What's new
By:
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!

College Football Realignment

BerkeleyBuff said:
Right now, teams 11-34 (the remainder of the SEC and B1G) also make more money per school than they would if all the money of CFB got divided 64 ways. So I don't see why they'd go along, either.
Click to expand...
I think the pie would get a little bigger, which would make up for that.

Currently there's also the really big issue that teams 29-34 in revenue don't really pull their weight in terms of generating that revenue; i.e. they're not 28-34 in reality, but more like 75-80.

The schools that will fight hardest for the status quo are those schools, as they'll be put out to pasture with WSU and OSU if there's any sensible realignment.

Next are 1-10, as they won't gain much money in a new system, and they'll lose some of their current advantages.

The mids in B1G/SEC mostly won't care either way, and their preferences will be as heterogeneous as they are ("that'd be great, travel savings/ rivalries in other sports will be super improved," "that'd suck, we'd lose our only guaranteed sell out," "drrr, we don't like change or hippies," etc).
 
skibum said:
I think the pie would get a little bigger, which would make up for that.

Currently there's also the really big issue that teams 29-34 in revenue don't really pull their weight in terms of generating that revenue; i.e. they're not 28-34 in reality, but more like 75-80.

The schools that will fight hardest for the status quo are those schools, as they'll be put out to pasture with WSU and OSU if there's any sensible realignment.

Next are 1-10, as they won't gain much money in a new system, and they'll lose some of their current advantages.

The mids in B1G/SEC mostly won't care either way, and their preferences will be as heterogeneous as they are ("that'd be great, travel savings/ rivalries in other sports will be super improved," "that'd suck, we'd lose our only guaranteed sell out," "drrr, we don't like change or hippies," etc).
Click to expand...
This is the precedent that makes it an option. Until the PAC12 showed them how it could be done getting rid of schools that don't carry their weight was always the question. Kick them out and they lawyer up faster than you can blink.

Instead leave them with the historic names and logos of the conference but nobody else in the confernce. Sure the B1G and the SEC have a ton of history but who thinks that those schools wouldn't leave all that behind if it means an extra $20-30 million per year or more? All of the sudden the Northern and Southern Divisions of the American College Sports Association sound fine, and history can be made.
 
Buffnik said:
It kind of did when SEC & B1G both went to 14, along with ACC. Then, when SEC announced OU/UT, B1G matched with USC/UCLA. B1G going to 18 with UO/UW was a weird move fueled by Phil Knight refusing to take no for an answer and them taking a horrible deal to get in. So, I think the likelihood is that SEC matches with 18. Their footprint interest has always been to have North Carolina and Virginia. The SEC geography is the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you meant that last sentence literally but the SEC is currently in 3 states that didn't secede, although Oklahoma wasn't a state at that time. But to your point North Carolina and Virginia are the 2 schools that neither the B1G or SEC is in yet and both states are top 12 in population. The thought has always been that UNC and UVA will come as a pair if either leaves for another conference.

Sankey takes great pride in the fact that their footprint is contiguous states and NC and VA would be the obvious choices geographically if they choose to expand outside their current footprint. The interesting part is that NCSt and VT are by far the better fits for the SEC when it comes to fan passion but UNC brings a national brand even if it is only because of basketball. UVA would just come along as a tag-along kind of like UCLA did when the B1G invited USC.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Not sure if you meant that last sentence literally but the SEC is currently in 3 states that didn't secede, although Oklahoma wasn't a state at that time. But to your point North Carolina and Virginia are the 2 schools that neither the B1G or SEC is in yet and both states are top 12 in population. The thought has always been that UNC and UVA will come as a pair if either leaves for another conference.

Sankey takes great pride in the fact that their footprint is contiguous states and NC and VA would be the obvious choices geographically if they choose to expand outside their current footprint. The interesting part is that NCSt and VT are by far the better fits for the SEC when it comes to fan passion but UNC brings a national brand even if it is only because of basketball. UVA would just come along as a tag-along kind of like UCLA did when the B1G invited USC.
Click to expand...
Where did you get UVA being ahead of Clemson for the SEC?
 
#1 pick said:
Where did you get UVA being ahead of Clemson for the SEC?
Click to expand...

It's been well speculated that UVA and UNC would go to either the B1G or SEC as a pair plus the 2 schools have a long history together. I realize it was recently reported that UNC supposedly has a handshake deal with the SEC for 2030 and Clemson would be the likely 2nd team but if we're talking about expanding a conference footprint then the SEC is already in South Carolina. And if the SEC wants to improve their academic profile then there's no 2 better public schools in the region to add than UNC and UVA.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
It's been well speculated that UVA and UNC would go to either the B1G or SEC as a pair plus the 2 schools have a long history together. I realize it was recently reported that UNC supposedly has a handshake deal with the SEC for 2030 and Clemson would be the likely 2nd team but if we're talking about expanding a conference footprint then the SEC is already in South Carolina. And if the SEC wants to improve their academic profile then there's no 2 better public schools in the region to add than UNC and UVA.
Click to expand...
Admittedly I don’t follow SEC rumors of the past few decades, but I don’t think there’s much to be taken from that kind of thinking. It’s about brands now, not footprints and markets.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Google says it's $147m deficit by end of 2031 which is roughly $24m shortfall per year. How are they possibly running that large of a deficit?
Click to expand...
They made huge investments that were a bit beyond their means and then the House Settlement was too much. More to it, but that's the brief synopsis of what I remember reading
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRM
The Alabaster Yak said:
Google says it's $147m deficit by end of 2031 which is roughly $24m shortfall per year. How are they possibly running that large of a deficit?
Click to expand...

The Alabaster Yak said:
Not sure how they dig out of that while also putting $20m/year toward rev sharing, and I don’t see a path to competitiveness without that.
Click to expand...
Notice how close the annual deficit in your first post is to the number in your second?

I'm sort of guessing here, but nik and a I both seem to think they're probably related, and ISU really, really got broadsided by the house settlement.

Hell, if we were sitting with any other coach but Prime, CU would be in the same boat. We could not have timed the cash influx he brought to the program better.
 
skibum said:
Notice how close the annual deficit in your first post is to the number in your second?

I'm sort of guessing here, but nik and a I both seem to think they're probably related, and ISU really, really got broadsided by the house settlement.

Hell, if we were sitting with any other coach but Prime, CU would be in the same boat.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression this deficit was before the optional $20m/year rev share.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I was under the impression this deficit was before the optional $20m/year rev share.
Click to expand...

SuperD said:
What’s crazy is they also have the second largest stadium in the B12 (about 10k more than us) and they’ve been coming close to filling it the last few seasons and they’ve are still in this predicament.
Click to expand...
Reading more and it’s not exactly clear if that projected shortfall is before the rev share. One article mentions it’s a projection for FY 2026-2031 and mentions the new landscape of paying players as a factor, so it could actually be including that number.

I guess I would just assume most ADs are in the same position if that’s the case. Sure, CU has the Prime revenue but where is Cincy and KSU and Arizona, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, etc getting all the money to cover that while ISU is falling that far behind?
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Reading more and it’s not exactly clear if that projected shortfall is before the rev share. One article mentions it’s a projection for FY 2026-2031 and mentions the new landscape of paying players as a factor, so it could actually be including that number.

I guess I would just assume most ADs are in the same position if that’s the case. Sure, CU has the Prime revenue but where is Cincy and KSU and Arizona, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, etc getting all the money to cover that while ISU is falling that far behind?
Click to expand...
To be fair though nobody else in the B12 is paying their coach $10m a year either.
 
Pilotbuff said:
How many sports is ISU supporting?
Click to expand...
And to what extent are they supporting them?

Wrestling is big at ISU. It's... not a revenue sport, but look how much they were dropping to build a new facility.

We're lucky in that we got a revenue infusion that happened to have really good timing. As @The Alabaster Yak notes, it can't only be ISU in this situation.

I suspect that any school AD that is in the middle of, or just completed, a big capital project is looking at some very tough decisions. It could just be ISU is the first to publicly acknowledge it, and they might be lucky in that they can cancel the projects before they really begin.

I'm thinking about both of the Kansas schools when i write that - KjSU just completed their stadium project in the last few years and now are making the payments on it, and KU is finishing theirs now with the payments beginning, well, now. A 20mm new revenue share budget line is going to hurt. Absolutely would not be surprised to see sports dropped entirely, or budgets cut dramatically.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Reading more and it’s not exactly clear if that projected shortfall is before the rev share. One article mentions it’s a projection for FY 2026-2031 and mentions the new landscape of paying players as a factor, so it could actually be including that number.

I guess I would just assume most ADs are in the same position if that’s the case. Sure, CU has the Prime revenue but where is Cincy and KSU and Arizona, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, etc getting all the money to cover that while ISU is falling that far behind?
Click to expand...
The deficit isn’t an actual debt. The $147 million figure is a projection of the sum total of future operating deficits to 2031 assuming revenue streams are generally static and after the House settlement player payment system kicks in.

Yes, they have to address by ceasing expensive capital projects like the renovation to the Hilton Center. However, I view the coverage on this as a warning shot over the bow for fans and other stakeholders. In other words, dig deeper in your wallets or else.
 
Once again, the upshot of this is there are three tiers in college football:

Top Tier SEC and Big teams that have media revenue to cover paying players. Nevertheless, some non revenue sports may get cut.

Mid Tier ACC and Big 12 teams that will have to leverage the fan base for consistent cash each year to maintain competitiveness with top tier teams. It’s really not sustainable but you have a chance. Having fewer sports, like CU, helps a ton here.

Bottom tier all other D1 conferences which cannot pay the players like the top and mid tier teams. As a result, you become a farm team for everyone else where your top end talent may leave each year for a payday. I actually think donations into the AD may get worse in this tier, as major donors throw in the towel realizing it makes no sense putting in good money after bad when there is zero sustainable pathway for success.

If you think Iowa State’s future budgetary issues are scary, well you certainly wouldn’t want to look at all the red ink over at Washington State and Oregon State, two schools built on a revenue model that no longer exists for them.

I maintain my position that several schools will drop out in the coming years. Athletics isn’t in any school’s mission statement, and writing checks for $25 million operating losses each year is not sustainable.
 
Dark Bohner said:
A little different though when your athletic department is in national news because of severe financial deficits.
Click to expand...
Not really. He's paid well and ISU has been tens of millions behind other programs in the region for years, including years when he was considered a top prospect for such gigs. Meanwhile he's got a top 25 team and a legitimate chance at the playoff right now, he's ISU royalty and their winningest coach ever, and he's had all the opportunity in the world to leave already.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Not really. He's paid well and ISU has been tens of millions behind other programs in the region for years, including years when he was considered a top prospect for such gigs. Meanwhile he's got a top 25 team and a legitimate chance at the playoff right now, he's ISU royalty and their winningest coach ever, and he's had all the opportunity in the world to leave already.
Click to expand...
I have never had a problem with the Clones, but I've got to admit that I would enjoy the meltdown if Iowa poached him when Ferentz retires.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
sounds like it is time for them to cut non-revenue sports. they will not be the last that face this dilemma. Already mentioned that wrestling will lose out on a new practice facility. Becoming a situation where all schools are going to have to make hard choices. Football paid the bills and will be the area that takes most of the revenue share.
Click to expand...
Iowa St is at the 16 sport NCAA minimum. I wonder if conversations about lowering that are underway? I would be worried if I played men’s sports other than football or basketball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top