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
Discuss.
Published in The Athletic this morning.
Excerpt:
Q: It seems established/strong programs that change conferences tend to regress in their new conference....With Oklahoma, Texas, USC and UCLA making moves, do you see them going the route of Miami, Nebraska and Colorado?
A: It’s hard to find any school that has thrived competitively by leaving one power conference for another. Missouri and Texas A&M had early success in the SEC, but that’s largely faded. Ditto Virginia Tech in the ACC. West Virginia has gone downhill since joining the Big 12. And I’d classify Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt as washes. Really, not since the likes of Penn State, Florida State and Miami gave up independence in the early 90s have we seen a school come into one of those leagues and win at a high level.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of these schools moved to a less-natural place geographically — whereas TCU and Utah arguably joined more geographically sensible conferences. Nebraska and Colorado losing their Texas recruiting connections, West Virginia trying to get into Texas, Maryland and Rutgers bumping heads with Penn State and Ohio State has not helped their causes.
Knowing that, of the four schools changing homes this go-around, Texas to the SEC is the only one that feels like a semi-natural fit. And I wouldn’t have said that if Texas A&M weren’t there. But between those two, Arkansas and LSU, there are some commonalities. Oklahoma: Not as much. I wrote then and believe even more so now that Oklahoma will rue leaving a conference where it was one of two alphas (and the far more successful one at that) to become one of a half-dozen similarly renowned programs. It would not surprise me at all if we’re one day talking about Oklahoma the way we do Nebraska today.
As for the L.A. schools: UCLA is screwed. A school with an apathetic football fan base that’s 25 years removed from its glory days is going to join a conference 2,000 miles away where half the schools play in sold-out 70,000-100,00 seat stadiums every week and the donors are willing to play the NIL game? As Jerry Seinfeld famously said: Good luck with all that.
USC has a better shot because of its history and recruiting cachet. It has an administration willing to spend at the highest level and, as of now, one of the top coaches in the sport. But it’s a heck of an experiment. If the Trojans were staying in the Pac-12, I have no doubt Lincoln Riley would eventually turn the program into the class of the league. But I’d be stunned if USC ever surpasses both Ohio State and Michigan for an extended period.
The funny thing about realignment is that it’s basically one big game of FOMO. Everyone’s desperate to chase the biggest possible TV check in order to “remain competitive.” But if you’re making twice as much money as you used to but winning half as many games as you used to, you’re just using that extra money to buy out more coaches.
Published in The Athletic this morning.
Excerpt:
Q: It seems established/strong programs that change conferences tend to regress in their new conference....With Oklahoma, Texas, USC and UCLA making moves, do you see them going the route of Miami, Nebraska and Colorado?
A: It’s hard to find any school that has thrived competitively by leaving one power conference for another. Missouri and Texas A&M had early success in the SEC, but that’s largely faded. Ditto Virginia Tech in the ACC. West Virginia has gone downhill since joining the Big 12. And I’d classify Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt as washes. Really, not since the likes of Penn State, Florida State and Miami gave up independence in the early 90s have we seen a school come into one of those leagues and win at a high level.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of these schools moved to a less-natural place geographically — whereas TCU and Utah arguably joined more geographically sensible conferences. Nebraska and Colorado losing their Texas recruiting connections, West Virginia trying to get into Texas, Maryland and Rutgers bumping heads with Penn State and Ohio State has not helped their causes.
Knowing that, of the four schools changing homes this go-around, Texas to the SEC is the only one that feels like a semi-natural fit. And I wouldn’t have said that if Texas A&M weren’t there. But between those two, Arkansas and LSU, there are some commonalities. Oklahoma: Not as much. I wrote then and believe even more so now that Oklahoma will rue leaving a conference where it was one of two alphas (and the far more successful one at that) to become one of a half-dozen similarly renowned programs. It would not surprise me at all if we’re one day talking about Oklahoma the way we do Nebraska today.
As for the L.A. schools: UCLA is screwed. A school with an apathetic football fan base that’s 25 years removed from its glory days is going to join a conference 2,000 miles away where half the schools play in sold-out 70,000-100,00 seat stadiums every week and the donors are willing to play the NIL game? As Jerry Seinfeld famously said: Good luck with all that.
USC has a better shot because of its history and recruiting cachet. It has an administration willing to spend at the highest level and, as of now, one of the top coaches in the sport. But it’s a heck of an experiment. If the Trojans were staying in the Pac-12, I have no doubt Lincoln Riley would eventually turn the program into the class of the league. But I’d be stunned if USC ever surpasses both Ohio State and Michigan for an extended period.
The funny thing about realignment is that it’s basically one big game of FOMO. Everyone’s desperate to chase the biggest possible TV check in order to “remain competitive.” But if you’re making twice as much money as you used to but winning half as many games as you used to, you’re just using that extra money to buy out more coaches.
Last edited:
I think it is also the fact that you are the "outsider" and nobody wants you to succeed. The Refs, the other schools, the other fans, nobody gives a damn who you are and nobody wants you to do well.
True, but I think that aspect fades after a few years. I think there is much more to geography and old rivalries than people think.
So maybe stay in the Pac-12, conference adds some strategic fits for footprints, benefit from the new playoff expansion, and CU dominates. Could be that when the next media negotiations come around that we're pulling Houston & TCU with UCLA & Oklahoma moving to our conference.
The Pac-12 is not going to be a major conference in 10 years.
And If they expand the playoffs to 12 teams and CU is 1st or 2nd in the smaller PAC12 conference with an easier schedule…?
I think the expanded playoff changes everything. But the P12 needs the So Cal market and would benefit from Vegas/NV along with expanding into TX.
This is going to benefit CU in the short term, yes, but is a long term loser
I don't think you guys understand what's happening in the not too distant future. The short term outlook is amazing for the Pac 10/Big 12/ACC as they all still get access to the playoff, but the B1G and SEC (nor Fox or ESPN), are going to allow that to continue for very long. They are going to close off the playoff to non P2 members once they expand again, making the remnants of the Pac, Big 12 and ACC glorified G5 programs.
The networks have spoken. Follow the money. The future is the NFL model and all the mental gymnastics about the Pac 10 staying together and somehow poaching Oklahoma and UCLA isn't going to the change that.
There will not be a B1G/SEC Championship which leaves out the major programs in the other conferences plus Notre Dame. It's not up to the conferences at this point, it's up to the media companies to drive this. If they can't form a new league with a governing body that everyone signs up for and kneecaps the autonomous power of the conferences, then it will be up to those same media companies to figure out how to add programs like Miami to the SEC/B1G while paying more money to the existing 16 members than they'd get without expanding. The ROI for additional expansion wasn't there for 2024, so why would it be in 2034?
I think the most likely shakeup is 4 16-team conferences that reshuffles ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 from 3 to 2, leaving some schools out.
If we had that and Notre Dame joined, I think it would work for maxing revenues and scheduling. Anyway, I think this is more likely than expanding both the B1G and SEC to 32 and then inking a deal for them to break away from the NCAA for football.
I disagree at this time based on all the evidence that is out there. Fox and ESPN went to great lengths to have their preferred conferences expand, are no longer interested in investing big money (relatively) in the non B1G and SEC conferences. That is a fact, and the idea that they are all of the sudden going to change their tune and take money away from the SEC and B1G, shifting it to two other conferences for 4 super conferences that are only somewhat equal media deals, doesn't make any sense.
The wheels are already in motion and the networks have already told you what their plan is by directing the B1G and SEC to expand with the 4 most valuable properties that weren't already in those two conferences (yes, those 4 are more valuable than Clemson, FSU, Miami, NC, Oregon, etc). Further expansion is inevitable.
The only way I see your scenario working is if non-FOX/ESPN networks or streaming services decide they are going to go all in with CFB and invest a similar amount of money in actually making ND and the remnants of the Pac 10, Big 12 and ACC into a third and fourth viable conference with that are on the same level as SEC and B1G, but it's not going to be Fox and ESPN.
If they could do that and keep some semblance of geographic consistency, I doubt many people would complain. The problem now is that you have the B1G going coast to coast. That doesn’t work in the long term.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
LOL
Eventually CFB will combine into 1 super conference of 64 teams. For scheduling purposes we would divide this in to 4 geographic regions of 16 teams each and split each region into 2 divisions of 8 each. We could name these regions the Atlantic Coast, the Southeast, the Southwest, the East, the Pacific Coast, the Great Lakes, the Midwest, and the Great Plains. Each division would play 7 games against their own division, 2 against the other division in their region and 1 each from the other 3 regions. The top teams in each of the two division would play for the regional championship who would then face off against the champions of the other regions for the title.
If Colorado is in the minor leagues, they won’t be involved with the CFP. The CFP will only feature CFP level teams (i.e. the 30ish teams in their league).
I think 32 is the number.
I think they want a little more differentiation from the NFL, I’d guess more in the 40-48 range. 32 likely leaves out enough schools to try to build a competitor.
Too much revenue to share with the 40s.
I think it has to be 48, at least.
College football's advantage over pro leagues is that it can have franchises in small media markets and see them thrive.
For example, one of the biggest numbers in CFB is when Alabama plays Auburn. That's unique to CFB since a pro league couldn't even consider putting a franchise in Birmingham but CFB can have 2 franchises in smaller metros in the same state.
You stack that on top of CFB also needing to be in the NFL sized markets with franchises like Rutgers in order to maximize value.
BuffBronco
Well-Known Member
Pac-12 fires senior executives following investigation into failure to report overpayments from Pac-12 Networks partner
The conference used an outside legal firm.
www.mercurynews.com
The Pac-12 on Friday terminated the employment of two senior executives, including the president of the Pac-12 Networks, for failing to disclose overpayments by a media distribution partner to the networks that made the annual revenue appear more robust than it was.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff carried out the dismissals with approval of the Pac-12 Board of Directors (the university presidents) and following an investigation by an independent, outside legal firm.
The conference did not identify the executives.
However, soon after the Pac-12 staff was informed of the situation, two names were removed from the staff directory: Pac-12 Networks president Mark Shuken and CFO Brent Willman, who oversees finances for both networks and conference operations.
A source confirmed they were the executives terminated.
The distribution partner, also unidentified, claims the overpayments totaled $50 million over the course of years, potentially impacting Pac-12 athletic department budgets in the future. (ESPN and Fox are not Pac-12 Networks distribution partners.)
Pac-12 fires senior executives following investigation into failure to report overpayments from Pac-12 Networks partner
The conference used an outside legal firm.
The Pac-12 on Friday terminated the employment of two senior executives, including the president of the Pac-12 Networks, for failing to disclose overpayments by a media distribution partner to the networks that made the annual revenue appear more robust than it was.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff carried out the dismissals with approval of the Pac-12 Board of Directors (the university presidents) and following an investigation by an independent, outside legal firm.
The conference did not identify the executives.
However, soon after the Pac-12 staff was informed of the situation, two names were removed from the staff directory: Pac-12 Networks president Mark Shuken and CFO Brent Willman, who oversees finances for both networks and conference operations.
A source confirmed they were the executives terminated.
The distribution partner, also unidentified, claims the overpayments totaled $50 million over the course of years, potentially impacting Pac-12 athletic department budgets in the future. (ESPN and Fox are not Pac-12 Networks distribution partners.)
They’re already at 32 and I don’t think they are going to boot 10-12 teams to make room for the ones that would make sense to bring in.
If I'm understanding this correctly, the P12 had a media partner who was significantly overpaying, these 2 P12 execs uncovered it in an audit, they did not report it to the customer or the P12, and the $50M in overpayments doesn't look like it found its way to the P12 bank account.Pac-12 fires senior executives following investigation into failure to report overpayments from Pac-12 Networks partner
The conference used an outside legal firm.
The Pac-12 on Friday terminated the employment of two senior executives, including the president of the Pac-12 Networks, for failing to disclose overpayments by a media distribution partner to the networks that made the annual revenue appear more robust than it was.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff carried out the dismissals with approval of the Pac-12 Board of Directors (the university presidents) and following an investigation by an independent, outside legal firm.
The conference did not identify the executives.
However, soon after the Pac-12 staff was informed of the situation, two names were removed from the staff directory: Pac-12 Networks president Mark Shuken and CFO Brent Willman, who oversees finances for both networks and conference operations.
A source confirmed they were the executives terminated.
The distribution partner, also unidentified, claims the overpayments totaled $50 million over the course of years, potentially impacting Pac-12 athletic department budgets in the future. (ESPN and Fox are not Pac-12 Networks distribution partners.)
This was the Larry Scott culture of executive grift which is the main reason the conference severely underperformed and is falling apart.
Don't be surprised if a deeper investigation goes beyond the civil side of a negotiated settlement to pay back the network and gets into criminal misconduct.
The timeline clarifies a few things:
As part of its public disclosure of events, the conference released the following timeline of events:
— In the spring of 2017, the Pac-12 Networks engaged the industry-leading auditor to conduct an audit of certain distribution partner payments.
— The audit concluded that one of the Pac-12 distribution partners had overpaid the Pac-12 Networks for the year 2016 by a material amount.
— The two Pac-12 executives whose employment were terminated today were made aware of the audit results in late December 2017.
— After receiving the audit results, the two executives failed to inform the Pac-12 Board of Directors or the Pac-12's external auditors of the financial risk associated with the audit findings.
— Since 2017, the two executives have not shared the ongoing financial risk associated with the apparent overpayment with either the Pac-12 Board of Directors or the Pac-12's external auditors.
— In October 2022, the distribution partner who was the subject of the 2017 audit claimed that it had been overpaying the Pac-12 each year since prior to 2016. The distribution partner claims that the overpayments total more than $50M.
— As soon as the distribution partner notified the Pac-12, the Pac-12 began looking into the claims, and determined that the Pac-12 should bring in independent legal counsel to review the facts of the situation
— The Pac-12 Board of Directors Audit Committee promptly hired the law firm of Cooley LLP to conduct an independent investigation.
— In November 2022, the Commissioner briefed the Pac-12 Board of Directors on the distribution partner's claim and the ongoing investigation being conducted by Cooley.
— Cooley concluded its investigation and on January 13, 2023 Cooley briefed the Commissioner on its findings.
— The Cooley investigation concluded that:
* Two current senior Pac-12 executives were aware of an overpayment from a distribution partner since late 2017;
* These executives failed in their obligations and duties to immediately disclose this information related to an immediate and material financial risk to the Pac-12 to the Pac-12 Board of Directors and the Pac-12's external auditors; and
* These executives failed in their ongoing obligation and duty to disclose this information to the Pac-12 Board of Directors and the Pac-12's external auditors.
— Based upon the findings of the investigation, the Commissioner made the decision to terminate the employment of the two Pac-12 senior executives.
— On January 19, 2023 the Board of Directors Executive Committee and the Chairman of the Pac-12 Audit Committee were briefed on the findings of the investigation and the decision to terminate the employment of the two Pac-12 senior executives.
— The terminations took place and are effective on January 20, 2023.
As part of its public disclosure of events, the conference released the following timeline of events:
— In the spring of 2017, the Pac-12 Networks engaged the industry-leading auditor to conduct an audit of certain distribution partner payments.
— The audit concluded that one of the Pac-12 distribution partners had overpaid the Pac-12 Networks for the year 2016 by a material amount.
— The two Pac-12 executives whose employment were terminated today were made aware of the audit results in late December 2017.
— After receiving the audit results, the two executives failed to inform the Pac-12 Board of Directors or the Pac-12's external auditors of the financial risk associated with the audit findings.
— Since 2017, the two executives have not shared the ongoing financial risk associated with the apparent overpayment with either the Pac-12 Board of Directors or the Pac-12's external auditors.
— In October 2022, the distribution partner who was the subject of the 2017 audit claimed that it had been overpaying the Pac-12 each year since prior to 2016. The distribution partner claims that the overpayments total more than $50M.
— As soon as the distribution partner notified the Pac-12, the Pac-12 began looking into the claims, and determined that the Pac-12 should bring in independent legal counsel to review the facts of the situation
— The Pac-12 Board of Directors Audit Committee promptly hired the law firm of Cooley LLP to conduct an independent investigation.
— In November 2022, the Commissioner briefed the Pac-12 Board of Directors on the distribution partner's claim and the ongoing investigation being conducted by Cooley.
— Cooley concluded its investigation and on January 13, 2023 Cooley briefed the Commissioner on its findings.
— The Cooley investigation concluded that:
* Two current senior Pac-12 executives were aware of an overpayment from a distribution partner since late 2017;
* These executives failed in their obligations and duties to immediately disclose this information related to an immediate and material financial risk to the Pac-12 to the Pac-12 Board of Directors and the Pac-12's external auditors; and
* These executives failed in their ongoing obligation and duty to disclose this information to the Pac-12 Board of Directors and the Pac-12's external auditors.
— Based upon the findings of the investigation, the Commissioner made the decision to terminate the employment of the two Pac-12 senior executives.
— On January 19, 2023 the Board of Directors Executive Committee and the Chairman of the Pac-12 Audit Committee were briefed on the findings of the investigation and the decision to terminate the employment of the two Pac-12 senior executives.
— The terminations took place and are effective on January 20, 2023.
So, uhh, where did the 50 mil go
Into our coffers, and the reason we are landing all of these stud recruits.