Mike Vanderjagt
Well-Known Member
Do you ever wear any of yours?
Mine mostly sit in the safe.
-
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
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
Mine mostly sit in the safe.
Serious question, what year do you think it is?
CU draws the best national ratings of anyone available besides Notre Dame and fits the other things the B1G has previously prioritized such as academic profile, B1G alumni presence in its location, the high volume of HS students with B1G level college admissions transcripts in its location, and "legend & leader" program prestige with championships, national awards, and All Americans.
Agree that these are the key considerations as we understand them?
CU is absolutely a valuable brand for the B1G (at least under Prime), my smartass question was about the legendary rivalries, which simply aren't. Nubs is a rivalry but Miami and ND are not. Those later 2 might attract viewership but it's not going to be because of a few games in the late-80s through mid-90s.
Selling ads is the most important thing to the networks and ratings is what sells ads. CU gets ratings.
CU also travels fairly well and has good alum numbers in other B1G states. The Denver TV market is one of the 20 biggest nationally and also profiles very well in demographics. Advertisers like the eyes that CU draws.
So can anyone explain why we do not seem to have any major momentum going and this Kansas - Utah news would make any freaking sense at all? Population, Total Research, TV Market, Overall Brand, Viewership, etc etc etc
GRM
Go Buffs/93' Grad
Long post of the week... I'm trying to keep them shorter.
I'm not necessary into picking certain program(s) that imploded the PAC12. It was a # of factors. Most of all, it was the lack of the B12 office securing a competitive TV deal. TV ultimately imploded the PAC12, probably due in part to the PAC12 office's mismanagement and miscalculation (initially the league office over-estimated the value of the conference in securing a TV deal in a less than ideal negotiating atmosphere--see Covid below). Sort of PAC12 huborous in the face of uncertainty was a problem too. IMO:
1. Competitively, the PAC12's performance in major sports already declined, with no national championships in football since 2007 and basketball since 1997.
2. The PAC12 office led us down a bad road, always indicating progress in securing a good TV deal, however it never came to fruition. The league office was not that transparent and just did not perform on the TV front. Classic case of over promising and under delivering. Larry Scott did no favors in how he set up the PAC office and the failure of the PAC network.
3. Once given the B1G invitation in 2022, USC and UCLA had to leave since they were not filling up their stadiums. USC had decent football years, but were unable win the PAC12 championship, so they were losing relevance in a league losing relevance. After USC's 6 year run (2002-2008), they only won the conference once in 2017--Oregon, Stanford, UW and Utah did them in. UCLA's AD finances were so upside down, they needed the B1G money just to try and salvage their athletic department as a whole, which is still running in the red. For UCLA, do not rent basically all of your athletic facilities with poor deals for parking, concessions, etc... SOCAL was in football trouble.
3. When the apple deal was presented, Rick George left without comment--that tells you all you need to know about the viability of the Apple plan--not appealing, stable or predictable. I can't blame RG for that, as he landed CU a full share year 1 in the B12; this ended worries about the conference stability; and let us save on travel costs/non-revenue athlete exhausting travel schedules. For a number of reasons, CU always felt and was treated like little brother in the PAC12, and we could go home to a conference that really wanted us to be a leader, which might put us in a better position for the next round of CFB realignment. Also, with CU securing Prime, the B12 is a conference where he could excel early, just look how much we have been on national TV.
4. Oregon and WA finally bolted to the B1G shortly after they saw the Apple TV deal. I don't blame them, as they took the opportunity to stay with the big boys and competing in a better stable conference. For those two teams, it was tough to have UCLA and USC bolt, a those are marquee conference games. Oregon has done well. WA has done okay, and will probably do okay. I think had the PAC12 been more nimble and stable, they might have bet on being the PAC's marquee teams, however the TV deal was that bad. Both those teams fill their stadiums.
6. The dominoes fell and musical chairs just ended with WSU and OSU remaining, others seeking other P-4 conferences and then lawsuits.
We do have to remember, during that Covid year, the PAC12 and CA schools really handled that bad poorly. Initially, we were not playing, then the conference played the most limited schedule with more no contest games than every P-5 conference combined. The PAC-12 sent 2 teams (Oregon and CU) to bowls, with all the other eligible schools opting out--ASU, Stanford, USC, UW and Utah. UCLA opted out before the season ended, but did not reach eligibility. I know each program had their own reasons, however IMO this demonstrated the PAC12/WC overall lack of commitment for college football as a whole. This did not play well with TV executives or bowl sponsors. Lesson: it is much harder to negotiate an imminent TV deal, when you burnt them badly in that bowl season. IMO, the perfect storm of TV, sponsors and the other P-4 conferences questioning the PAC12's overall commitment to CFB allowing them to drive a hard bargains. This allowed the other P-4 conferences to smell blood for poaching purposes... Epic CU note from Covid year: KD coach of the year LOL, Jerek Broussard offensive player of the year.
Before Covid, I sort of saw a shifting of CA sports interests away from college football--except for a few schools viewership, attendance, and buzz around the PAC12 were all trending downward for about a decade, specifically in CA. California enacted legislation/regulations placing harsh limits on padded and physical contact at high school practices. CA was always a recruiting hotbed, however the state began producing less quality front 7 HS recruits. They still produce many great play-makers and QBs, however the CA recruiting hotbed necessary to support the PAC was dwindling overall for the 12 teams to recruit and be competitive.
I do think the PAC12 was doomed well before Covid. The conference regressed in it's football competitiveness. Many AD's were already upside down financially. When the CFP started in 2014, only Oregon and UW made it. Oregon won 1 game in the 1st CFP year, but both were beat handily in their losses. If the conference stayed together, they probably would have had to agree on an unequal revenue sharing model, which was probably impossible to pass given the PAC structure. Without just UCLA and USC, no matter whether the PAC added teams, there were really no appealing teams to add that made sense--SDSU was the best fit, UNLV maybe 2nd, but neither meshed academically. In hindsight, SMU could have filled CU's departure, but that would have been wierd and no travel partner.
For what it is worth. Go Buffs thrash Wyoming!
P.S.--although we do not have the best results, with Prime we are a National Brand and the buzz is back in Boulder. We have the TV exposure.
#1 pick
Well-Known Member
Utah for Football is appealing and the Pac-12 schools liked Utah.
As for the Kansas, Basketball blueblood. Rivals with OU and Missouri. Just a good Western for for the SEC plus Kansas City as a market.
The SEC strongly considered us and Nebraska as Nebraska contacted them with the idea of CU and Nebraska. CU really hasn't shown any interest in leaving the Big XII. They have been the most aggressive in terms of VC but teams who aren't as locked in don't like and some like TT want a more even playing field.
There is no way we are dumb enough to think the Big12 can take us high enough, and sorry to say, but the Big12 is not in our league now with Research, AAU, TV Viewership, and National Branding.
We must be lobbying for B1G membership every day that ends in Y
#1 pick
Well-Known Member
They aren't. RG is strategic. He's not going to be desperate like Utah. He has great relationship with Brett and they haven't been let down by Brett yet.
None of this stuff is actually coming from anybody who has real influence over what happens. It is media speculation building on fan speculation taking advantage of an easy topic to draw clicks.
For the schools involved there is an advantage to being involved in the public conversation. Not saying that this is the case but for schools like Utah and Kansas planting rumors is beneficial to them. "We are in the conversation for expansion in the B1G, this is the time to up your donation, to buy or upgrade your season tickets, to join the premium level booster club, etc. Corporate sponsors get onboard, support your community by supporting the university."
In the end when the decisions are made they will be made by people who aren't a part of the rumors and who will make the decisions in their own self interest. My view and that of many here is that when it comes down to it neither Utah or Kansas stand out. The interest of the ADs for both schools though isn't to admit that. Kansas just did a major stadium renovation but still draws well below CU and per seat revenue is lower as well. Utah has had success on the field but again their market is limited, they aren't adding value to the revenue potential of the B1G.
Fans love to get wrapped up in their programs, that's why they are fans. CSU fans were all excited a few years back when they were sure that a B12 invitation was coming their way. It justified them building a new on campus stadium, firing and hiring coaches, and a bunch of other expenditures that their revenues never covered and never will.
Conference realignment is a very relevant topic for every program in college football. Reality is that other than a select group of the highest revenue programs most schools are reliant on the decisions of others, and those people aren't talking meaning that most of what we see is pure speculation.
BuffWarHogFrog
Just be rad
I don’t get how Northwestern got ZERO. They played Michigan, Ohio State and Washington last year; and Penn St and Nebraska the year before. Like, cracking the top 100 should have at least been an accident at some point there.
BuffWarHogFrog
Just be rad
I just chuckled at putting Wake in this category. (R2, non-AAU, typically outside the top 25-40 in popular rankings)
I didn't realize that they were R2.
But they fit the culture I described. Sort of like SMU.
BuffWarHogFrog
Just be rad
I guess. I lump them in more with NCST.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
I went to Vandy for a year and when I was there, there was def talk of that sort of southern private school league. At that time, 1990, there was zero interest on campus for football. Hoops was kinda popular. Women's hoops were very good. Weirdly, baseball and golf which are now excellent were pretty bad.
Will also say that while there wasn't the whole suffocating, weird identification hubris SEC thing the Nashville paper had almost zero coverage of other conferences outside box scores.
At that time, I thought the "Southern Ivy (sic)" league made sense to me
Will also say that while there wasn't the whole suffocating, weird identification hubris SEC thing the Nashville paper had almost zero coverage of other conferences outside box scores.
At that time, I thought the "Southern Ivy (sic)" league made sense to me
Last edited:
Have to hope RG has good relationships with other schools.
I keep hearing how Utah and USC get along well. Why can't CU try and pair up with Utah or ASU or even Kansas? Politics and connections always play a role.
Arrogance at CU answers your question of why we cannot pair up. RG and the whole AD think they are more valuable that others do. It bleeds across the AD
Rick George has a good relationship with several SEC schools, including two former members of the Big 12.
Yep. And CU's always been tight with UT while having a lot of Mizzou connections. I don't think there was ever a bad run with OU other than Switzer wanting to destroy Fairbanks - to which I say thank you. Always seemed to get along with aTm, too.
Anyway, SEC for CU & ASU (or KU) would actually be a pretty solid western expansion for them if they go to 24 members or something.
Last edited:
#1 pick
Well-Known Member
He really does. This is a fact. RG has a better relationship with the SEC by a mile than the Big Ten. He also has good relationships with Calford. Some said Calford was mad at CU but CU worked tremendously work with Calford to get them to join the Big XII but they just didn't like the academic standards but appreciated the effort of RG. The ACC likes CU too. I really think RG and Prime just love Yormark the most but as of right now. CU would draw interest. Just that Kansas is behind the scenes letting it be known they want to join a bigger conference with Utah heavily. CU on the other hand is trying extremely hard with Texas Tech to make the Big XII more viable.
This is why no one is mentioning CU for conference expansion. They are trying to make it work in the Big XII
Well, theoretically, if they can make it work with the Big 12, both CU and TTU know that it’s the easiest way to top tier status and CFP. KU and Utah thinking they are going to compete with Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Oregon, USC and even some of the other mid-B1G programs is a pipe dream.
Same thing in the SEC.
#1 pick
Well-Known Member
They are trying. The Big XII been trying hard for years. Even tried to get FSU and Clemson.
They believe they have a shot at Louisville and Pitt but the ACC thinks they have a legit shot at the rest of the corner 4 outside of Utah and even like their chances with Utah.
Notre Dame is who everyone wants. Even the SEC but the SEC would rather ND with the ACC as well as ESPN than with the B1G or stay independent
The CalFord list of schools from ACC & B12, starts with AAU membership.
1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. Cal
4. Colorado
5. Duke
6. Kansas
7. Miami
8. North Carolina
9. Notre Dame
10. Pittsburgh
11. Stanford
12. Utah
13. Virginia
Then, you've got Syracuse as a former AAU member which has the chops but wanted to focus on its liberal arts DNA instead of trying to pivot into their STEM requirements.
I think any new major conference is a merger of the above list from ACC-B12 with others selected based on high academic rep/ values along with bringing ratings, recruiting grounds, and ability to financially compete (large enough endowment, high AD revenue, and prominent alums).
Non-AAUs in other conferences is pretty much Buffalo, Tulane, Rice and USF. Not a lot there, with maybe Tulane being worth a look or even USF if the B1G-SEC poach Miami-FSU because you absolutely have to be in FL. Similarly, you have to be in TX so you have to take a look at all the options. Baylor has good academics and high AD revenue, TTU also good academics while being the flagship of the TX State system & having some rich boosters, TCU & SMU are the DFW market so you're going to take 1 of them (SMU has more money alums & academic prestige), Houston has good academics and a lot more potential to compete than Rice with that market it puts you in.
Then, you have those schools like Clemson & Florida State which are too good as football programs to not invite if they're available. They change the value of a media contract and the national respect for the conference.
UConn might get interesting since the academics are good, they're one of the Tier 1 blue bloods in MBB with Duke, UNC, UK, KU and UCLA along with Tier 1 in WBB, and they tap into both the NYC and New England markets if the conference is going to have a broadcast network to compete with B1GN and SECN. ESPN really likes UConn, with a little bias there since they're down the street from HQ.
I think that Louisville also gets a little love as a historically good hoops school with a national rep, a good - if uneven - history of football success, and motivated boosters. NCST and VT are also possibilities based on good academics, good national rep, good followings & commitments for football, with some good success.
You can grab 20-24 schools out of this that pulls enough weight to be the 3rd major conference as long as you don't lose Notre Dame, Miami, Clemson and FSU to B1G/SEC.
1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. Cal
4. Colorado
5. Duke
6. Kansas
7. Miami
8. North Carolina
9. Notre Dame
10. Pittsburgh
11. Stanford
12. Utah
13. Virginia
Then, you've got Syracuse as a former AAU member which has the chops but wanted to focus on its liberal arts DNA instead of trying to pivot into their STEM requirements.
I think any new major conference is a merger of the above list from ACC-B12 with others selected based on high academic rep/ values along with bringing ratings, recruiting grounds, and ability to financially compete (large enough endowment, high AD revenue, and prominent alums).
Non-AAUs in other conferences is pretty much Buffalo, Tulane, Rice and USF. Not a lot there, with maybe Tulane being worth a look or even USF if the B1G-SEC poach Miami-FSU because you absolutely have to be in FL. Similarly, you have to be in TX so you have to take a look at all the options. Baylor has good academics and high AD revenue, TTU also good academics while being the flagship of the TX State system & having some rich boosters, TCU & SMU are the DFW market so you're going to take 1 of them (SMU has more money alums & academic prestige), Houston has good academics and a lot more potential to compete than Rice with that market it puts you in.
Then, you have those schools like Clemson & Florida State which are too good as football programs to not invite if they're available. They change the value of a media contract and the national respect for the conference.
UConn might get interesting since the academics are good, they're one of the Tier 1 blue bloods in MBB with Duke, UNC, UK, KU and UCLA along with Tier 1 in WBB, and they tap into both the NYC and New England markets if the conference is going to have a broadcast network to compete with B1GN and SECN. ESPN really likes UConn, with a little bias there since they're down the street from HQ.
I think that Louisville also gets a little love as a historically good hoops school with a national rep, a good - if uneven - history of football success, and motivated boosters. NCST and VT are also possibilities based on good academics, good national rep, good followings & commitments for football, with some good success.
You can grab 20-24 schools out of this that pulls enough weight to be the 3rd major conference as long as you don't lose Notre Dame, Miami, Clemson and FSU to B1G/SEC.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Say what now.
Other note: TTU is not the flagship of the Texas State system.
In my head, that was Tech is the 3rd largest State University system in TX and TTU is the flagship of it.
….nor does TTU have strong academics. The joke amongst high school students in the Metroplex looking for a college - Grades down? Guns up.
C’s get degrees all day and night