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!

Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

Starting to think that the Big Ten is going to cause the dominoes to fall. http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...may-not-be-an-active-topic-but-its-out-there/

CBS Sports suggests that the $300 million football facilities project (stadium & IPF) is a play to position itself for the B1G. KU got a hard message in the last round of expansion when it found out its basketball program wasn't going to move the needle and if the Big 12 fell apart they were looking at the MWC or AAC.

With that, Tom Osborne's recent comments suggested KU, KSU and ISU as possibilities.

Considering that the Big Ten is very proud of AAU membership, I don't see KSU as part of that -- it simply doesn't bring enough value to overcome that. I'd think that KU is a virtual lock if the conference goes to 16.
 
PAC-12 should be all over KU and others in the Big 12. PAC-12 desperately needs that central time zone with some meaningful properties (KU, UT, OU would be the best, but getting OSU, TT, TCU, etc. would be a big step in right direction). Don't see much need for the bottom of the barrel schools like KSU, ISU or Baylor (unless PAC is forced to take them to get at the other properties).
 
CUFan said:
PAC-12 should be all over KU and others in the Big 12. PAC-12 desperately needs that central time zone with some meaningful properties (KU, UT, OU would be the best, but getting OSU, TT, TCU, etc. would be a big step in right direction). Don't see much need for the bottom of the barrel schools like KSU, ISU or Baylor (unless PAC is forced to take them to get at the other properties).
Click to expand...

ISU and KSU are going to be left out of any major restructuring. They are the ones with the most interest in saving the B12 because they have no other options. Baylor at this point is so toxic that they aren't going to be welcomed by anyone either.
 
All these conference expansion moves have been about football and KU brings absolutely nothing to the table football-wise. The next round of expansion may very well center around massive football fanbases who are willing to pay a premium to watch their team every week, compared to the last round of expansion which centered around large markets.

Which means Pac12 expansion needs to start and end with 2 schools, OU and Texas. Otherwise the Big12 or Big10 will be coming after Pac12 schools instead.
 
onealcd said:
Maybe but getting the big 10 network on basic cable in NYC is part of the reason they are going to be 5-8 million above the SEC.
Click to expand...

Big 10 network isn't basic cable in NYC, it's in the same sports tier as the PAC 12 network. We don't really give a **** about New Jersey.
 
BuffsNYC said:
Big 10 network isn't basic cable in NYC, it's in the same sports tier as the PAC 12 network. We don't really give a **** about New Jersey.
Click to expand...
Sorry. To be clear the big 10 network charges$1.00 per subscriber IN footprint so when they added Rutgers and Maryland it allowed them to make a **** ton of money. I would hardly call that "irrelevant" to add Rutgers lol.
 
onealcd said:
Sorry. To be clear the big 10 network charges$1.00 per subscriber IN footprint so when they added Rutgers and Maryland it allowed them to make a **** ton of money. I would hardly call that "irrelevant" to add Rutgers lol.
Click to expand...
And how many B10N subscribers do you think Rutgers brings?
 
TSchekler said:
And how many B10N subscribers do you think Rutgers brings?
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point, it doesn't matter how many subscribers Rutgers and Maryland bring, the big 10 network can up their revenue per subscriber in the largest tv market in the US and the number 7 tv market making those two schools very relevant in terms of conference revenue.
 
onealcd said:
Sorry. To be clear the big 10 network charges$1.00 per subscriber IN footprint so when they added Rutgers and Maryland it allowed them to make a **** ton of money. I would hardly call that "irrelevant" to add Rutgers lol.
Click to expand...

I still wonder why the Big Ten didn't go after Sycrause.
 
onealcd said:
I think you are missing the point, it doesn't matter how many subscribers Rutgers and Maryland bring, the big 10 network can up their revenue per subscriber in the largest tv market in the US and the number 7 tv market making those two schools very relevant in terms of conference revenue.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand how you figure the number of subscribers the two programs bring doesn't matter. Whats the difference between the $1 they charge per subscriber now in NY, vs before Rutgers joined the conference?
 
TSchekler said:
I still don't understand how you figure the number of subscribers the two programs bring doesn't matter. Whats the difference between the $1 they charge per subscriber now in NY, vs before Rutgers joined the conference?
Click to expand...
The only thing I found said they charge $1 per subscriber inside the footprint and .10 out side the footprint. This was back in 2014 as well so I'm sure they jacked it up from $1 inside the footprint too.
 
onealcd said:
The only thing I found said they charge $1 per subscriber inside the footprint and .10 out side the footprint. This was back in 2014 as well so I'm sure they jacked it up from $1 inside the footprint too.
Click to expand...
Ok that makes more sense. I had no idea what $1 was being compared against. So in that case, 1 subscriber with Rutgers in the footprint is equal to 10 without.
 
Just did a breakdown of the top 50 tv markets and which networks can charge an in-footprint rate and it is pretty damn amazing what the Big-10 has done. They own the following TV markets to themselves:
3-Chicago
11-Detriot
15-Minneapolis
17-Cleveland
32-Columbus
34-Cincy
35-Milwaukee
39-Grand Rapids
They also share the following markets:
1-NYC
4-Philly
9-DC
23-Pittsburgh
25-Indianapolis
26-Baltimore
41-Harrisburg

What is crazy about this is just how bad the Big-12 looks in these comparisons:
Owned markets:
45-OKC
Shared Markets:
5-Dallas
10-Houston
21-St. Louis
31-Kansas City
37-San Antonio
49-Austin


ACC:
Owned:
7-Boston
24-Charlotte
27-Releigh
43-Norfolk
46-Greesboro
Shared:
1-NYC
4-Philly
8-Atlanta
9-DC
13-Tampa
16-Miami
19-Orlando
23-Pittsburgh
25-Indy (ND)
26-Baltimore
36-Greenville
38-Palm Beach
41-Harrisburgh
47-Jacksonville
50-Louisville

SEC:
Owned:
29-Nashville
40-Birmingham
48-Memphis

Shared:
5-Dallas
8-Atlanta
10-Houston
13-Tampa
16-Miami
19-Orlando
21-St. Louis
31-Kansas City
36-Greenville
37-San Antonio
38-Palm Beach
48-Jacksonville
49-Austin
50-Louisville

Compare that to the Pac-12:
2-L.A
6-Bay Area
12-Pheonix
14-Seattle
18-Denver
20-Sacramento
22-Portland
28-San Deigo
33-SLC

Pretty clear no one is going to mess with the Big-10 distribution based on those market numbers. One thing that will be interesting is how cord cutting changes the revenue models in these shared markets. Basically are the fans in these markets being charged way more for cable since they are in the footprint of two conferences? I wonder if the subscriber fee is lower for shared vs. owned markets.

I also think this shows just how much of a power play it would be for the Pac-12 to add Texas and OU. That would give them shared markets in:
5-Dallas
10-Houston
37-San Antonio
49-Austin
And also an owned market in OKC (45)

This wouldn't just be a power play from a tv market standpoint but Austin, Dallas and San Antonio are also projected to grow at similar rates to the Pac-12 markets so despite how good that would look at the beginning it would look even better in 20 years with 7-8 top 15 markets.
 
onealcd said:
Just did a breakdown of the top 50 tv markets and which networks can charge an in-footprint rate and it is pretty damn amazing what the Big-10 has done. They own the following TV markets to themselves:
3-Chicago
11-Detriot
15-Minneapolis
17-Cleveland
32-Columbus
34-Cincy
35-Milwaukee
39-Grand Rapids
They also share the following markets:
1-NYC
4-Philly
9-DC
23-Pittsburgh
25-Indianapolis
26-Baltimore
41-Harrisburg

What is crazy about this is just how bad the Big-12 looks in these comparisons:
Owned markets:
45-OKC
Shared Markets:
5-Dallas
10-Houston
21-St. Louis
31-Kansas City
37-San Antonio
49-Austin


ACC:
Owned:
7-Boston
24-Charlotte
27-Releigh
43-Norfolk
46-Greesboro
Shared:
1-NYC
4-Philly
8-Atlanta
9-DC
13-Tampa
16-Miami
19-Orlando
23-Pittsburgh
25-Indy (ND)
26-Baltimore
36-Greenville
38-Palm Beach
41-Harrisburgh
47-Jacksonville
50-Louisville

SEC:
Owned:
29-Nashville
40-Birmingham
48-Memphis

Shared:
5-Dallas
8-Atlanta
10-Houston
13-Tampa
16-Miami
19-Orlando
21-St. Louis
31-Kansas City
36-Greenville
37-San Antonio
38-Palm Beach
48-Jacksonville
49-Austin
50-Louisville

Compare that to the Pac-12:
2-L.A
6-Bay Area
12-Pheonix
14-Seattle
18-Denver
20-Sacramento
22-Portland
28-San Deigo
33-SLC

Pretty clear no one is going to mess with the Big-10 distribution based on those market numbers. One thing that will be interesting is how cord cutting changes the revenue models in these shared markets. Basically are the fans in these markets being charged way more for cable since they are in the footprint of two conferences? I wonder if the subscriber fee is lower for shared vs. owned markets.

I also think this shows just how much of a power play it would be for the Pac-12 to add Texas and OU. That would give them shared markets in:
5-Dallas
10-Houston
37-San Antonio
49-Austin
And also an owned market in OKC (45)

This wouldn't just be a power play from a tv market standpoint but Austin, Dallas and San Antonio are also projected to grow at similar rates to the Pac-12 markets so despite how good that would look at the beginning it would look even better in 20 years with 7-8 top 15 markets.
Click to expand...

Yep. Texas is ridiculously valuable. I think the question is on how to get into that market without compromising too much on conference culture and power structure. SEC was smart about this. Texas A&M gave it a UCLA level school and it's meant a ton for media revenue and recruiting for all conference members. But Texas A&M is only 1 vote that's far away from conference offices.

Could we get UT on those kind of terms? Not quite. ESPN's deal for Longhorn Network goes through 2030 and the next round of realignment is likely in 2023. If the Pac-12 added UT, it would likely be a situation where PACN would not own UT's Tier 3 broadcast rights for 7 years. So, any game in any sport played at UT and not picked up on ESPN/ABC or FOXSports would be broadcast on LHN instead of PACN. I think the Pac-12 membership would accept that. But would UT accept an equal share once that period was over? That's highly questionable and the sticking point. But if the Big 12 doesn't hold together in 2023, it may be UT's only option other than independence.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. Texas is ridiculously valuable. I think the question is on how to get into that market without compromising too much on conference culture and power structure. SEC was smart about this. Texas A&M gave it a UCLA level school and it's meant a ton for media revenue and recruiting for all conference members. But Texas A&M is only 1 vote that's far away from conference offices.

Could we get UT on those kind of terms? Not quite. ESPN's deal for Longhorn Network goes through 2030 and the next round of realignment is likely in 2023. If the Pac-12 added UT, it would likely be a situation where PACN would not own UT's Tier 3 broadcast rights for 7 years. So, any game in any sport played at UT and not picked up on ESPN/ABC or FOXSports would be broadcast on LHN instead of PACN. I think the Pac-12 membership would accept that. But would UT accept an equal share once that period was over? That's highly questionable and the sticking point. But if the Big 12 doesn't hold together in 2023, it may be UT's only option other than independence.
Click to expand...
Are there any numbers that show what the revenue difference would be between UT and other Pac 12 schools, if UT joined right now with everything as is? I'm just wondering if there's a way to make UT happy in the Pac, while also putting the other members in a far better spot, financially, than they otherwise would have been without UT in the conference.
 
TSchekler said:
Are there any numbers that show what the revenue difference would be between UT and other Pac 12 schools, if UT joined right now with everything as is? I'm just wondering if there's a way to make UT happy in the Pac, while also putting the other members in a far better spot, financially, than they otherwise would have been without UT in the conference.
Click to expand...
UT is making around $50 million with the LHN revenue. $35 million from the Big-12 and about $15 from tier 3 LHN.
 
onealcd said:
UT is making around $50 million with the LHN revenue. $35 million from the Big-12 and about $15 from tier 3 LHN.
Click to expand...
So ~$25m more than individual Pac 12 schools? Would the addition of UT, OU, OSU and KU, for example, increase revenue enough for everybody else in the conference, to allow UT to keep their LHN deal? Basically, I don't think UT is ever going to be OK with being equal with other conference members, because honestly, they don't have to be. The question is, would other Pac teams be OK with allowing them to continue with the LHN, if it meant everybody else started seeing larger paychecks, too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top