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

BerkeleyBuff said:
Post with a bold point that leads to a link. Or just Google Navigate Research on your own
Click to expand...
Yes, I know the latest public Navigate Research. It was done in March with a 12 member P12. I have seen no other 10 team data, other than the analysis that Swaim put together in his attempt to subtract exited team value from Navigate predictions for the decade.

There is no need to control for geography, time slot nor platform in Mandel’s analysis. Indeed those are the variables that give P12 their inherent value and negotiating leverage.
 
ahoelsken said:
Asked Howell about that in his chat today. His answer: No.

Better way to look at this-You'd either see those two in the Big 10 already or the four corners schools a lot more willing to go along with unequal revenue than they appear to be.
Click to expand...
Please, no Howell references on this matter.

They do not have 100m leverage to gain admission to B1G, I agree.

seems like given these numbers they would have 25-30M leverage to work with B12 or gain favorable financial status with P12, especially the latter. Losing these two significantly impacts the survivability if the p12 even if Mandel’s numbers are just 1/2 right.
 
hokiehead said:
I'm supportive of almost anything that gets interesting college football games back on Thursday nights.
Click to expand...

My sense is that the NFL has completely taken over Thursday night and therefore it won't pay to have marquee college teams play at the same time? I used to like the good Thursday night matches too, but seems like we haven't seen that in years now...
 
hawg1 said:
Yes, I know the latest public Navigate Research. It was done in March with a 12 member P12. I have seen no other 10 team data, other than the analysis that Swaim put together in his attempt to subtract exited team value from Navigate predictions for the decade.

There is no need to control for geography, time slot nor platform in Mandel’s analysis. Indeed those are the variables that give P12 their inherent value and negotiating leverage.
Click to expand...
Then you know that Navigate Research predicted the PAC would barely, barely be more valuable than the Big XII even when we still had SC and UCLA. So you would expect that comparison to now go.... how, exactly?

Yes, you absolutely need to control for those variables or your comparison is meaningless. That's why companies that actually get paid millions to do these analyses correct for those things and get values way different than Mandel's Sunday afternoon hobby excel sheet. If you don't control for those things you're not comparing apples to apples. And differences in geography that give the PAC a foothold in a single valuable time slot means nothing if you believe the end of the convo is "should the PAC of the Big XII raid each other," because whichever conference does so automatically gets that time slot.

What matters is finding out whether the PAC or the Big XII does better when variables are corrected for. The people who actually do this for living seem to clearly point one direction. Mandel does on ridiculously ****ty little envelope analysis and everyone suddenly forgets the stats course they took in college (and Mandel apparently never took one).
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Then you know that Navigate Research predicted the PAC would barely, barely be more valuable than the Big XII even when we still had SC and UCLA. So you would expect that comparison to now go.... how, exactly?

Yes, you absolutely need to control for those variables or your comparison is meaningless. That's why companies that actually get paid millions to do these analyses correct for those things and get values way different than Mandel's Sunday afternoon hobby excel sheet. If you don't control for those things you're not comparing apples to apples. And differences in geography that give the PAC a foothold in a single valuable time slot means nothing if you believe the end of the convo is "should the PAC of the Big XII raid each other," because whichever conference does so automatically gets that time slot.

What matters is finding out whether the PAC or the Big XII does better when variables are corrected for. The people who actually do this for living seem to clearly point one direction. Mandel does on ridiculously ****ty little envelope analysis and everyone suddenly forgets the stats course they took in college (and Mandel apparently never took one).
Click to expand...
You don’t correct for variables in a value analysis. Why would you want to correct for a variable that inherently gives it more value? That’s the whole point. It has inherent qualities that give it more value.

I don’t see that Navigate analysis that eliminates departed teams. But indeed, the March Navigate analysis looks like you describe for impact.
 
For the record, for anyone curious, I hope the PAC can remain viable. I like regional conferences where you play all teams more regularly. I just want decisions based on sound data, and the screaming by Mandel (and parroting by Wilner and others) about such plainly, blatantly, atrociously flawed "analysis" is infuriating. It's like a propaganda storm of idiocy.
 
hawg1 said:
Yes, I know the latest public Navigate Research. It was done in March with a 12 member P12. I have seen no other 10 team data, other than the analysis that Swaim put together in his attempt to subtract exited team value from Navigate predictions for the decade.

There is no need to control for geography, time slot nor platform in Mandel’s analysis. Indeed those are the variables that give P12 their inherent value and negotiating leverage.
Click to expand...
The Navigate Research analysis factored OU and UT leaving the Big 12, but not U$C or UCLA leaving the Pac-12. Even then, OU and UT leaving, only makes the Big 12 product $3.5-$4 million less valuable than the Pac-12. Losing LA, I think it’s fair to say the Pac-12 product is now $15-$20 million less valuable.
 
hawg1 said:
You don’t correct for variables in a value analysis. Why would you want to correct for a variable that inherently gives it more value? That’s the whole point. It has inherent qualities that give it more value.

I don’t see that Navigate analysis that eliminates departed teams.
Click to expand...
I feel like you have not read my last post. Or read it too quickly. Let me try one more time. If you are talking about a situation where the PAC or Big XII is going to raid the other, you make sure you compare apples to apples. Including a greater percentage of the low-rankinb Big XII games is not apples to apples. Not correcting for a time slot boost that would go to either conference in the case of a raid is not apples to apples. Etc. I mean this as kindly as possible, but this isn't hard.

I asked you what you THINK a new Navigate analysis would look like based on the fact that we lost UCLA and USC while the Big XII is in the same spot they were. What do you think? Does NR's old numbers lead you to believe the PAC would still be on top.
 
hawg1 said:
Please, no Howell references on this matter.

They do not have 100m leverage to gain admission to B1G, I agree.

seems like given these numbers they would have 25-30M leverage to work with B12 or gain favorable financial status with P12, especially the latter. Losing these two significantly impacts the survivability if the p12 even if Mandel’s numbers are just 1/2 right.
Click to expand...
I think you still might be giving them too much credit because the four corners schools know they have the option of joining the Big 12. UO/UW probably know that if the four corners schools leave for the Big 12, they'll probably have to as well.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
I feel like you have not read my last post. Or read it too quickly. Let me try one more time. If you are talking about a situation where the PAC or Big XII is going to raid the other, you make sure you compare apples to apples. Including a greater percentage of the low-rankinb Big XII games is not apples to apples. Not correcting for a time slot boost that would go to either conference in the case of a raid is not apples to apples. Etc. I mean this as kindly as possible, but this isn't hard.

I asked you what you THINK a new Navigate analysis would look like based on the fact that we lost UCLA and USC while the Big XII is in the same spot they were. What do you think? Does NR's old numbers lead you to believe the PAC would still be on top.
Click to expand...
No, P12 would not be on top.

Yes, you need to control for these variables in raid scenarios.

No, you do not need to control for these variables in a status quo scenario.

I think we now mostly agree.
 
I like the idea of 6-8 of us going B12 and rebranding the conference.

P12 pundits can butter it up any they want, but this conference is dead in any way you view it. Get the due diligence done with the media companies, and get to moving where there is some passion to play
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
And this whole idea of needing to play in the Bay Area in order to recruit is laughable. ND is arguably the biggest brand in CFB and can recruit whomever and wherever they want regardless of where they are playing
Click to expand...
I fully agree. I was not talking about scholarship athletes. I was talking about everyday students.

California has available a large number of "Joe HS Graduates" available to attend schools in other states. Midwestern states, with declining populations, need to absorb students from other states to make their numbers. One you lump in the high number of ND and B1G alums in the state and in the Bay Area these schools interest makes sense for why they want to play there. Thats what I meant by Not every decision is based purely around who has a good football team and who doesnt. And we all know thse things are weighing on CUs minds as well.
 
iWillDuYu said:
is our ESPN number $24.5M per each of us?

Click to expand...


Doesn't this represent--essentially--the difference between the Boston Red Sox yearly budget and the Oakland A's annual search for coins in the owner's couch, except that it's spread across tens of teams on each end? How is this a competitive "league"?

If the NCAA or CFB ever had ANY interest in creating a competitive, moderately level playing field across CFB, they'd have floated some form of an operating budget/spending cap. And what would the teams with huge media rights contracts have to complain about? Just think how much money Alabama and OSU could store in their university coffers if they were limited in what they could strictly expend on the football program. There would be huge money available for other sports, the University itself, and even (yes, the unfair) capital improvements--and heaven forbid...academic research... NOOO

Any hey, you could set a base-line income for players, maybe paid out of a general fund required as part of any media rights contract. Whoa! Actually, not treating/viewing players as free labor on the balance sheet?

Sure. There are problems with the idea, but professional sports (aside from baseball mostly) have figured it out. If the athletic departments have so much trouble balancing their budgets, wouldn't it serve every school to set a bar that's economically reasonable?

I get so sick of the richest end of every "market" defining the rules and terms in their favor, and everyone else buying into the autocratic presentation that the present system (working wildly in their favor) is the only way things can possibly work. Trickle-down concepts are still voodoo economics no matter the playing field.

Of course, at this point, the gilded horse has left the air-conditioned barn and is living inside the mansion, snacking on peeled grape-flavored hay, balking at the idea of ever returning to the lowly life of being an actual horse.
 
Last edited:
iWillDuYu said:
is our ESPN number $24.5M per each of us?

Click to expand...


manhattanbuff said:
This is in line with the estimate I posited in post #4538. Losing LA was the coup de grace for the Pac-12.
Click to expand...

If that is all they have, there is no way there will not be some type of consolidation with the Big XII for some teams out of the Pac. Those numbers mean it is dead and nobody will be loyal. Everyone will be out to get as much as they can as soon as they can.
 
manhattanbuff said:
This is in line with the estimate I posited in post #4538. Losing LA was the coup de grace for the Pac-12.
Click to expand...
already with the "see my post # _________."

lol. but, seriously, this is so low that it either has to be a first offer or fake news, right? we are def headed to the big 12 if this is accurate.

and, existentially, why do the football gods hate us so so so very much?
 
GawainBuff said:
Doesn't this represent--essentially--the difference between the Boston Red Sox yearly budget and the Oakland A's annual search for coins in the owner's couch, except that it's spread across tens of teams on each end? How is this a competitive "league"?

If the NCAA or CFB ever had ANY interest in creating a competitive, moderately level playing field across CFB, they'd have floated some form of an operating budget/spending cap. And what would the teams with huge media rights contracts have to complain about? Just think how much money Alabama and OSU could store in their university coffers if they were limited in what they could strictly expend on the football program. There would be huge money available for other sports, the University itself, and even (yes, the unfair) capital improvements--and heaven forbid...academic research... NOOO

Any hey, you could set a base-line income for players, maybe paid out of a general fund required as part of any media rights contract. Whoa! Actually, not treating/viewing players as free labor on the balance sheet?

Sure. There are problems with the idea, but professional sports (aside from baseball mostly) have figured it out. If the athletic departments have so much trouble balancing their budgets, wouldn't it serve every school to set a bar that's economically reasonable?

I get so sick of the richest end of every "market" defining the rules and terms in their favor, and everyone else buying into the autocratic presentation that the present system (working wildly in their favor) is the only way things can possibly work. Trickle-down concepts are still voodoo economics no matter the playing field.

Of course, at this point, the gilded horse has left the air-conditioned barn and is living inside the mansion, snacking on peeled grape-flavored hay, balking at the idea of ever returning to the lowly life of being an actual horse.
Click to expand...
Great idea. How about a line item for curing cancer?
 
Liver said:
already with the "see my post # _________."

lol. but, seriously, this is so low that it either has to be a first offer or fake news, right? we are def headed to the big 12 if this is accurate.

and, existentially, why do the football gods hate us so so so very much?
Click to expand...
It’s just math. Losing LA primaries on cable is worth approximately $62 million per year; new valuation sans LA primaries is that number divided by 3-4. WITH U$C/UCLA and thus LA primaries, the Pac-12 was only worth low-mid $40mm anyway. Losing that market is catastrophic for the lifeblood of the Pac-12.
 
leftybuff said:
Overhead in the Chancellor's office: " We can still have chilled Chardonnay and smoked brie in the VIP lounge for my Berkeley colleagues at that amount though, right?".
Click to expand...
Probably will have to lower their brand standard to Barefoot or Yellow Tail though.
 
B12 expected media rights in the $29-32M neighborhood. Keep in mind with the B12 thats for T1&T2 rights. It will be interesting to see what they do with the T3 rights. I know schools like KU (only because of valuable T3 basketball content) & OU were once getting around $5-7M for T3 rights. UT was getting $15M gifted to them. With us, that $24.5M rumor is for all three tier rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top