241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
UCLA football doesn’t own anything.
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 $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
either does Rutgers football, but yet the B1G gained estimated 10's of millions per year because they're in the NYC TV market.
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Then Pac should get sdsu, unlv and SMU stat
if only the Pac had a contract with a major network. I don't think the additional revenue from the P12N is going to do the same for us.
1. Cord cutting is sort of a red herring when it comes to this issue. Bundling will still play a major role with sports packages on decentralized TV platforms. It’s just that the people who get the sports packages will pay more for higher tiers. Higher tiers negotiated by networks and conferences.
2. The B1G added two teams from Los Angeles to get top tier guaranteed money from all providers in LA. Plus, the B1G removed all other conferences from getting top tier guaranteed money from the LA market by taking both U$C and UCLA. UCLA is not a ratings juggernaut even in LA. This example is actually an argument against your ratings concept.
Also, that total viewership number for the P12 is weird. I think anything on the P12 network gets reported as a zero for the calculation purposes which brings CU's and most of the other P12 schools averages way down given how many games appeared on P12 Networks.
I don’t think Colorado actually has a choice if they want to keep football. It is Big 12 or let football die. The Pac-10 will eventually fold because UDub and Oregon demand unequal shares of an already small pie. When they leave, the replacements don’t pack a dollar punch. Colorado is not an attractive option for the B1G or $EC, so it is the Big 12 only or let football go.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
If this ****ing league stays together, the P12Nets HAVE to be sold to ESPN for whatever you can get for them.
Boom!!! Perfectly stated
Thisuniversityisf’ed!
Well-Known Member
Who would have thought 20 years ago we’d be debating on if this university is willing to fight to keep an average at best football team around. Crazy.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I blame the people who talk about the Pac 12 being the right thing to do 11 years ago.
How'd that work out, guys?
still i think several very important unknowns:
1. do we really know for sure that uo or anyone else is demanding unequal rev sharing? if so, that would seem to me that the pac as conference would already been formally dead if that is true. or, if it is true, are anyone other than wsu and osu actually being asked to take a lesser share? or any potential new schools?
2. do we really know the contract values for the various scenarios (the exclusive window has not yet run)-- CU and some to the b12 v. CU and the pac hold together and possibly add? until there is actual data on rev per school, i do not expect anything to get announced.
3. do we really know what, if anything, is in the reported offer from the b12? maybe we are demanding unequal rev sharing or they are? or something else is driving analysis? point is, everything is still up in the air.
i think at the end of the day, we, utah, and ua/asu end up in the b12 but i am pretty sure the various schools are not all there yet -- everyone is looking for their own lifeboat.
total revisionist history but you do you, man.
unlike now, with the benefit of a historical record to criticize, at the time of the move, with the data then in front of CU, i think it was no-brainer. and, why is utah suddenly in the mix for a move to another p conference when they have a smaller market and far less history than CU? easy. because they played themselves into a credible position by winning football games. had we done the same, i suspect we would be landing far better than the remnant leftover "big" 12 right about now.
Don't forget that CU is south of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and even the NUBS. I think we practically can be considered part of "The South." All we have to do is cinch up that Manson-Nixion belt a few notches and we are practically Mississippi.
This is the best argument I've seen as to how we make it into the SEC, short of hitching a ride on the Keystone pipeline down into the Gulf and paddling for nearest land. Of course, we'd probably be considered "immigrants" and that's really not going to be helpful down there.
That's it in a nutshell.
We don't know what our conference configuration options are or what they would pay.
If the North/South dividing line is Missouri, that puts KS, CO and UT in the South.
not that it matters, but i would strongly consider taking a reduced share to join the sec if it were serious about expanding its geographic footprint west. sure, we will get absolutely destroyed on the field for the foreseeable future but even with a reduced share we would have more money to invest AND we would be able to tap some players in that footprint that we could not otherwise touch.
not happening however.
not happening however.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Kind of like how hiring Dan Hawkins was a home run in the winter of 2005, right?
Maybe CU should just drop football and join the Big West basketball-only conference. After all this drama is over CU will be a bad program in the B12 and will double down on the dreary aimlessness of the post-Barnett world. Ass kickings by KState, TTech, and ISU will be featured regularly. I’m pretty confident that the first major P5 school that drops football will explode that taboo and will open the door for more. CU will survive. Out of state kids will still come for the legal dope and the outdoor recreation. Cynical interlude, sorry….
I think its still a pipe dream but I think the best argument is we already have a history of playing in a conference with 1/4 of the expanded SEC. We're going to be an outpost that is mostly appealing due to a Top 20 TV market. Its the exact same logic / scenario regardless of whether you are talking about the P10, B1G, B12 or the SEC, its just the reality when you are more than 500 miles from any other large metro in the country.
Toss Kansas in there too and you essentially merged the top half (minus Nebraska) of the old Big 12 with the SEC. So basically the eastern version of what Larry Scott proposed back in 2010.
Last edited:
1) Udub and Oregon asking for unequal shares makes perfect sense since they’re the only teams who have a national-ish footprint. I don’t think anyone else is being asked for a discount yet because the leftovers are long standing members.
2) The Big 12 adding Colorado helps keep revenues flat or get a small bump. With the Pac-10 reeling, I don’t think they have a solid negotiating position for this TV round. Remember, the Pac-10 now has no Los Angeles and the TV was already bad.
3) I think CU adds value to the Big 12 as a founding member and a better than average TV market. I don’t think we have to know the exact contract to know CU’s bargaining value to get at least what we’re accustomed to getting.
Did you get amnesia about the website where you’re posting?
Thisuniversityisf’ed!
Well-Known Member
Looks like the CFB structural changes are accelerating. Players at Penn State are attempting to form a union and are asking for profit sharing. That new B1G tv deal may not be the windfall the ADs are expecting. Non-revenue sports likely screwed if this is the way things go.
#1 would make sense if they had other options, which they don’t.
Title IX likely means that if the AD has to revenue share then it has to pay every scholarship athlete the same.
The move to criticize is the Pac-12 leadership turning down Oklahoma/Oklahoma State in 2014, not the initial move by CU to the Pac-12.
If anything, you could make a sound argument that CU made an error in not jumping back in 1994.