Pac-12 Network is restructuring

[Buffnik]

Colorado has grown at a ridiculous pace over the last decade or two. Do you feel the support for the CU/CSU football/basketball programs are growing at a similar rate? I know that the program has been down for a long period of time, and winning will convert some fans, but the point being, more people doesn’t always mean more support/revenue for the local programs.

This obviously remains true for programs like UNLV. If you moved (back) to LV, are you going to be a UNLV fan and support them financially if they’re a member of the Pac? What about Boise?

My pessimism for this conference (short of big time programs being added) is rooted in the fact that the culture of the Pac 12 region is one of a transplant nature with outdoor recreation, not one that is football-crazed like the other 4 power conferences.

With that, maybe the solution is to add programs within our region aren't quite so high brow? I have trouble believing the Pac gets worse and that our elite academic institutions slide back in their quality if we add schools like Boise State and BYU. I'm starting to like the idea of an all Western Pac and to do it as 16 teams.

I could absolutely get on board with adding BYU and raiding the MWC for SDSU, Boise State and UNLV.

With pod scheduling within Mountain (East) and Pacific (West) divisions, I have trouble believing we wouldn't have great football games that turned out a great western champion every year.

Pacific
Cal Pod: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
NW Pod: UO, OSU, UW, WSU

Mountain
Desert Pod: UA, ASU, SDSU, UNLV
Rockies Pod: CU, Utah, BYU, Boise State

9 game conference schedule. You play the 3 teams in your pod and a home/away against 2 teams from every other pod each season (rotating after 2 years to the other 2 teams).

Then you have a 2 round conference championship. 1st seed from Pacific plays 2nd seed from the Mountain and the 1st seed from the Mountain plays the 2nd seed from the Pacific (games on higher seed's home campus). Winners play Pac-12 Championship in Las Vegas.

How would this be a bad thing?

I'm not saying it should happen tomorrow, but as a 10-20 year plan?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

With that, maybe the solution is to add programs within our region aren't quite so high brow? I have trouble believing the Pac gets worse and that our elite academic institutions slide back in their quality if we add schools like Boise State and BYU. I'm starting to like the idea of an all Western Pac and to do it as 16 teams.

I could absolutely get on board with adding BYU and raiding the MWC for SDSU, Boise State and UNLV.

With pod scheduling within Mountain (East) and Pacific (West) divisions, I have trouble believing we wouldn't have great football games that turned out a great western champion every year.

Pacific
Cal Pod: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
NW Pod: UO, OSU, UW, WSU

Mountain
Desert Pod: UA, ASU, SDSU, UNLV
Rockies Pod: CU, Utah, BYU, Boise State

9 game conference schedule. You play the 3 teams in your pod and a home/away against 2 teams from every other pod each season (rotating after 2 years to the other 2 teams).

Then you have a 2 round conference championship. 1st seed from Pacific plays 2nd seed from the Mountain and the 1st seed from the Mountain plays the 2nd seed from the Pacific (games on higher seed's home campus). Winners play Pac-12 Championship in Las Vegas.

How would this be a bad thing?

I'm not saying it should happen tomorrow, but as a 10-20 year plan?

Yeah that sounds great to me, as long as it creates a situation where the revenue gap becomes less significant between Pac and other P5 conferences.

 

[somebody]

Wow, pages about the importance of culture, ending with a recommendation to go BYU, BSU and UNLV. All over the map, so to speak.

 

[Buffnik]

Wow, pages about the importance of culture, ending with a recommendation to go BYU, BSU and UNLV. All over the map, so to speak.

There are more aspects to culture than graduate research ranks. I was surprised at how well BYU actually ranks when I looked into it. And I did think I said to look at a broader western culture that owns the region. I think that there's some intellectual and wealth elitism plus hard left leaning political thought with the Pac-12 membership that leaves out a lot of the population and that those it's leaving out are more likely to be hardcore sports fans. I'm not sure that counting on growing fan support by attracting more graduate students from Asia is how best to fill stadiums and drive Nielsen ratings. There's a lot more to the west than that.

I think it makes more sense to make the tent bigger within our cultural and geographic footprint. The alternative seems to be to go outside that footprint while also adding institutions that are different than the current Pac-12 makeup. Maybe that cultural difference between a CU and a CSU, between a Utah and a BYU is what makes for a more interesting rivalry that captures more eyeballs.

(In hindsight, I'd probably amend my earlier post and replace BYU with CSU if it's a complete non-starter due to their policies on homosexuality and academic freedom. That's from a pragmatic standpoint. I also think CSU would be a much easier sell than Boise State due to the academics. New Mexico probably an easier sell, too.)

 

[somebody]

There are more aspects to culture than graduate research ranks. I was surprised at how well BYU actually ranks when I looked into it. And I did think I said to look at a broader western culture that owns the region. I think that there's some intellectual and wealth elitism plus hard left leaning political thought with the Pac-12 membership that leaves out a lot of the population and that those it's leaving out are more likely to be hardcore sports fans. I'm not sure that counting on growing fan support by attracting more graduate students from Asia is how best to fill stadiums and drive Nielsen ratings. There's a lot more to the west than that.

I think it makes more sense to make the tent bigger within our cultural and geographic footprint. The alternative seems to be to go outside that footprint while also adding institutions that are different than the current Pac-12 makeup. Maybe that cultural difference between a CU and a CSU, between a Utah and a BYU is what makes for a more interesting rivalry that captures more eyeballs.

(In hindsight, I'd probably amend my earlier post and replace BYU with CSU if it's a complete non-starter due to their policies on homosexuality and academic freedom. That's from a pragmatic standpoint. I also think CSU would be a much easier sell than Boise State due to the academics. New Mexico probably an easier sell, too.)

Looking at this a while back, I was also surprised, BYU is a really good school. But not a culture fit, nor are any of those others. In fact, I had come to the same conclusion, that in that long list given earlier, CSU is probably the best fit in the region. If we've come to that, I'm with Sacky: stay at 12.

 

[Tatanka™]

Looking at this a while back, I was also surprised, BYU is a really good school. But not a culture fit, nor are any of those others. In fact, I had come to the same conclusion, that in that long list given earlier, CSU is probably the best fit in the region. If we've come to that, I'm with Sacky: stay at 12.

I'm fine with little brother getting a seat at the grownups table. They'll still be little brother just like Beavers and Cougars are in their states. While we all know their fans are obnoxious, I'm also fine with having to play them every year as long as it's on campus. Maybe their fans will become a bit less obnoxious and obsessed about one game when they also have teams like Washington, Oregon and USC on the schedule every year.

It's good for the state to have two universities in a prestigious conference. If we can't still out-recruit a Pac-12 CSU every year and beat them most years, then the problem will be that we don't have the right coach, not that CSU is a P5 team. And in the years when we do come up short against them, it will be a P5 loss and not a Mountain West loss.

 

[ahoelsken]

There are more aspects to culture than graduate research ranks. I was surprised at how well BYU actually ranks when I looked into it. And I did think I said to look at a broader western culture that owns the region. I think that there's some intellectual and wealth elitism plus hard left leaning political thought with the Pac-12 membership that leaves out a lot of the population and that those it's leaving out are more likely to be hardcore sports fans. I'm not sure that counting on growing fan support by attracting more graduate students from Asia is how best to fill stadiums and drive Nielsen ratings. There's a lot more to the west than that.

I think it makes more sense to make the tent bigger within our cultural and geographic footprint. The alternative seems to be to go outside that footprint while also adding institutions that are different than the current Pac-12 makeup. Maybe that cultural difference between a CU and a CSU, between a Utah and a BYU is what makes for a more interesting rivalry that captures more eyeballs.

(In hindsight, I'd probably amend my earlier post and replace BYU with CSU if it's a complete non-starter due to their policies on homosexuality and academic freedom. That's from a pragmatic standpoint. I also think CSU would be a much easier sell than Boise State due to the academics. New Mexico probably an easier sell, too.)

New Mexico over CSU. CSU doesn't bring anything to the table that this conference doesn't already have, and they get no attention even when they are good locally.

 

[Highlander]

I'm fine with little brother getting a seat at the grownups table. They'll still be little brother just like Beavers and Cougars are in their states. While we all know their fans are obnoxious, I'm also fine with having to play them every year as long as it's on campus. Maybe their fans will become a bit less obnoxious and obsessed about one game when they also have teams like Washington, Oregon and USC on the schedule every year.

It's good for the state to have two universities in a prestigious conference. If we can't still out-recruit a Pac-12 CSU every year and beat them most years, then the problem will be that we don't have the right coach, not that CSU is a P5 team. And in the years when we do come up short against them, it will be a P5 loss and not a Mountain West loss.

It wouldn’t be the end of the day of CSU joined the Pac 12, but how are they more qualified than University of San Diego? USC and UCLA will never allow that to happen because it blocks them as being the only P5 “local” options for a county that is 3.3M people. Orange County (south of LA county and north of SD county for the geographically impaired) is another 3.2M people. Colorado’s population is 5.6M.

Why should we voluntarily oblige little brother when USC and UCLA clearly would never do the same?

 

[Buffnik]

New Mexico over CSU. CSU doesn't bring anything to the table that this conference doesn't already have, and they get no attention even when they are good locally.

UNM does bring 2 million people and however many household cable TVs in New Mexico that means - which is weak but it's more than CSU's nothing burger. What CSU does is go to the old Pac-12 model of paired rivalries within a state and the good things that does for pageantry and for road trips where it's a lot easier to play both Colorado schools in the same week than it is to play at CU and Utah. That can save a lot of money across all the sports.

 

[ahoelsken]

UNM does bring 2 million people and however many household cable TVs in New Mexico that means - which is weak but it's more than CSU's nothing burger. What CSU does is go to the old Pac-12 model of paired rivalries within a state and the good things that does for pageantry and for road trips where it's a lot easier to play both Colorado schools in the same week than it is to play at CU and Utah. That can save a lot of money across all the sports.

That's the model when it works for the league, and I don't know if I want that to go away in basketball-playing us and Utah in a week is really, really hard on the teams who do it-Didn't UCLA and ASU both get swept this past year on that trip? As far as the ease of travel, you're right, but its feasible for anybody from outside of this area to bus from Boulder to Albuerquerque (four hours?)

 

[WarBuff]

That's the model when it works for the league, and I don't know if I want that to go away in basketball-playing us and Utah in a week is really, really hard on the teams who do it-Didn't UCLA and ASU both get swept this past year on that trip? As far as the ease of travel, you're right, but its feasible for anybody from outside of this area to bus from Boulder to Albuerquerque (four hours?)

Four hours (and four decades culturally....Albuquerque sucks)

 

[Not Sure]

It’s more than 4 hours to ABQ. Closer to six.

 

[Darth Snow]

It’s more than 4 hours to ABQ. Closer to six.

Longer if you take the traditional Trinidad detour

 

[JOEinDenver]

Looking at this a while back, I was also surprised, BYU is a really good school. But not a culture fit, nor are any of those others. In fact, I had come to the same conclusion, that in that long list given earlier, CSU is probably the best fit in the region. If we've come to that, I'm with Sacky: stay at 12.

I think we should add CSU and Nebraska!

 

[Highlander]

Longer if you take the traditional Trinidad detour

Doesn't that involve a multi-week hospital stay? You will never be the same afterwards!

 

[Buffnik]

Good points and food for thought from Wilner in his newsletter today. Lots of change since certain decisions were made and a certain vision was adopted. The majority no longer have any ownership in those original decisions.
More CEO turnover (and what it means)

We don’t hear much about base salaries, guaranteed comp, deferred payments, buyouts and mitigation clauses in contracts at the presidential level within the Pac-12, but maybe we should.
Goodness, the turnover is significant.
USC president Max Nikias announced late last week that he would step down after a series of controversies and missteps resulted in a faculty revolt.
The development feels significant in that Nikias was one of the last remaining presidents from the group that approved commissioner Larry Scott’s plan to retain 100 percent ownership in the Pac-12 Networks — the business model that has helped define the conference for six years.
In fact, there are only three remaining CEOs from the group that hired Scott in 2009 and approved the networks' strategy two years later: Arizona State’s Michael Crow, Oregon State’s Ed Ray and UCLA’s Gene Block.
(Colorado's Phil DiStefano was involved in discussions about the networks, but the Buffaloes hadn't officially joined the conference.)
That’s it, folks. Every other school has changed, or is in the process of changing presidents.
All of which got me thinking …
Could the turnover at the CEO level possibly compare to the rate of change on the front lines of revenue generation — the athletic directors and football and men’s basketball coaches?
Turns out, the conference has had more presidents than basketball coaches since Scott took charge nine years ago.
Using Scott’s start date (July 1, 2009) as the cutoff point for the 10 continuing members and July ’11 as the line of demarcation for Utah and Colorado, here are the totals:
Men’s basketball coaches: 22
Presidents/chancellors: 26
Athletic directors: 28
Football coaches: 32
The CEO turnover might not matter a lick, but then again …
The presidents run the show, and the majority of sitting/incoming presidents did not hire Scott or sign off on the Pac-12 Networks’ controversial model.
The newbies, so to speak, might be more willing to ask tough questions during the next round of Tier I negotiations … as opposed to simply signing off on whatever strategy Scott and his consultants suggest.
The dynamics will be worth watching. -- Jon Wilner.

 

[Not Sure]

Phil isn’t the President of CU. He’s the Boulder Campus Chancellor. Maybe that’s splitting hairs. Does Benson have no say in these discussions?

 

[Buffnik]

Phil isn’t the President of CU. He’s the Boulder Campus Chancellor. Maybe that’s splitting hairs. Does Benson have no say in these discussions?

Benson would have a say if he wanted to have a say. I don't know how he does things. But I doubt he gets much involved in this type of stuff. It's the flagship and big money, so he probably cares somewhat because it's important for fundraising. Within his job, though, it's as outside of his main concerns as what athletic conference UCCS competes in.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Benson would have a say if he wanted to have a say. I don't know how he does things. But I doubt he gets much involved in this type of stuff. It's the flagship and big money, so he probably cares somewhat because it's important for fundraising. Within his job, though, it's as outside of his main concerns as what athletic conference UCCS competes in.

Is it a flagship if leadership is not there anymore?

flag·ship
ˈflaɡˌSHip/
noun

1. the ship in a fleet that carries the commanding admiral.
   • the best or most important thing owned or produced by a particular organization.

Office of the President
1800 Grant Street, Suite 800 | Denver, CO 80203
Board of Regents
Secretary of the Board of Regents | 1800 Grant Street, 8th Floor | Denver, CO 80203

• UC Boulder, Chancellor Phil DiStefano
• UC Denver, Chancellor Dorothy Horrell
• UC Colo Springs, Chancellor Venkat Reddy
• UC Anschutz Campus, Chancellor Don Ellliman

 

[Not Sure]

The shift to the Denver offices was done, purportedly, to have better access to legislators and to be able to lobby for better funding. I’m not sure that strategy has had the effect they were hoping for. May be time to move everything back to Boulder.

 

[Buffnik]

The shift to the Denver offices was done, purportedly, to have better access to legislators and to be able to lobby for better funding. I’m not sure that strategy has had the effect they were hoping for. May be time to move everything back to Boulder.

We got long-term contracts and other legislation in recent years. I wouldn't call it a failure by any stretch.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

The shift to the Denver offices was done, purportedly, to have better access to legislators and to be able to lobby for better funding. I’m not sure that strategy has had the effect they were hoping for. May be time to move everything back to Boulder.

Ha. Boulder is not a growth city. The university needed land to grow and they got it when Fitzsimons Army Medical Center was closed. They had already migrated the dental, nursing, and pharmacy programs to the UC Hospital and UC Denver in the early 90s. The system saw unprecedented growth. If Boulder wanted a piece of that pie they would have donated some of their precious open space to CU.

 

[Not Sure]

We got long-term contracts and other legislation in recent years. I wouldn't call it a failure by any stretch.

The question becomes what effect were they hoping for and would the legislation they received have been delivered regardless of the location of the HQ. Hard to know for sure one way or the other. I suspect the move had little to no effect, but I’m not close enough to the situation to know better. It certainly hasn’t done anything for higher ed funding overall.

 

[Buffnik]

The question becomes what effect were they hoping for and would the legislation they received have been delivered regardless of the location of the HQ. Hard to know for sure one way or the other. I suspect the move had little to no effect, but I’m not close enough to the situation to know better. It certainly hasn’t done anything for higher ed funding overall.

Yes. But when they didn't get increased funding for higher ed, they did get a concession that international students would no longer count to the formula which says a certain percentage of students have to be from Colorado. That was worth millions.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

The question becomes what effect were they hoping for and would the legislation they received have been delivered regardless of the location of the HQ. Hard to know for sure one way or the other. I suspect the move had little to no effect, but I’m not close enough to the situation to know better. It certainly hasn’t done anything for higher ed funding overall.

Thats on the voters for passing tabor, not amending tabor, and not agreeing to raise taxes to find education, higher ed, or even roads. Tabor simply ties the legislatures hands on new spending or increased spending. Eventually Benson's replacement somewhere down the line might realize that he or she could go to the public with a well crafted ballot initiative creating a tax that funds higher ed.

 

[Not Sure]

Yes. But when they didn't get increased funding for higher ed, they did get a concession that international students would no longer count to the formula which says a certain percentage of students have to be from Colorado. That was worth millions.

Ok. But was the move to Denver necessary to get that concession?

I always kind of figured the move was done to lobby for higher funding. That’s the drum the CU Advicates keep pounding, and I’m not sure that anything has worked there.

As for the Anschutz Campus: that was always a medical campus and having the med school in Boulder was never part of the plan, so I don’t think that’s germaine to the discussion.

 

[Not Sure]

Thats on the voters for passing tabor, not amending tabor, and not agreeing to raise taxes to find education, higher ed, or even roads. Tabor simply ties the legislatures hands on new spending or increased spending. Eventually Benson's replacement somewhere down the line might realize that he or she could go to the public with a well crafted ballot initiative creating a tax that funds higher ed.

Yes, we are all acutely aware of the impacts of TABOR. I am not convinced that the move to Denver has done anything to counteract those impacts.

 

[Duff Man]

The move to Denver was a thinly veiled idea to punish the Boulder campus for the scandal.

 

[Buffnik]

Yes, we are all acutely aware of the impacts of TABOR. I am not convinced that the move to Denver has done anything to counteract those impacts.

Honestly, the odds are that it was simply more convenient for Benson and him entertaining his core supporters & donors. It wasn't a move that bothered me, though. That is where most of the state's monied people are, the majority of the population, the media outlets and the state government.

 

[Not Sure]

Honestly, the odds are that it was simply more convenient for Benson and him entertaining his core supporters & donors. It wasn't a move that bothered me, though. That is where most of the state's monied people are, the majority of the population, the media outlets and the state government.

I think you are exactly right about this. It was Benson not wanting to deal with Boulder. Hard to blame him for that. But it becomes somewhat insulting to say its to be closer to the legislature.