What's new
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!

Longhorn Chip Brown with Sunday morning update

You might make more money if you get Texas and the minions but without them, how do you propose increasing the Pac's revenue? And if you get Texas, you also get the academically challenged schools OU, Okie Lite and Tech.

I am honestly trying to figure out how you can justify that the Pac will increase revenue. The conference would technically be watered down football-wise with the addition of CU and Utah would it not? The conference already has piss poor ratings due to the late start times in Pacific Coast time, how will they remedie that?

Did you miss the part about the PAC 10 having the oldest media contract? It is expiring.

The conference now dominates the following markets:

#2 Los Angeles (5.7 million households)
#6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (2.5 million households)
#12 Phoenix (1.9 million households)
#13 Seattle-Tacoma (1.8 million households)
#16 Denver (1.5 million households)
#20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto (1.4 million households)
#22 Portland (1.2 million households)
#28 San Diego (1.1 million households)
#31 Salt Lake City (0.9 million households)... assuming Utah is invited, as expected

The "Big 4" from the South bring great markets, but they certainly do not make or break the PAC's television deal:

#5 Dallas-Fort Worth (2.5 million households)
#10 Houston (2.1 million households)
#37 San Antonio (0.8 million households)
#45 Oklahoma City (0.7 million households)
#48 Austin (0.7 million households)

Frankly, the PAC looks better from a media perspective by taking Texas and Texas Tech in order to secure all those Texas markets and then jumps on UNLV and New Mexico instead of the Oklahoma schools. Las Vegas is the #42 market (0.7 million households) and Albuquerque-Santa Fe is the #44 market (0.7 million households). They both fit the PAC geographic footprint better, have superior academics to the schools from Oklahoma, and are two of the fastest growing metros in the nation.

Does it make sense now?

P.S. Every school in the Big 10's current footprint is in a state that is either declining in population or growing at a rate that's below the national average. Long-term, it's not the place to be.
 
refute ONE of them with a link. Anything. Otherwise you are wrong.

I'm off to bed, so I'm not going to link the history on this. But in general it goes like this. The Pac 10 is due to negotiate a new TV deal, and is therefore in the catbird seat for the expansion--right time at the right place sort of arrangement. The Pac 10 Commissioner Larry Scott is known for his prowess specifically in negotiating television contracts. This, coupled with market coverage that spans the populous West Coast from Los Angeles to Seattle (oh, by the way, most vehicles in Portland sport an "O" on the rear window) and now to Denver leaves most observers with a sense of optimism for those split revenues. Pac 10's contract should eclipse the Big 10's (also negotiated by Larry Scott, if I'm not mistaken...but in a less fertile market).

Of course, none of it matters if the product on the field isn't viable. But the Pac 10, after being down in the 90s, was a force last decade, frequently swapping spots with the Big XII for second honors as the "best football conference" behind the SEC (according to multiple sources--but as I posted the other day, Pat Forde ranked them above the SEC). Phil Knight is pumping a lot of money into several Pac 10 schools to promote the level of competition. USC brought the spotlight back to the conference, but Cal and Oregon are ready to carry the torch following the USC sanctions. I'd argue that Washington will fight it's way back, and in any given year OSU, UCLA and at least one of the Arizonas will field a solid team.

Why CU? It brings the number 16 market. It's a good cultural fit and a good academic fit. The athletic program is down, but by historical standards it's a safe bet.

Texas sweetens the pot, and CU fans are split on how we feel about their response to any invite. Frankly I like Texas in the PAC. I just don't like the baggage they bring in other schools that are less culturally compatible with the Pac. But Texas definitely raises the conference revenues. About that you're right.
 
The Big 10 TV contract was just recently signed. Its in place. The Pac contract is under negotiation. The Pac, has a big chunk of the top TV markets. They will get a lucrative deal with or without Texas and the others. But, yeah, the deal will be bigger if they join. However, dividing a bigger contract by 16 or a smaller one by 12 will still provide CU with somewhere around $20 million per year. Right now, in the Big XII arrangement, they get $8 or $9 million. Even a nub can do the math that shows CU's revenue will close to double. Add to that the fact that there are about 35,000 alumni in the Pac as opposed to 11,000 in the Big XII, and I believe donations will go up significantly. Finally, home attendance (gate revenue) will increase, even under the Pac 12 scenario, because the Pac schools that will be coming to Boulder are much more marketable than the Big XII North schools.
 
No matter whether the Big XII South schools go to the Pac or not, our revenue will more than double.
 
No matter whether the Big XII South schools go to the Pac or not, our revenue will more than double.


Not sure about that....our revenue will certainly increase, but if the Big 12 stays intact, that will likely impact the overall television pot, and could reduce the share to the Pac-10...
 
Not sure about that....our revenue will certainly increase, but if the Big 12 stays intact, that will likely impact the overall television pot, and could reduce the share to the Pac-10...

We shall see. But just doing the math in my head, if they contract with the 16 teams earns $320 million per year, each school gets $20 million. To earn $20 million per school with just 12 schools, the contract would have to be $240 million. Way over simplified, I know. But I don't think that is such a stretch. Add to that the increased donation and gate revenue that I think will happen, I think our revenue will easily double.
 
I'm off to bed, so I'm not going to link the history on this. But in general it goes like this. The Pac 10 is due to negotiate a new TV deal, and is therefore in the catbird seat for the expansion--right time at the right place sort of arrangement. The Pac 10 Commissioner Larry Scott is known for his prowess specifically in negotiating television contracts. This, coupled with market coverage that spans the populous West Coast from Los Angeles to Seattle (oh, by the way, most vehicles in Portland sport an "O" on the rear window) and now to Denver leaves most observers with a sense of optimism for those split revenues. Pac 10's contract should eclipse the Big 10's (also negotiated by Larry Scott, if I'm not mistaken...but in a less fertile market).

Of course, none of it matters if the product on the field isn't viable. But the Pac 10, after being down in the 90s, was a force last decade, frequently swapping spots with the Big XII for second honors as the "best football conference" behind the SEC (according to multiple sources--but as I posted the other day, Pat Forde ranked them above the SEC). Phil Knight is pumping a lot of money into several Pac 10 schools to promote the level of competition. USC brought the spotlight back to the conference, but Cal and Oregon are ready to carry the torch following the USC sanctions. I'd argue that Washington will fight it's way back, and in any given year OSU, UCLA and at least one of the Arizonas will field a solid team.

Why CU? It brings the number 16 market. It's a good cultural fit and a good academic fit. The athletic program is down, but by historical standards it's a safe bet.

Texas sweetens the pot, and CU fans are split on how we feel about their response to any invite. Frankly I like Texas in the PAC. I just don't like the baggage they bring in other schools that are less culturally compatible with the Pac. But Texas definitely raises the conference revenues. About that you're right.


^
this! owned cornholer!
 
Someday you will get it. (Hint, its about $$$)

Are you aware that 35% of your gate receipts will be earmarked for your new conference? In short, you will be giving charity to your less fortunate conference members. That is an unavoidable fact of the B10. And it is that reason exactly why Texas was never truly interested in forming an alliance - they only needed a smoke screen for some barganing power.

Fans of the Nubs have long cited the necessity to schedule a bucket of tards as OOC "competition": it is all about the $$$$ and you need the sell outs to thrive. Congrats - 35% of those fine matchups you can kiss goodbye.

Now why don't you run along and worry about some of the fine print that comes along with your new bedmate? I look forward to your collective meltdown once y'all realize the full ramifications of the choices you made.
 
Back
Top