Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

Buffnik said:
One of the biggest things would be the value of PACN - what a partner that would take it over would want in terms of markets. I do believe that ESPN is concerned about FOX owning the western US. B1G is with FOX. So is Big 12. Even MWC is a CBS/FOX deal.

I think ESPN is extremely likely to have interest in owning PAC media rights, poaching valuable western markets from Big 12 & MWC to roll in, and orchestrating a scheduling cooperation between PAC & ACC to get both media properties a more national audience.

That's the dynamic the future of the PAC hinges upon.
Click to expand...
247sports.com

Newest conference realignment intel: Separating fact from fiction

Let's line out where we sit today across college sports in the wake of the Big Ten expanding to 16 teams, with the latest intel from 247Sports' sources and the newest reporting from across the country.
247sports.com 247sports.com

ACC, PAC-12 PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL HAS CRITICS​

A proposal that would partner the ACC and Pac-12 with ESPN and create a championship game in football between the two conferences is not popular in ACC circles, sources told 247Sports. Officials with both conference began conversations last week to discuss a proposal that partners the two conferences with ESPN and creates more inventory for its television and streaming networks. The idea is the ACC Network, which is owned by ESPN, would have broadcast rights for Pac-12 games on the West Coast. It's not clear if that means the ACC Network would be renamed, according to Sports Illustrated.
What does it mean? The arrangement saves the 10 remaining members in the Pac-12, secures a new media rights agreement and the conference finally sheds the financial albatross that is its Pac-12 Networks.
What is the benefit for the ACC? More prime matchups, presumably more money in a restructured TV deal with ESPN and the possibility of in-season tournaments in other sports among the conferences.
Several ACC athletic directors, however, are wary of the proposal, sources told 247Sports. "Less than beneficial," one ACC source told 247Sports.


Your scenario has to start with getting the ACC to play ball with the Pac 12. The piece I just linked confirms what I already think about the ACC "alliance". Its not much more than a hail mary that isn't going to work.
 
I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that going to a glorified G5 conference with 18 teams is somehow better than a glorified G5 conference with 10 teams. Especially when one of the teams in that 18 team mess is bailer. It’s like nobody here remembers those guys.
 
Bread said:
What a doozy of a thread. Gotta be one of the fastest in AB history to make 100 pages when we reach that point.

From the initial outrage and posts of despair, to the temporary unfounded hope that the SEC would somehow even consider a 2nd rate P5 program like CU, and back to the despair at the realization that we might be sticking it out with the PAC. This was a fun read and a wild ride.

CU's best chance seems fairly obvious in moving back to the Big XII. My bias immediately wants to blame Rick George for being an incompetent, lazy ass AD content on riding out his contract to retirement. But I'm sure Phil is screwing things over too. I fully believe this ends with a super conference of 20-24 schools that compete for their own championship sans NCAA while the remaining 41-45 schools have relatively evenly split conferences competing for their own championship, also sans NCAA. Obviously the 41-45 group will have much less money and essentially become G5 schools and either join up with the G5 or push the G5 even further down. I will still root for CU but it won't be near as fun watching lesser talented players getting smashed every weekend rather than seeing CU go up against the likes of SC/Oregon/Washington and getting rolled by NFL bound talent. Either way, I still see CU being a punching bag until the admin/AD prove that they care about competing. I'd like to think I'll tune in for super conference tv matchups and still have that love for college football, but I don't do that with the NFL and a super conference would essentially be NFL-lite so who knows. Or maybe none of this happens and everything comes out like sunshine and daisies.

Anyways, I hope KD is fired after this year and would love it if RG went with him.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
One post away from this being the first post on page 100. Damn @Bread - slow down next time.
 
the suggestion that we may end up with no national consensus championship and instead just calling it done with conference champs is tragically hilarious.

"Sooner or later, everything old is new again."
 
hawg1 said:
Seems like those schools will likely decrease size of slices of pie.

UO and UDub will likely want bigger shares no GoR (or certainly reduced length or amount of GoR) and reduced termination fees.
Click to expand...
Because they have so many really good other options right now.
 
InTheBuff said:
They are a bunch of mouth breathing goobers who support their team by going to games and watching on tv's.

Tech sure cares.

www.lubbockonline.com

Texas Tech plans $200 million football facilities project

Jones AT&T Stadium to get four-level south end zone building with field-level club, loge boxes and private suites among other amenities
www.lubbockonline.com
Click to expand...

Lubbock is such a dump that TTech football would be pretty much the only exciting thing in town on Saturdays. CU building the Champioons Center would be still a more impressive feat considering all the intangibles.
 
the idea of a "shorter" GoR and commitment to the pac makes some sense for everyone who thinks they should be in or on the cusp of making it to a super conference. acc schools are apparently ****ed for a long long time. the b12 is really not that appetizing with the 2 already gone to the sec, kinda like us in the pac.

uo, uw
CU, uu, asu, ua
stanford, cal
oregon state, wsu

all but the bottom 2 think they can make a case to get into a super conference. some of them may be right. most of them are not.

at some point, if there are 2 sixteen team super conferences or of 24 teams each or whatever, someone will have to start rationalizing travel and geography, i would think.

maybe the pac doesn't even bother to add 2 teams right now-- just hang with the remaining 10 and see who can pull what strings in 3-5 years or something.
 
Liver said:
maybe the pac doesn't even bother to add 2 teams right now-- just hang with the remaining 10 and see who can pull what strings in 3-5 years or something.
Click to expand...
This is where I have settled in as my preferred solution. Stand pat for now and do everything we can over the next several years to elevate the program and the conference. Make West Coast football meaningful again.
 
If the PAC sticks together, is there a compelling reason to add any G5 schools now? I could see trying to poach B12 schools and frankly it’s kind of embarrassing the PAC hasn’t tried, but does adding SDSU or UNLV actually increase our payout from a new tv contract?
 
hokiehead said:
the suggestion that we may end up with no national consensus championship and instead just calling it done with conference champs is tragically hilarious.

"Sooner or later, everything old is new again."
Click to expand...
I really don’t understand why this matters. I enjoyed CFL far more before there was a “consensus” NC. College football was unique and had 120 some odd teams, with tons of different styles and approaches, all with different motivations heading down their own paths to different bowls.

I don’t see what the playoff system added for the fan. Why do I care that one of the 10 same teams—with wildly uneven financial support—gets “crowned” NC each year?

If I wanted to watch money blow across a field, I’d just watch baseball.
 
GawainBuff said:
I really don’t understand why this matters. I enjoyed CFL far more before there was a “consensus” NC. College football was unique and had 120 some odd teams, with tons of different styles and approaches, all with different motivations heading down their own paths to different bowls.

I don’t see what the playoff system added for the fan. Why do I care that one of the 10 same teams—with wildly uneven financial support—gets “crowned” NC each year?

If I wanted to watch money blow across a field, I’d just watch baseball.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. But a consensus NC was important to a lot of fans. I doubt many of those expected it to be this bad though.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I think it's hard for any of us to really know what value there without the LA market, and end of the day, the conference is only worth what a network or streaming service is willing to pay.

It's not ideal, but IMO, I think the Pac 10 should embrace their current reality and try to go all in on Friday and Saturday nights. Prime time Friday night games (630-7pm MT) with the most marquee matchup and your second best matchup in the Saturday night 730/8pm MT slot. They're not going to get any prime Saturday slots on Fox/ABC/ESPN, so might as well go full MAC and try to own Friday nights. It sucks because of HS football and everything, but I just don't see many other options that will get 4m+ eyeballs on the conference games.
Click to expand...
When was the last time the LA markets cared about USC or UCLA football?
 
chipwich said:
If the PAC decides to stick it out there better be a consensus that no school schedule anything with USC/UCLA. **** them.
Click to expand...
We can make there non-revenue/Olympic sports much more expensive to schedule by doing this.

A number of those sports are things that the BiG either doesn't do or doesn't do well. We can also make it hard to schedule out of conference in those sports.

In the end it wouldn't be more than an irritant for them but we should do it anyways.
 
hokiehead said:
What makes you so confident in this assertion?

We've discussed multiple times on this board and there's no quantitative evidence to backup USC "dominating" any market in recent decades.

I do understand their alumni watch parties in China are off the hook though.
Click to expand...
Your only argument on this is how often they have officially sold out the coliseum, which is only one small indicator. There’s a reason they are a blue blood program that every conference in the country would trip over to add
 
One thing that has come out of all of this is the sheer amount of propaganda that networks actually care about the Big 12 loser bin.

According to Big 12 fans they’re coveted by Fox (and CBS and ESPN) and they’re willing to pay top dollar for KState vs Iowa State because, come on, how could you not want that trash on your network.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Your only argument on this is how often they have officially sold out the coliseum, which is only one small indicator. There’s a reason they are a blue blood program that every conference in the country would trip over to add
Click to expand...
Yes, but that reason isn't dominating a market.

If measuring "market domination", i agree home attendance isn't the only factor. I disagree it's a small one. I think it's second only to TV ratings. USC isn't blue blood at either.
 
ahoelsken said:
247sports.com

Newest conference realignment intel: Separating fact from fiction

Let's line out where we sit today across college sports in the wake of the Big Ten expanding to 16 teams, with the latest intel from 247Sports' sources and the newest reporting from across the country.
247sports.com 247sports.com

ACC, PAC-12 PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL HAS CRITICS​

A proposal that would partner the ACC and Pac-12 with ESPN and create a championship game in football between the two conferences is not popular in ACC circles, sources told 247Sports. Officials with both conference began conversations last week to discuss a proposal that partners the two conferences with ESPN and creates more inventory for its television and streaming networks. The idea is the ACC Network, which is owned by ESPN, would have broadcast rights for Pac-12 games on the West Coast. It's not clear if that means the ACC Network would be renamed, according to Sports Illustrated.
What does it mean? The arrangement saves the 10 remaining members in the Pac-12, secures a new media rights agreement and the conference finally sheds the financial albatross that is its Pac-12 Networks.
What is the benefit for the ACC? More prime matchups, presumably more money in a restructured TV deal with ESPN and the possibility of in-season tournaments in other sports among the conferences.
Several ACC athletic directors, however, are wary of the proposal, sources told 247Sports. "Less than beneficial," one ACC source told 247Sports.


Your scenario has to start with getting the ACC to play ball with the Pac 12. The piece I just linked confirms what I already think about the ACC "alliance". Its not much more than a hail mary that isn't going to work.
Click to expand...
I'd be against what you posted, too. I don't know where a ACC vs PAC championship game came from.

I'm talking about a formal scheduling alliance to help drive national ratings and exposure for both conferences so the ACC, PAC and ESPN achieve greater value from the broadcast packages.
 
Liver said:
the idea of a "shorter" GoR and commitment to the pac makes some sense for everyone who thinks they should be in or on the cusp of making it to a super conference. acc schools are apparently ****ed for a long long time. the b12 is really not that appetizing with the 2 already gone to the sec, kinda like us in the pac.

uo, uw
CU, uu, asu, ua
stanford, cal
oregon state, wsu

all but the bottom 2 think they can make a case to get into a super conference. some of them may be right. most of them are not.

at some point, if there are 2 sixteen team super conferences or of 24 teams each or whatever, someone will have to start rationalizing travel and geography, i would think.

maybe the pac doesn't even bother to add 2 teams right now-- just hang with the remaining 10 and see who can pull what strings in 3-5 years or something.
Click to expand...
What is ridiculous is that the B1G could set up their new media deal so that they they to renegotiate again in like 5 - 7 years, so they could potentially renegotiate 2 more times before the ACC deal expires, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top