Just what we needed.
Cue projected conference realignment scenario number 10,437,674. :dead-horse-fast2:
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!
CSU stadium
- Thread starter slider
- Start date
Just what we needed.
Cue projected conference realignment scenario number 10,437,674. :dead-horse-fast2:
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
It is definitely sorting itself out right now and this could be one of the possibilities. If it gets to 80 teams I feel reasonably confident that CSU would get in somewhere. If it got to 96 teams (which I think is unlikely), CSU would absolutely be in somewhere.
i think it may take a few interim steps, but 96 i believe is the sweet spot number because, frankly, the 20 or so teams left out really shouldn't be aspiring to major ball anyhow. you mitigate all the whining about not being able to break into the playoffs from the lesser schools because the bulk of them are grouped into the 6th conference of 16 and a handful of others are spread out amongst the p5 to be the annual doormat teams.
with the tv dollars a true playoff and meaningful regular season games would generate, there will be enough bucks for all 96 to participate under the revised p5 plans. it will take awhile and there will never be an equal playing field, but i think this is where it all ends up.
oh, and one other thing-- i believe that the ooc game scheduling will be standardized in this scenario like the nfl. for example p16 east plays sec west one year, etc.
the 6th conference is still going to be heavily disadvantaged in the playoff selection process. the champion would get an auto-bid, but getting a second team would be a rarity and a 3rd team an impossibility.
Liver is wronger than usual today.
http://www.ramnation.com/message_board/athletics/2014/August/8/1544043.php
hmmm ?? keep an eye out later today on ramnation... sounds like there's bad new brewing for the sheep
wonder what it could be ??
hmmm ?? keep an eye out later today on ramnation... sounds like there's bad new brewing for the sheep
wonder what it could be ??
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
**** you
Expansion isn't about academics, but the presidents of the PAC 12 schools will have something to say about including less than stellar academic institutions in any expansion scenario. This was a big talking point when CU was added to the conference.
And I would love to hear your reasoning for how UNLV or UNM generate any more revenue for a TV network than CSU. Looks like UNLV averaged around 15,000 in home football attendance last year and UNM averaged a little over 20,000. Denver is the 18th largest media market, Vegas is 42nd and Albuquerque-Santa Fe is 44th. I understand the PAC 12 would be duplicating its efforts in the Denver market and for that reason I don't think CSU will ever receive a PAC 12 invitation. The fact of the matter is there aren't many attractive options left in the west when SDSU, BSU, UNLV, UNM and CSU are the best choices. That is why any expansion will be east of Colorado and New Mexico. But - if for some reason the PAC 12 decided to expand, but was unwilling to push the conference border past Colorado and New Mexico - I certainly wouldn't count CSU out.
However, I would like to see it if Baylor fans thought the other teams were leaving. In fact I would pay money to see that.
Last edited:
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Agreed, just not to our conference.
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
This is why I can't help but laugh at Boise State fans who think the Pac-12 will come calling some day. The on the field success is one thing, but there is no way PAC schools are just going to overlook the fact that Boise State is a borderline junior college from an academic standpoint. It's the Big 12 or bust for BSU.
I agree with all this... hence why I think CSU could be a target for Big12
Is PACN carried on the basic cable sports packages to subscribers in New Mexico and/or Nevada? If so, then adding them does nothing for football because it doesn't generate additional national interest and the local market media is already secured. However many seats they fill for their home games is irrelevant on this.
On that note, are we on San Diego County and/or Idaho basic cable sports packages? Boise State moves the needle a bit nationally, but otherwise it's a small home market with questionable academics to add.
This is why I like Houston so much. That's a huge home market that does move the needle. If it weren't for the issues with academic freedom and Sunday scheduling, I'd love BYU just looking at it from a financial standpoint. They've got a significant national and international following.
The problem for the Pac-12 on all this is that we're geographically isolated. The "big sky" states don't have enough people to justify them on revenue.
If we had to make a change and go to 14, I'd choose Houston and New Mexico. If we had to go to 16, I'd add SDSU and Boise State to that.
The ideal money scenario, though, is Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas-whomever.
if violating your mummsy is wrong, i don't wanna be right.
I don't think there is any way we end up with 96, I think 80 is doubtful.
This whole thing is about one thing, money. It is about who brings money to the table and who get the money. There is a reason the MWC schools aren't getting much money now, they don't bring in a lot of money. The SEC, the B1G, the PAC, the B12 and the ACC get money because they bring it in.
Who knows how it is all going to shake out in the end but I am pretty confident that when it does the schools that consider 20k a pretty good crowd at an average of less than $30.00 a ticket are going to be on the outside looking in.
For the most part those who are already in the power conferences should be able to stay in. Those on the outside are going to stay outside, if they offered the financial value they would already be in.
The question now is how does the future look for those left out. Do they get pushed down to what is currently FCS or do they remain as a designated second tier instead of the de facto second tier that they are right now.
I do think that their is an interest in continuing games between the upper tier and the second tier or division. The lower schools will suck up their pride and do it because they need the payday and playing the top schools lets them maintain the illusion that they are playing big time football for their fans and donors.
For the bigger schools the second tier provides a cheaper opponent (while still selling seats at the normal price) and mostly can be counted as a win meaning that more than half the schools can be "above average" in the record column again giving something to sell to fans and donors.
Once the division happens it will be interesting to see how much the second group tries to keep up with the first group. The first group will, as now, be getting significantly higher revenues that they can spend. Facilities, recruiting budgets, potentially pay for players will all come into play. Can schools like Wyoming, CSU, Tulsa, etc. match these things considering that they already run deficits in the tens of millions and will have very little hope of ever moving up into the higher income brackets.
This whole thing is about one thing, money. It is about who brings money to the table and who get the money. There is a reason the MWC schools aren't getting much money now, they don't bring in a lot of money. The SEC, the B1G, the PAC, the B12 and the ACC get money because they bring it in.
Who knows how it is all going to shake out in the end but I am pretty confident that when it does the schools that consider 20k a pretty good crowd at an average of less than $30.00 a ticket are going to be on the outside looking in.
For the most part those who are already in the power conferences should be able to stay in. Those on the outside are going to stay outside, if they offered the financial value they would already be in.
The question now is how does the future look for those left out. Do they get pushed down to what is currently FCS or do they remain as a designated second tier instead of the de facto second tier that they are right now.
I do think that their is an interest in continuing games between the upper tier and the second tier or division. The lower schools will suck up their pride and do it because they need the payday and playing the top schools lets them maintain the illusion that they are playing big time football for their fans and donors.
For the bigger schools the second tier provides a cheaper opponent (while still selling seats at the normal price) and mostly can be counted as a win meaning that more than half the schools can be "above average" in the record column again giving something to sell to fans and donors.
Once the division happens it will be interesting to see how much the second group tries to keep up with the first group. The first group will, as now, be getting significantly higher revenues that they can spend. Facilities, recruiting budgets, potentially pay for players will all come into play. Can schools like Wyoming, CSU, Tulsa, etc. match these things considering that they already run deficits in the tens of millions and will have very little hope of ever moving up into the higher income brackets.
I don't know the answer to whether the PAC 12 is on the basic cable sports packages in Nevada or New Mexico. I suspect Nevada cable providers are much more likely to have it on a basic sports tier than New Mexico cable providers. Football attendance figures matter to the extent they reflect interest in the program and television ratings. I imagine there is a pretty strong correlation there.
My assumption on home attendance is that anyone who becomes part of a P5 conference would automatically draw local interest at the Washington State levels. Pullman is not a population hub and it's in a low population geography. No reason UNM, drawing from ABQ/Santa Fe wouldn't be able to match that with no fewer than 4 of the home games against P5 teams.
[tweet]497864509361774593[/tweet] just cause this thread needs it. :lol:
If Washington State was not a historical member of the PAC would they get consideration for membership? A good change that the answer might be no. Same with Iowa State in the B12.
This is especially true considering that both schools have facilities they have built using their conference revenues and have recruited using conference affiliations. How bad would Washington State be and how disinterested would their fan base be in these circumstances.
In either case I doubt that either would generate enough financial gain to justify an invitation to a major conference if they weren't already in.
Which would in effect be a softening of the blow before eventually killing the project due to lack of funds raised.
Yup. The delay will be to announce that they need to hit fundraising goals, when in fact they have no intention of hitting those goals. Then they can say they didn't hit the goals and therefore the entire project is DOA. They'll then try to convince the people who have already donated to let the school keep the donations for a different (yet unnamed) project.
I'm not sure on Las Vegas (they have Cox cable), and Reno is mostly Charter which doesn't have an agreement in place. I do know that the P12 has a 3 tiered system in place with cable companies - cities like Sacramento, probably the Tahoe area, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and (I think) Colorado Springs are actually 'tier 2' where the cable company is allowed to put the P12 net on an 'preferred tier' instead of basic. They still pay full price, but do not get into as many households. NM is out of market on comcast from what I've seen. No HD, just a sports pack location (and access to streaming). Boise doesn't do jack for the P12 in households or academics. It's barely above a CC, and not a research university at all. Where schools like UNLV and SDSU could help is bringing cities like SD and LV up to a critical mass to get either the rate bumped or someone like Charter to pick it up altogether in the first place. It's not just that SDSU and UNLV have local alum, but that in addition, those cities have lots of P12 alum, or fans that grew up fans of a P12 team and have moved around a bit. CA has 40 million residents and 4 schools, while Oregon has 4 million and 2 schools? Hands down UNLV and SDSU are going to bring in the most money if there is not Texas or OU coming by solidifying CA + NV. I'd say bringing in Fresno and Nevada (after UNLV and SDSU) would bring in more households (bringing tier 2 to tier 1 in CA) than a CSU would bring. UNM is way more attractive because they would carry the entire state, while CSU is basically Denver metro which has already been captured.
Houston is an interesting addition... but they are so small time right now that I couldn't see them brining in Houston let alone Texas. Not enough market penetration. Sure you throw in a couple more Texas schools, maybe, but A&M and Texas still dominate Houston. UNM interesting as well, but 2 million residents?
The question is really whether re-alignment will push FIVE ~16 team conferences (include ~80 teams in the big time) or FOUR 16 team conferences (~ 64 teams in the big time + ND?), or... the status quo. I could see that if Texas and Oklahoma head east and the other 4 conferences say the pac needs to hitch up with 16 teams, then all these MWC or CUSA teams become the only options. But even then I don't know. For CU, I'd be very careful about letting in too many scrub teams. If the pac 12 goes to 16 w/o Texas, and then the TV bubble money dries up, there will be some very, very eager to leave west coast teams. A 16 team conference will NOT have enough crossover games to form lasting bonds with the opposite division (even with pods). So again when that money dries up, the league goes boom. Now pac 12 is manageable long term (but again there may be pressures from the playoff system if other conferences grow). Texas/OU coming might be a pain in the ass, but getting rid of them might not be so hard if it's not working. Getting stuck with 4 MWC scrub teams could really be destabilizing.
Washington State does have a large following in Seattle. But they can't readily do day trips to games. I'm not sure if WSU or OSU is really the least fitting school in the conference. OSU is at least close to Portland, but Washington's economy runs laps around Oregon's. An aside, I've always felt that ABQ had more a West Texas vibe to it than a West Coast vibe. Decent athletic school, but maybe not ready for big time football. It's too bad a school like that doesn't get yearly basketball games with AZ, TTech, and CU in basketball. But hoops is barely relevant to expansion.
Last edited:
Of course many over there are of the opinion that if there isn't a stadium and P5 invite behind the Graham firing decision then Frank should be fired. Never mind that he may be saving the University from going bankrupt from financing a completely delusional pipe dream.
This. Adding ****ty schools also dilutes the product. No one wants to see USC v UNM.
When did CSU become a football program with a university attached to it? I didn't get the memo. :lol:
Crazy considering how much Frank has done for the university.