10.
So someone please explain to me why the $20million Big 10 number is so untouchable?
Last edited:
I think there was some sort of problem with the economy since they cut that deal. Or so I've heard. But maybe that means more folks will be staying home looking for their entertainment on the telly.
Last edited:
Nobody knows for sure. If you're talking about TV deals, I suspect that Big 10 games get higher ratings than Pac 10 games, but don't know for sure. There could be any number of reasons for that: culture, time slots, etc.
If you're talking about a Pac 12 network, I think it would likely make similar money. The big football games are still on the networks and the conference network gets the lesser matchups. Also, the Pac 12 will have more interesting content than the Big 10, baseball, volleyball, etc.
The real reason the Pac 12 will be better off than the Big 12 is because the Big 12 will never have its own network--because Texas won't share and will demand its own network. Thus, the rest of the Big 12 will forever be at a disadvantage to the conferences with network ownership.
I'm with you. I think we can expect to see Big 10 type numbers when this deal is done, for the following reasons:
1) TV sets: Pac 10 > Big 10
2) Big 10 deal > 3 years old (inflation)
3) Pac 10 deal being negotiated by a smart friggin guy who has been thinking about/planning this longer than anyone, Larry Scott
4) Pac 10 deal will be made with network who can outspend anyone, Fox
I'm thinking we'll see a $20-$30M per team equal sharing deal. The Big 12 will get a good $ deal, but it will be unequal. How do we know this? Because Texas took the deal. If CU stayed, we'd get more than the $8-9 we've been seeing, but it would be less than we'll see per year in the Pac 12, but. more importantly, the gap in the arms race vs. Texas would open up further. The have-nots (Mizzou, Kansas, K-State etc.) are fracked, but at least they're at the table. Plus, the Pac 12 will eventually be 16, and CU will only get more money then (as opposed to the Big Texas 16, who will probably add TCU and the like and will see a smaller addition of TV sets down the road).
Let me simplify my question: explain to me why the Big 10 (without Nebraska) is more valuable than a Pac 12 with Colorado and Utah (Denver and SLC). I really don't get it.
Even if DB's assumptions are all correct, it only gives us a loss for 2 out of the next infinity. Not to mention being stable for the rest of eternity... Don't forget to count the improvement in qualify of life (like never playing in ames, Iowa again.)
Idot Buff
Guest
Like I said, I am glad we are getting out of the Big 12....I am just not convinced it is a great financial deal.