Maybe an extra bowl game the last decade. Maybe not. We’d still be in a mess now.
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
Always BUFF
I post stupid ****
Thinking 14, 15, 16, 17 something would be better than nothing.
I hope that is the strategy CU would employ. Everyone for themselves at this point and f#ck the rest of them
Too much wine
Kuratz
Well-Known Member
The direction of college football embodies the societal problems at large. Mega-corporations driving the ship at the expense of culture and tradition, non-profit institutions principled purely by profit, and extreme incompetence like Larry Scott getting vastly wealthy with zero accountability.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with this-but I don't think Kliavkoff can get the kind of deal done that would make sense for us to stay here.
One of the biggest things would be the value of PACN - what a partner that would take it over would want in terms of markets. I do believe that ESPN is concerned about FOX owning the western US. B1G is with FOX. So is Big 12. Even MWC is a CBS/FOX deal.
I think ESPN is extremely likely to have interest in owning PAC media rights, poaching valuable western markets from Big 12 & MWC to roll in, and orchestrating a scheduling cooperation between PAC & ACC to get both media properties a more national audience.
That's the dynamic the future of the PAC hinges upon.
I guess I can't understand why (even with just the Pac 10) this league can't garner a pretty good media deal that surpasses the old one. The numbers being floated around seems to overly inflate the LA Schools. Is it not reasonable to think the Pac 10 can't garner a $40-50 million a year in media rights? It's obviously still very valuable based off of tv views and the markets. Keep in mind that old contract had a large section of tv distributers who didn't carry the Pac channels. I think GK is taking the right approach as he knows there is still value here. Maybe I am way off
I think it's hard for any of us to really know what value there without the LA market, and end of the day, the conference is only worth what a network or streaming service is willing to pay.
It's not ideal, but IMO, I think the Pac 10 should embrace their current reality and try to go all in on Friday and Saturday nights. Prime time Friday night games (630-7pm MT) with the most marquee matchup and your second best matchup in the Saturday night 730/8pm MT slot. They're not going to get any prime Saturday slots on Fox/ABC/ESPN, so might as well go full MAC and try to own Friday nights. It sucks because of HS football and everything, but I just don't see many other options that will get 4m+ eyeballs on the conference games.
I agree that Fox is taking a risk here. Remember that ESPN shared B1G rights with Fox up until recently. Fox moved to own it all after ESPN moved to own all the SEC.
This article highlights that ESPN is trying to make a deal between the Pac10 and ACC that likely makes use of and shares the ACC network between the two conferences. That probably eliminates the Pac12 network. Such a deal might include some scheduling opportunities to create compelling matchups. Clemson v Washington, Oregon v Miami. If such a deal works itself out Fox doesnt have a strong 2nd conference unless it decides to blindly pump money into the MWC or Big12
ACC, Pac 12 discussing ESPN TV partnership - Sports Illustrated
The proposal between the leagues comes after the Big Ten’s addition of USC and UCLA.
www.si.com
I hate ESPN most of the time but their network is pretty dominant and a deal with the ACC moves us from being filler with 10pm EST kickoffs to the more coveted daytime time slots.
I tend to agree. The LA schools were a national brand, sure. But if we're still talking about "markets" - and the breathless reporting that the BTN is going to charge 15x more in the LA market seems to suggest we are - then the Pac should be able to capitalize on having a lot of large markets - including Southern California. You think they're going to suddenly stop caring about the Pac-10. How many Pac-10 alumni live in that area, for one.
That means to me that you still have the LA market. You have the Bay market, the Seattle market, the PHX market, the Denver market, SLC, Portland. Plus you have Vegas, and a bunch of smaller markets in a huge footprint.
I don't really want to stay in the Pac-10. I'm on the record about that, because it's still a dying conference. BUT, if we're going to be here, it seems like GK has a chance to make it a better deal for all involved.
Attaching this to the above, if ESPN is willing to invest in the Pac 10 network, and if they are concerned about losing the Western US (a legitimate concern), they might be willing to pay more than other estimates say. However - if I'm ESPN, I'm not signing any contracts with the Pac 10 unless there's an ironclad agreement that has UO and UW in the conference for the duration of the contract. At the risk of stating the obvious, the Pac 10 cannot survive the defection of those two schools, and at that point, any investment into the Pac 10 network becomes a big fat turd for ESPN (or Amazon, or Apple, or TBS, or whomever).
I know I probably sound like a broken record, but any plan that has the Pac 10 staying together has to have ironclad restraints on the PNW schools.
As I said above - the Pac still has the LA market.
CU vs Wake Forest!
I would add to that that there needs to be ironclad restraints on all schools.
I also can’t figure out how a 16 or 18 team Big 12 is any more stable or profitable on a per team basis than a PAC 10 would be.
Only in the same capacity that the B1G or SEC have the Denver market, which is to say that while people in Denver can still watch the SEC network if they pay for it, very few actually do. The same is going to happen in LA for the Pac Network.
Yesterday a host on ESPU radio had the same thought. The info he got was that the Pac with the LA schools was worth an estimated 500-550MM, without they are worth about 300-350MM. So around 30MM to 35MM per school was his estimate. I think that could be high, but he's in a position to know more than me.
With 18 teams, that would require the little 12 to be worth 540-630MM per year to give the same payout. They have no valuable teams, just doesn't add up.
Great synopsis of America!
With Oregon, Washington, CU, UT, AZ and ASU to make an 18 team league, it was projected that a Big 18 could be worth $500-$600m or right around the same as what the Pac 10 was estimated. Of course, I'm pretty sure these numbers are all coming from the same source, which is John Canzano's article last week which he quoted a former Fox executive who estimated that.
I think you assume the money is probably around the same whether it's the Pac 10 or the Big18. The only reason it might make sense to jump is if you wanted to create a league that's a little more stable long term, is likely the #3 conference, instead of #4 and #5, get into the Central and Eastern Time Zones, etc.
I'm just not sure what the end game is of a Pac 10.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Better timeslots, more engaged fanbases, huge alumni bases, more college (as opposed to pro) sports markets, and (for several years, at minimum) more competitive football, along with dramatically better basketball.
Last edited:
Then why not try to steal the better leftovers? Start with OSU and TTU. Then branch out to Houston and KU. If you needed more, you could add UNLV and a team to be named later. That conference is better than the soon to be Big 12 with mostly G5 schools. The only reason they are more stable is that none of their schools are good enough to be poached by big 10 or sec.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Because generally the smaller, less stable conference with a (potentially) weaker TV conference doesn't steal teams from the larger, seemingly more stable (at the moment) conference with more going for it as it approaches its next TV deal.
Doubt anything comes from this, but someone may have finally pointed out Cal's stadium debt to the UC board of regents:
t.co
Here come the UC Regents: Governing board to discuss UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, “litigation” cited
The Bruins are scheduled to leave the Pac-12, along with USC, in 2024.
t.co
I was wondering when/if that would happen. Cal and UCLA are part of the same system. Something has to give.Doubt anything comes from this, but someone may have finally pointed out Cal's stadium debt to the UC board of regents:
Here come the UC Regents: Governing board to discuss UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, “litigation” cited
The Bruins are scheduled to leave the Pac-12, along with USC, in 2024.
can someone with a sub summarize please? does the UC system have authority to do anything here? is there a contract in place between UCLA and Cal that is relevant?Doubt anything comes from this, but someone may have finally pointed out Cal's stadium debt to the UC board of regents:
Here come the UC Regents: Governing board to discuss UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, “litigation” cited
The Bruins are scheduled to leave the Pac-12, along with USC, in 2024.
It’s essentially the same school. Just different campuses. Same governing board.
Black and Gold v Black and Gold. If we can schedule Purdue then it would be a party.
I'm not sure I'm connecting the dots. Wouldn't UC Davis, Irvine, SD, etc... be in the same situation as Cal and UCLA? Nobody is blinking that UC Riverside isn't in the Pac 12.
There was news out earlier in the week that the split wasn't a problem because conference affiliation is supposedly handled at the campus level, but it seems like complete negligence for the UC regents to potentially allow Cal to get relegated to the MWC when Cal owes like $400 million in stadium debt because they renovated a stadium that is built right over a fault line. I can't imagine the State having to take on that debt would go over well politically.
They don't even START paying down the principal until 2032.
It would be quite an LOL if they put the brakes on this. Then USC has to go alone and the B1G has to split LATV (or not) instead of having 100%.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Riverside, Davis, etc. never were in the PAC. Berkeley was/ is, owes a half billion dollars, and is about to lose a lot of money.
It's not clear the regents have the power to do anything here, and I personally doubt they would even if they could.