When this thread hits 15,000 posts. It’s all on us.
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
BlackNGold
Club Member
Let us put those quotes in context. Those were made over a year after CU and Utah had joined the PAC. The comments were made after Texas A&M announced they were leaving for the SEC. One of the speculative rumors (sound familiar) was that Texas, OU, TT and OSU would bolt to the PAC and there being and East and West Division in CU being placed in an eastern division and Benson was responding to that rumor. He pointed out the reason we joined the PAC 12 was to play more games on the West Coast to engage our West Coast alumni better. He was saying he would advocate for CUs interest as he should, IMO.
Your opening sentence makes it sound like Benson and CU torpedoed Texas and OU joining the PAC - totally not true. It was a rumor that was unfounded - there was no movement afoot for those schools to jump to the PAC. Texas had an opportunity to join the PAC when CU did but the Long Horn Network was the issue and a few days after CU left the Big 12 approved an unequal revenue sharing which guaranteed Texas, A&M, and OU a bigger slice of the pie equivalent to what they would get in the PAC.
There are a lot of good stories of what went on behind the scenes in those days but CU having any impact on Texas joining the PAC in 2011 is not one of them.
Victory
Well-Known Member
I’m saying Benson’s instincts were wrong. Instead of fighting it he should have advocated for it and tried to make it work because it meant the conference would be stronger. To your point, there was a lot more behind the scenes and his speaking out didn’t block them. Ok that’s fine. But instinctually he was wrong and it was shortsighted to not want Texas and Oklahoma.
On the Longhorn Network, Texas got their $15M a year from ESPN but the LHN turned out to be the least successful cable network in history, losing $48M in first 5 years. Actually comical when you think about it. I’m sure ESPN couldn’t wait to ditch that loser idea (added incentive to fold Texas into SEC).
No one knew at the time it was going to be a lemon. It rubbed everyone the wrong way at the time (extra $15M to Texas) but in hindsight, if it took letting them keep a network that was destined to fail, should have let them try it. We would be in a legit force of a conference vs the f’ed situation were in now.
Could easily make similar arguments for the P12N creation and how bad president's instincts were on that one but it speaks for itself.
Victory
Well-Known Member
Every major conference is going to have its egos. Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Florida State, Northwestern, Vandy.
It’s the price of doing business. I’m listening to the Wilner and Canzano podcast with the former Utah AD who was there at realignment. He said USC was always unpredictable when it came to this topic and that they had a good reason to want more.
UT is the Shiva of CFB.
I think USC, UCLA, WA, and OR would have kept their influence to a minimum.
I also believe they are in for a rude awakening in the SEC if/when they try to through their weight around. Georgia and Alabama may simply laugh out loud, move to dismiss with a quick second.
UT has effectively killed three conferences now (I blame their move to the SEC as the impetus to force the B1G to respond by getting USC and UCLA). I can’t wait to see what they do to the SEC. The big hats aren’t going to take kindly to playing second fiddle in their own conference. They’re going to go in there and act like they own the place. Should make for some solid entertainment.
Wait. Wut?
academic ego, not sports.
popular chant at Northwestern games when they're losing by 30:
It's alright
It's OK
You will work
For us one day
if you think about, that's an egotistical af thing to shout at other college studentsVictory
Well-Known Member
I dropped them in as a joke but I like where you’re going with it.
Texas is not going to get away with throwing their weight around in the SEC.
To quote @Duff Man from back when this move was announced, Texas doesn't understand the room they're walking into.
I agree they don’t know the room they’re walking into. That won’t stop them from trying. And they won’t stop trying. It’s not in their nature to allow somebody else to call the shots. It will make for good fun for the rest of us.
maybe if we had insight into internal SEC meetings, but if this anticipated contention occurs, I'm not sure that it'll be publicly known sufficiently to provide amusment for us.
91-72 over the last 12 years. They’re going to find out quickly what it’s like to be a middling program that nobody is afraid of
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Same thing used to be shouted by SMU students at games. More of a "I'm rich" ego thing for them than overwhelming academic superiority.
When have the big hats at UT ever kept their feelings to themselves? We will know all about it.
Victory
Well-Known Member
I think these are all fair points that UT could be put in check by the SEC. I don’t particularly care either way about UT. My point is about Colorado and as of today I don’t think it’s realistic to see CU joining a major conference and not have to deal with some kind of revenue disparity in the future. It was probably naive to not see this coming a while back.
But now it’s coming. NIL is accelerating it. That’s why we’re hearing UO/UW joining B1G at partial shares and USC joined at full share day 1. We’re not even in the discussion of joining B1G at partial share, that’s how tenuous our situation is at the moment.
I love CU but let’s be honest we’re not in a major market and we will not be able to command top dollar. Can we still get in the game via some other arrangement? Yes.
We either roll with that or it’s G5 time. Would we rather be in a conference with Texas or Texas Tech?
Today the SEC announced it was moving its headquarters to Dallas to better align with conference membership. The conference also announced that all sports playoffs and conference championships would also be moving to the Lonestar state. Starting next year UT was granted an exception in football scheduling that requires all of its conference games, both home and away, to be played in Austin permanently….
An additional suspicion I have is that, if you see the CFP have a BigXII and or Pac team make it while they watch from the sidelines after being fodder for UGa and Bama for a decade, they might bolt back to a conference thats easier to dominate. Which is why these two super conferences want the CFP expanded to 12 teams.
I greatly enjoyed watching Miami beat the Longhorns in March Madness.
There are 69 P5 programs at current and CU sits in the 19th biggest market, so it is a big market, but that doesn't matter as much as it used to. The brand is what matters now and how many people from around the country care enough to be watch games that feature CU. If Prime and CU were able to go to the B1G or SEC and somehow guarantee that Prime was going to be CU's coach for life, I think CU would get a full share invite right now because I believe CU is going to be in the top 10 in average game ratings as long as CP is here. Since they can't guarantee the networks and conferences he is going to be the HC in 2025 and beyond, and there is no telling what will happen to CU's brand in a post-Prime environment, they simply have to wait and see how things shake out over the next 5-6 years.
Victory
Well-Known Member
Denver is the 16th Nielsen DMA in 2023 but I hear you. And I agree, CP changes the brand trajectory and most importantly indicates a willingness to invest (something Utah, Oregon, and Washington have been doing and we have not).
But even with their investments and winning, they’re still outside looking in. However, I think they will be fine. If CP wins as expected, we will be fine. The timing of CP + a pause in major realignment could make for the perfect timeline of events for us.
Investment is a huge part of this. CU needs to do a Folsom renovation ahead of the next realignment.
70,000 seats is what it would take to put us in the Top 25 for stadium size. https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/...biggest-college-football-stadiums-country?amp
Does that really move the needle for realignment, though? Folsom is already bigger than Northwestern, and right there (within 1000 seats) with Minnesota, Maryland, Rutgers and Indiana and Purdue and Illinois both sit at 57k and 60k respectively.
I just don't know what adding 20k seats does for CU from an attractiveness of TV/Media company and B1G/SEC conference standpoint.
I don't know if 70k is some magic number. I do know that 50k is unimpressive. Realignment boost potentially, but definite boosts for recruiting and revenue if we have a big time facility. Not sure why we don't think we can match Washington, which is a hair over 70k.
I'm struggling to imagine CU being able to sustain a high level of interest to make a 70k stadium make financial sense.
I woudl love to believe that things will continue trending up for the foreseeable future, but expecting CU to draw the same as the Broncos long term seems perilous.
I always come back to the point that CU has never before sold out the home slate for a season. Including 1990 and 1991. I do think we will this year, but if you're Saliman or whoever makes the final call, would you gamble on such a long term investment with a single data point?
I woudl love to believe that things will continue trending up for the foreseeable future, but expecting CU to draw the same as the Broncos long term seems perilous.
I always come back to the point that CU has never before sold out the home slate for a season. Including 1990 and 1991. I do think we will this year, but if you're Saliman or whoever makes the final call, would you gamble on such a long term investment with a single data point?
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
70,000 seats would be an incredible waste of money until there is MAJOR and sustained uptick in ticket demand. And 50k sellouts look better than 75% full oversized stadiums anyway.
My preference would be a complete gut and build while maintaining the historic architecture. That would mean a season of games at Empower Field, in my mind. But it’ll never happen in my remaining time on earth!
It’ll have to happen at some point. Folsom is well beyond its design life with deteriorating infrastructure, crumbling superstructure and altogether out of date facilities.
It’s more likely they will come up with some sort of phased plan if and when they do any renovations.
Last edited:
I agree. I think any kind of serious discussion around capacity increase is at least 5-6 years away, and possibly entirely dependent on data points observed about the demand of tickets in a post-Prime world.
Victory
Well-Known Member
I also think these are ideas that can get folded into a commitment after we join a league that can help with the bill. I’d include adding additional sports under that commitment as well. Things we’d like to do but the feasibility is dependent on conference revenue.