Political not CU football
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
Sex is totally off of the menu then, huh? Damn.
Really digging that Spanish siesta, huh?
66BUFF
FTW
Top 6% for UT Austin, top 10% for all of the other state schools including the aggy system schools.
Anybody who is top 10% in his/her class will have no problem getting into CU. Pretty much anybody in the top 40% of his/her class will have no problem getting into CU. If it helps with optics, by all means go for it, but let’s not pretend that it would actually change anything.
We're an excellent research university with a top-notch staff and a mediocre student body.
...and Flatirons.
Don't forget the farmers markets.
And
The only thing I'm not mediocre at is objective self-assessment.
Feldman and Mandel think the Big 12 is looking at TV money per school of low $20m. Also think Pac10 is probably around the same and they both think the best option is the full merger. Obviously doesn’t sound like that’s an option anymore, so it feels like one conference is definitely going to try to poach the top of the other conference.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
There was a rumor of 220m as first volley, as you likely recall. Rough.
B12 currently makes high 20s, but OU and UT accounted for around half. They think inflation and the addition of the G5 programs get them back into the 20s… maybe.
I’m just shocked that the estimations for these deals seem to be all over the map, depending on the source. We’ve now seen B12 estimates ranging from high teens to upwards of $50m/school. How can there be such disparity in projections??
iWillDuYu
Well-Known Member
The consensus has been north of $30M for the new B12. Not sure where they're getting that idea. Even if money is equal, I want us in the B12 where they are playing geographically where people care about football and basketball. This is also why the B12 will get more money than us. What has being in a better academic conference gotten us? Absolutely nowhere, in fact we're kinda lost right now. Our sports exposure has suffered greatly ever since joining the PAC. Our academics won't suffer making a move to a conference that has Baylor, Kansas, IAST, BYU, TCU. Being in a conference with Stanford and Cal have done absolutely nothing for us but lose money and exposure. The best thing for our football program, and hence our school, is to move it to where people care about football and basketball. Period. Build ourselves back up the nest 7-10 years there and see where the chips land when the ACC GOR expires and SEC/B1G is on the hunt to wrap up this P2 breakaway
Last edited:
My guess is that the revenue difference will be meaningful especially in the long term. PAC-12 footprint simply does not care about football. There is no way to run from that fact
…Our administration does though. They are academic jock sniffers
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
What if the money’s not equal? Too much dead weight in B12.
I've been vocal about rather being in the Big12 as well, but I am more of a proponent of a full merger (which I know is not happening). I don't care about academics and I don't really care about being in the same conference as certain schools, but if you listen to the first 20-25 minutes of their pod, Feldman goes through the non OU/UT viewership numbers from last year and they are absolutely horrible and a lot of the ones he talks about were in prime time TV slots.
I think Oklahoma State draws and I think BYU will bring more eyeballs than most others, but outside of that, those programs don't draw any higher ratings than the non-USC/UCLA Pac 12 (They also stated that UCLA really doesn't draw that well either, fwiw). In the Pac 10, Oregon and Washington draw the most with Utah also being there and also WSU, even though that mostly a product of Mike Leach's team style and their time slots they have routinely played in (night cap).
One question they posed: If you take both the Big 12 and Pac 10 conferences, what matchups would be a top 25 most desirable matchup over the course of a CFB season? They both agreed that a combination of Oregon/UW/Utah is really the only possible answer and they weren't even sure any of those matchups have much of a national draw on a given weekend. There are a few matchups in the Big 12 that are intriguing on paper with OSU, Cincy, Baylor, maybe Iowa State late in the season if they're good, but the numbers don't support that they actually do get ratings.
This is why I think it's insane for the conferences not to continue to explore a full on merger, although as I said above, it feels like the Pac 10 would want the top 2-4 Big 12 programs and the Big 12 wants the top 4-6 Pac 10 programs and neither care about the other programs, which is why the merger talks likely died.
That's based on two respected CFB journalists who didn't cite anything other than what the conferences currently make, how much UT/OU and SC/UCLA accounted for in each, and saying maybe today's dollar value will make up for some of that loss. Basically, it doesn't seem like anyone who gets paid to talk or write about CFB has any actual idea what the money is going to look like.
Clay Travis: ACC Schools All Want Out of the ACC
While most college football media and fans have been chasing Big 12 and Pac-12 expansion and realignment rumors, the truth of the matter is this: the future battles in college footwww.outkick.com
my takeways and conclusions:
- simple majority can break up the ACC and ND has full voting rights ==> 8 schools want to leave and this conference is done (this was suspected and now confirmed)
- the SEC deal w/ ESPN "has a provision in its new TV deal with ESPN that guarantees all new “top” expansion candidates will receive the same pro rata payment in the event of expansion as the current schools receive" ==> the carrot is currently being dangled out there for high value schools to bolt to the SEC
- the B1G contract w/ Fox doesn't have this, but presumably finances could be worked out if "top" ACC schools want to defect there
- I'd like to be wrong, but I think the ACC is in grave near term danger. considering the potential of current ACC schools wanting to disolve the conference:
- "top" schools that could negotiate their win into the P2 today: UNC, ND, UVA (immediate flight risk)
- schools that have a realistic shot of negotiating a near-term P2 invite: Clemson, FSU, GT, Miami (high potential flight risk)
- schools that still have some negotiating leverage but are in a position of weakness: VT, Duke, NCSU, Louisville
- schools with some hope, but I don't really see value for the P2: Syracuse, BC, Pitt
- hard to imagine a future: Wake
- hope for the ACC survival:
- bold and very unlikely plan: somehow get ND in as a full member, poach WVU and potentially use a new TV contract to try to lure some current P2 schools (e.g. PSU, Tenn)
- most realistic plan that keeps the ACC together: circle the wagons, and do everything to position as the #3 conference, ride out the GoR and see what the landscape looks like in 10 years
Last edited:
iWillDuYu
Well-Known Member
It will be better, and I'd guess in the neighborhood of $7-10M better. Listen to that podcast, they don't say that specifically about the B12 and low $20M. They're just making guesses based on the existing 8 leftover B12 schools, and not what the geographic locations for new schools factoring in would be. Again, the consensus has the new B12 sans OUT to be north of $30M. We are talked about in the $22-25M range sans USC/UCLA. Our problem is there are zero schools or group of schools we can add west of the rockies that bump that up.
Someones data rework from Navigate
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Amazing how precise your estimates are. Buffs bolt if you’re right, but I still don’t see how a bunch of bad brands are worth more per school than a smaller mix of good and bad brands in bigger markets.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
To me, Navigate has pretty good projections.
What are they based on, though? Hard to imagine guys like Mandel and Feldman not using those projections if they were based on something reputable or concrete.
iWillDuYu
Well-Known Member
You keep saying this and ignore what 99% of analysts and sports people are saying. Its' an argument that UO & UW are the best two brands left. I'd argue as a whole and not just football centric - the Kansas Jayhawks are the biggest brand. But even if by whatever twisted metric inside of your head you are using for logic, the new B12 from top to bottom is a better and deeper conference, playing in geographic locations that care about their college football and basketball significantly more than they do west of the rockies. Thats just a fact.
iWillDuYu
Well-Known Member
The ESPN shills? Yeah, no reason at all for them craft a narrative.
It is pretty weird to me that such a wealthy area doesn't have a top notch school in close vicinity. It seems like other regions throughout the country that are similar to the Denver/Front Range area have a local school that makes the decision between staying home and going out of state for a top tier education pretty difficult.
I could be incorrectly assuming that funding for a school impacts its academic prestige but this discussion of conference alignment and its impact on people's perception of the academics of universities has me wondering what the true drivers are that boost academic prestige over time. It doesn't seem like it is a very fluid landscape.
After some cursory research it looks like the thing most correlated with a large bump in academic rankings is a large decrease in acceptance rate. There haven't been many big movers over the last 25 years but Stanford, USC, Texas, UChicago, and WUSTL stand out. I find this interesting as Stanford, USC, and Texas have all had extremely successful football programs within that time period and anecdotally, I received a ton of mail in high school from USC, UChicago, and WUSTL. It seems that marketing is important for application rates and football success is a large part of that. Jack Kroll be damned.