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!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

Sure the bluebloods could unite under one banner but good football will not be exclusive to that blueblood conference. Neither will the ability of CFB fans to enjoy their teams be exclusive to that blueblood conference.

A college football rivalry is what brought me to college sports. I was still mad at Nebraska for beating OU on Thanksgiving back in 1988 and then watching CU beat Nebraska the following year on TV is what brought me to CU. After a forgettable run in the PAC, I'm excited to see what rivalries CU could develop in the new Big 12 with more border state rivalries than even the old Big 8/12 offered. I know we don't hate Oklahoma State like we hate Nebraska but my first CU MBB home game was an upset win over a nationally ranked OSU team back in the 1990's. Never forget that atmosphere and that is something I am expecting more of in the Big 12. When I think about KU or KSU, I can only think of how much I want to beat them. I have the same feeling for UA, ASU, and Utah and I have zero doubts that BYU will be part of that as well. This might make it easier to truly move on from Nebraska but I wouldn't recommend anyone hold their breath for that happening.

I'm also no longer interested in having a rivalry with CSU due to their cheap shot antics in the last football game against them. That also includes being in a conference with them in addition to rooting for them outside of the rivalry. Screw 'em and keep reminding them that it sucks to be CSU.
 
Buffnik said:
Could this be the future? SEC and B1G each with 4 divisions of 8 teams each? Those 8 division champs are all auto-bids for the playoffs?
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762119608012619999
Click to expand...

There are good reasons for reducing the size of the FCS playoffs given that there are a few conferences that are not much different to what the SEC and B1G are but that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon. The only change to the postseason is an increase in the size of it not a reduction in the size of that postseason.
 
Buffnik said:
Could this be the future? SEC and B1G each with 4 divisions of 8 teams each? Those 8 division champs are all auto-bids for the playoffs?
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762119608012619999
Click to expand...
This is absolutely hilarious.

I'm looking forward to a restructuring with an 8 team division of Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Iowa State.

Then another division with USC, UCLA, Washington, Washington State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Oregon State.
 
Robert Sorell said:
This is absolutely hilarious.

I'm looking forward to a restructuring with an 8 team division of Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Iowa State.

Then another division with USC, UCLA, Washington, Washington State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Oregon State.
Click to expand...
Funny how that works. We'll basically return to what we had around 1990, but organized under only 1 or 2 roofs.
 
Robert Sorell said:
This is absolutely hilarious.

I'm looking forward to a restructuring with an 8 team division of Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Iowa State.

Then another division with USC, UCLA, Washington, Washington State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Oregon State.
Click to expand...
The irony of expansion to the point of restoring order hurts my brain.
 
Buffnik said:
Could this be the future? SEC and B1G each with 4 divisions of 8 teams each? Those 8 division champs are all auto-bids for the playoffs?
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762119608012619999
Click to expand...
I think this is where we are heading. 64 teams spread across 8 divisions of 8 teams each. The networks would absolutely pay for that. It’s the right balance between elite programs and programs that could be good in the right circumstances.
 
Jens1893 said:
64 is SIGNIFICANTLY too many. They could've just gone ahead with the current structure if that was the plan as the former P5 conferences didn't have many more members than that.
Click to expand...
I suspect the networks didn’t want to negotiate/fight over 5 separate tv deals where the conferences were able to play off each other for more money. 64 teams in 2 conferences is very different than 64 teams spread across 5
 
All this BS about CFP Meetings of "Commissioners" and all the BS about "Advisory Group" of SEC and B1G Commissioners never seems to ask out loud about what a PLAYERS UNION, FANS, or the actual SCHOOLS want or need. Do the Commissioners actually speak on behalf of the schools, or are they headhunters for cash?

Yormark and the ACC guy do not talk about much besides acting like the CFP is offering more spots for their teams, but never about the bigger picture because even they are still tasked with saving their jobs and have no clue what may or may not happen.

CFP is the UEFA Champions League Championship

SEC is the Premier League
B1G is La Liga or maybe even the Saudi League
ACC is Ligue 1
BIG12 is Bundesliga

I get the direction now that we are headed, but it feels like it is gonna be a cluster****
 
NW Buff said:
I suspect the networks didn’t want to negotiate/fight over 5 separate tv deals where the conferences were able to play off each other for more money. 64 teams in 2 conferences is very different than 64 teams spread across 5
Click to expand...
Yep. They want an NFL structure. Someone buys "AFC" rights and the other "NFC" rights. Then, maybe some special broadcasts such as weeknight feature games that would be up for auction like MNF, SNF, and TNF.
 
Buffnik said:
While the marquee CFB games are a huge deal for the networks, there's also a ton of value in other games. There's good reason that ESPN bought and expanded bowl games featuring conferences and teams that can't fill more than 25% of the stadium. There's good reason they pay conferences good money to play on Wednesday night. It's not just about the marquee games. CFB delivers volume of programming that outperforms anything else a network could broadcast even when the audience is a shadow of an Ohio State-Michigan game. So I don't think that they're trying to eliminate the Kentucky v Vanderbilt type games. Their interest is in eliminating the Vanderbilt v Western Kentucky type games. And, with that, also increase the volume of matchups like Alabama v Texas so there are always at least enough big brand matchups every Saturday & a couple Friday night games to fill the major time slots.

In short, I think that they want the super D1 for football but without FCS matchups. I could see adding Fall Camp exhibition games against FCS as a preseason practice that got televised and provided a payday to the FCS (i.e., Northern Colorado playing a preseason game at Folsom a week or two before the opener).
Click to expand...
This is where I see the cleaner version of 64 teams working, because there will not be any more body bag games. Even a more low-end game would draw good numbers versus an Alabama v North Texas game. 32 good games each week has good value and the networks have not had that.

I could also see the Spring Games and One Preseason game having some merit as fillers.

I do not think a longer season is the answer. 12-13 games is plenty, plus the playoffs, and there could still possibly be bowl games.
 
Any idea that Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, A&M, Michigan, etc. give 3 seconds of thought to being "fair" to the bottom schools in the current power conferences is fantasy.

They care about their bank accounts, they care about how much money is coming in and how much money will come in the future.

Of course if they unload the traditional doormat programs overall records will get worse. Do you think that will bother them as they are counting the money that is distributed among 30-40 teams instead of 60-70 teams.

In 2022 the 32 NFL teams each took in about $372 million from league revenues, mostly media rights. This was separate from team revenues such as ticket sales, local sponsorships and local media rights, etc. Do you think that the owners of those teams that are at .500 or below would be in favor of giving up over $100 million each to add 16 weak teams so they could win more games? Not a chance.

The B1G and SEC powers are projected to soon make over $100 million per year from conference media shares. Great money but Indiana and Illinois are getting that same amount without generating close to the same viewership. Get rid of them, and Vandy and Mississippi State and the remaining teams are looking at $20 million+ more each per year. They won't turn that opportunity.

There will still be opportunity for the rest of the schools to be on TV and get paid for it, they just will have to deal with the super conference getting the biggest share.

As it stands we still see plenty of MAC football, of C-USA and the MWC on national TV. They just get paid much less for it. That is the reality that a lot of schools that are used to being paid in the top level by nature of historic associations will have to deal with, similar to what has happened with Oregon State and Washington State this year and to a lesser extent Cal and Stanford.

Does Colorado make the final cut for the top division. I think based on historical national interest, geography, and the re-awakening with Prime we likely make the cut but I wouldn't be shocked to find us on the outside looking in along with a number of others schools.
 
MtnBuff said:
Any idea that Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, A&M, Michigan, etc. give 3 seconds of thought to being "fair" to the bottom schools in the current power conferences is fantasy.

They care about their bank accounts, they care about how much money is coming in and how much money will come in the future.

Of course if they unload the traditional doormat programs overall records will get worse. Do you think that will bother them as they are counting the money that is distributed among 30-40 teams instead of 60-70 teams.

In 2022 the 32 NFL teams each took in about $372 million from league revenues, mostly media rights. This was separate from team revenues such as ticket sales, local sponsorships and local media rights, etc. Do you think that the owners of those teams that are at .500 or below would be in favor of giving up over $100 million each to add 16 weak teams so they could win more games? Not a chance.

The B1G and SEC powers are projected to soon make over $100 million per year from conference media shares. Great money but Indiana and Illinois are getting that same amount without generating close to the same viewership. Get rid of them, and Vandy and Mississippi State and the remaining teams are looking at $20 million+ more each per year. They won't turn that opportunity.

There will still be opportunity for the rest of the schools to be on TV and get paid for it, they just will have to deal with the super conference getting the biggest share.

As it stands we still see plenty of MAC football, of C-USA and the MWC on national TV. They just get paid much less for it. That is the reality that a lot of schools that are used to being paid in the top level by nature of historic associations will have to deal with, similar to what has happened with Oregon State and Washington State this year and to a lesser extent Cal and Stanford.

Does Colorado make the final cut for the top division. I think based on historical national interest, geography, and the re-awakening with Prime we likely make the cut but I wouldn't be shocked to find us on the outside looking in along with a number of others schools.
Click to expand...

That's the final step, but they'll first try to bully them into accepting an uneven distribution model and I think succeed with it. They'll stay greedy and will try to push the "lesser" teams until they break.

Colorado needs to make the most out of the chance Deion Sanders gives us, else we're SOL.
 
Jens1893 said:
That's the final step, but they'll first try to bully them into accepting an uneven distribution model and I think succeed with it. They'll stay greedy and will try to push the "lesser" teams until they break.

Colorado needs to make the most out of the chance Deion Sanders gives us, else we're SOL.
Click to expand...
You could be right.

I could see the top schools creating a model with two levels, the upper schools who get the largest share of the money, and a second tier of schools who see substantially lower payouts but higher than they could get outside the system.

The second tier would have token representation in the business aspects and potentially even a slot in a playoff system in return for rolling over and letting the power schools dominate the money and decision making.

The breaking point you refer to could be a very real thing. This potentially ends up in congress with the players at the top schools being treated as employees in exchange for an anti-trust exemption allowing the monopoly to exist. I could also see some current P4 conference schools deciding it isn't worth it to keep chasing the top end of college football and rescale their football and athletic programs. It won't be popular with the alums/boosters but could in the long run make much more sense for some of these schools.

The rest of college football from current FCS down is designated as student-athletes exempt from labor laws but requiring full title IX compliance and minimums in terms of academic and other support.

Where it all ends up is open for speculation but I have no doubt that a handfull of schools are going to end up with the lions share of the money.

If Colorado wants to end up in that top group you are correct in that it has to be a priority right now and until things settle out.
 
Buffnik said:
While the marquee CFB games are a huge deal for the networks, there's also a ton of value in other games. There's good reason that ESPN bought and expanded bowl games featuring conferences and teams that can't fill more than 25% of the stadium. There's good reason they pay conferences good money to play on Wednesday night. It's not just about the marquee games. CFB delivers volume of programming that outperforms anything else a network could broadcast even when the audience is a shadow of an Ohio State-Michigan game. So I don't think that they're trying to eliminate the Kentucky v Vanderbilt type games. Their interest is in eliminating the Vanderbilt v Western Kentucky type games. And, with that, also increase the volume of matchups like Alabama v Texas so there are always at least enough big brand matchups every Saturday & a couple Friday night games to fill the major time slots.

In short, I think that they want the super D1 for football but without FCS matchups. I could see adding Fall Camp exhibition games against FCS as a preseason practice that got televised and provided a payday to the FCS (i.e., Northern Colorado playing a preseason game at Folsom a week or two before the opener).
Click to expand...

ESPN has a 24 hour hole to fill. And they added multiple channels which requires more inventory. All of that was predicated on 110 million households pitching in $5 a month to cover the cost. Well. Now were down about 60 million today, ESPN jacked up the prices-a short term fix, yet its expected to continue to drop to under 50 million in 2027.

Advertisers want to reach the largest target audience they possibly can. If its my spend Im not paying you the same for Kentucky v Vanderbilt that I would for Texas v Alabama because an audience 100,000 is not worth an audience of 2 million plus. So to compensate the networks just run more commercials to make up for that. In the olden days that game wouldnt even get on TV.

I can reach virtually the same audience spending on the NFL which accounted for 95 of the 100 top ratings events in 2023.
 
I am forced to believe - possibly delusional - that even ESPN understands that Georgia and Alabama playing each other with 7-3 records doesn’t rock anybody’s boat. Or at least as many people as it would if they were both undefeated or one-loss teams. You need to keep Vanderbilt and Mississippi State around. Those schools aren’t getting dropped. You also need Kansas, Cal, Washington State, Syracuse and Virginia. There will be some middling programs that will have to be part of this, and yes, Alabama understands that as well. Just because everybody has the same media revenue does not mean everybody has the same overall revenue. You can have equal media revenue distribution while allowing schools to go out and cut whatever deals they can for tier 3 rights, stadium concessions, parking, ticket sales, etc. the revenue gap will still be there.
 
Not Sure said:
I am forced to believe - possibly delusional - that even ESPN understands that Georgia and Alabama playing each other with 7-3 records doesn’t rock anybody’s boat. Or at least as many people as it would if they were both undefeated or one-loss teams. You need to keep Vanderbilt and Mississippi State around. Those schools aren’t getting dropped. You also need Kansas, Cal, Washington State, Syracuse and Virginia. There will be some middling programs that will have to be part of this, and yes, Alabama understands that as well. Just because everybody has the same media revenue does not mean everybody has the same overall revenue. You can have equal media revenue distribution while allowing schools to go out and cut whatever deals they can for tier 3 rights, stadium concessions, parking, ticket sales, etc. the revenue gap will still be there.
Click to expand...
Yep. They might add unbalanced media shares based on national tv appearances (if you're selected for "A" slots, you earn more), but we'll end up with all major markets, states and programs included. Where we'll see the most controversy is that they probably won't take 2 mid-level teams from the same state if it's not a huge market. KU or KSU but not both. Same with UA/ASU, Utah/BYU, etc. I think the networks would rather fill the 64 team roster with pro sized market teams such as SDSU, UNLV, UConn, Pitt, Cincy, etc and bet on their future potential than double up in a market.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. They might add unbalanced media shares based on national tv appearances (if you're selected for "A" slots, you earn more), but we'll end up with all major markets, states and programs included. Where we'll see the most controversy is that they probably won't take 2 mid-level teams from the same state if it's not a huge market. KU or KSU but not both. Same with UA/ASU, Utah/BYU, etc. I think the networks would rather fill the 64 team roster with pro sized market teams such as SDSU, UNLV, UConn, Pitt, Cincy, etc and bet on their future potential than double up in a market.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But remember that some of those intrastate games are the best ones and get the best ratings. Iowa/Iowa State is a good game. Oregon/Oregon State is a good game. Oklahoma/Oklahoma State is a good game. I believe (again, perhaps delusional) that they want the best games, and some of those games involve two schools from the same media market.
 
Not Sure said:
I am forced to believe - possibly delusional - that even ESPN understands that Georgia and Alabama playing each other with 7-3 records doesn’t rock anybody’s boat. Or at least as many people as it would if they were both undefeated or one-loss teams. You need to keep Vanderbilt and Mississippi State around. Those schools aren’t getting dropped. You also need Kansas, Cal, Washington State, Syracuse and Virginia. There will be some middling programs that will have to be part of this, and yes, Alabama understands that as well. Just because everybody has the same media revenue does not mean everybody has the same overall revenue. You can have equal media revenue distribution while allowing schools to go out and cut whatever deals they can for tier 3 rights, stadium concessions, parking, ticket sales, etc. the revenue gap will still be there.
Click to expand...
The CFP could actually be used as a winner take all system and stop distributing down the line if the League was a single comprehensive League. The MAC and AAC and others are in the current CFP, so if you have a single league model with all the 64 schools in it, then you could say that playing or winning the championships gets you more money, then so be it, but to bastardize college football and reduce the number of potential viewers is dumb. My main issue is the uneven playing field. The big programs are not interested in fixing NIL and creating a balanced salary cap because that loses the advantages.
 
4BienemyTDs said:
The CFP could actually be used as a winner take all system and stop distributing down the line if the League was a single comprehensive League. The MAC and AAC and others are in the current CFP, so if you have a single league model with all the 64 schools in it, then you could say that playing or winning the championships gets you more money, then so be it, but to bastardize college football and reduce the number of potential viewers is dumb. My main issue is the uneven playing field. The big programs are not interested in fixing NIL and creating a balanced salary cap because that loses the advantages.
Click to expand...
I absolutely believe the big programs are interested in fixing NIL. I also believe they understand the overall health of the sport is deteriorating. When guys like Saban walk away because they’re fed up with the game, that’s a wake up call. Or at least it should be.
 
Not Sure said:
I absolutely believe the big programs are interested in fixing NIL. I also believe they understand the overall health of the sport is deteriorating. When guys like Saban walk away because they’re fed up with the game, that’s a wake up call. Or at least it should be.
Click to expand...
If the fix for NIL is to eliminate competitors and increase revenue, then you are right, but until they can hatchet or bully schools out of the way, they like the dirty model
 
Not Sure said:
I absolutely believe the big programs are interested in fixing NIL. I also believe they understand the overall health of the sport is deteriorating. When guys like Saban walk away because they’re fed up with the game, that’s a wake up call. Or at least it should be.
Click to expand...
I think the Saban walked away because the system is broken narrative is overplayed.

His wife being ill, and him being past 70 are the primary reasons.

I know he's talked about it being broken, but if he was 60 he wouldn't be walking away.
 
Robert Sorell said:
I think the Saban walked away because the system is broken narrative is overplayed.

His wife being ill, and him being past 70 are the primary reasons.

I know he's talked about it being broken, but if he was 60 he wouldn't be walking away.
Click to expand...
Putting aside for a second the fact that he mentioned it specifically when asked for his reason for leaving. If you believe Sabans departure wasn’t related to the current broken system, can you say the same about the several other coaches that are leaving college coaching to go to the NFL? There’s obviously something broken, and it’s impacting the game itself.
 
Not Sure said:
Putting aside for a second the fact that he mentioned it specifically when asked for his reason for leaving. If you believe Sabans departure wasn’t related to the current broken system, can you say the same about the several other coaches that are leaving college coaching to go to the NFL? There’s obviously something broken, and it’s impacting the game itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Saban leaving because college football is broken is a classic rhetoric, @Robert Sorell is speaking sense. Sure the NFL is more attractive as a coach now, doesn't mean "college football is broken". The pendulum swings back and forth, this is the history of the game.
 
It’s certainly a matter of opinion, but if you can look at the current state of college football and come to any conclusion other than it’s broken, I think you’re not paying attention. Any system where you have Stanford and Cal playing in the ACC is fundamentally flawed and doomed to eventual failure.
 
Buffnik said:
I think this would be bad for the Big 12. 3rd fiddle in the state of TX if it goes down.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762244925528162569
Click to expand...
But apparently college football isn’t broken.

Let the insanity run wild. The more bizarre and ridiculous, the better.

The short term impacts for the Big 12 would be negative, but it could be positive in the long run for some of the members of the league, including us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top