It would be like losing UF & FSU from a conference and thinking you didn't really lose value because you have UCF & USF in those much larger Orlando and Tampa markets.
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
Are you really so drunk that you’re asking this question?!
The University of Texas and University of Oklahoma aren’t television markets. The Big 12 still has primary carriage across the state of Texas via several programs who remain in the Big 12 and Oklahoma because they still have Oklahoma State.
why yes, i am really that drunk. texas the school has eyeballs. more than the big 12 remnant schools in texas. that is why they are now part of the sec. comparing baylor or tcu or tech to texas or atm is just kinda dumb. ou draws more eyeballs in the state of texas than the little remnants.
but, carry on. i shall have another bourbon and feel sorry for you and the other unenlightened -- we are on an express elevator to the basement and all the rest is just muzak pumped into the car to ease our ride to our doom.
have a nice ****ing day.
I think all of the evidence is clear that the biggest thing that matters is the guaranteed money a conference can get by adding a school(s) from their TV deal. There’s other stuff that matters like the brand of the school, academic standing, and being the home of many alumni. Those things are all secondary to the guaranteed money.
The complication comes when adding a school creates more money in the pool, but dilutes the total amount of money each school in the conference gets. This is why Colorado is attractive for a middle tier conference like the Big 12 and not the B1G or $EC. Bringing Colorado creates more money, but it is not enough more to justify adding another mouth to feed.
What dictates guaranteed money?
WTF are you talking about?!
You have not read my posts, so I’ll try to give you the reader’s digest version:
1) Losing UT and OU is bad. Yes.
2) Losing UT and OU is not as bad as losing U$C and UCLA. Why?
3) Even after UT and OU leave, the Big 12 will still have primary carrier status with TV providers in all 20 markets in Texas. They will still get significant guaranteed subscriber fees every month. They’ll still also get those big fees in Oklahoma City.
4) the Pac-12 is losing this primary carrier status in Los Angeles entirely. That’s $50-60 million dollars a year gone entirely.
Last edited:
Each school has a market of influence. Given that some schools are located relatively near one another, this area can overlap. They are attached to the market because the networks believe that the primary viewers in that area are more likely to purchase good/services from their advertisers. This is why the guaranteed primary area of influence with LA is huge for the B1G and catastrophic for the Pac-10. By getting both of the schools in LA’s market area, the B1G picked up $0.90 per customer per month in carriage fees on their deal. That money has gone from the Pac-12 and is now with the B1G.
edit: this number was probably slightly smaller for the Pac-12 because they had Larry Scott negotiating horrible TV deals, but it is major money lost - around $0.80-$0.85 per TV subscriber per month in LA. Multiply that by 5.45 million subscribers.
Last edited:
i suggest that the ratings do not back up your assertions. if you pull the highest rated games from the b12 out (the vast majority of which involved ut and ou) and then do the same with usc and ucla for the pac, you will see different impacts. ucla is a non-factor other than locking up the market. they do not draw meaningful more eyeballs in conference than oregon for sure and others probably, depending on time slot.
ou has a **** ton of alums in texas and they are good. they and ut draw the eyeballs. baylor has a small percentage of fans and alums in the market by comparison. this all impacts the ratings.
ut and ou to the sec is worse by a wide margin than usc and ****a to the big. but, this is all degrees of horrible. we are all ****ing screwed. but die on this hill if you feel it helps you cope with the absolute disaster that just occurred for CU.
Ratings are not a factor in the tiering of guaranteed money. I’ve already agreed that it is bad for them to lose OU and UT because it changes the economics of the total TV deal. It is not as bad as what the Pac-12 is experiencing because the TV providers are still paying primary carrier fees for all of the Texas and Oklahoma schools. Plus, they are adding Cinci, Orlando, and Salt Lake City. The Pac-12 loses approximately $50-60 million per year just because of the tier demotion in LA. Compound that with the loss of two big brands and it is lights out.
perhaps. i am skeptical that tier one rights in la will not include the remnant pac schools but maybe? there are **** ton of stanford, oregon, CU, uw, and cal grads in the market. they don't get to watch on basic? maybe. usc is in a class by itself in terms of viewership-- they are not equivalent to ucla. especially when usc is good. ...
@manhattanbuff is correct.
OU & UT are more valuable as ratings driver brands than USC & UCLA.
However, that's only part of the equation.
The other part is the in-market carriage rate.
That rate is highest within the school's home metro market.
The Pac-12 suffered the double whammy with the programs it lost.
The conference has to be aggressive to recoup some of that lost value.
#20 Sacramento
#27 San Diego
#40 Las Vegas
#48 Albuquerque
Those are the only Top 50 possibilities in our footprint and those 4 still represent significantly fewer households than were lost with the 2 LA schools.
If the Pac is going to stay together, it almost has to be via going aggressively to 14: SDSU, FSU plus UH and 1 of TCU/TTU/SMU. (#5 DFW + #8 Houston is almost as many households as LA).
OU & UT are more valuable as ratings driver brands than USC & UCLA.
However, that's only part of the equation.
The other part is the in-market carriage rate.
That rate is highest within the school's home metro market.
The Pac-12 suffered the double whammy with the programs it lost.
The conference has to be aggressive to recoup some of that lost value.
#20 Sacramento
#27 San Diego
#40 Las Vegas
#48 Albuquerque
Those are the only Top 50 possibilities in our footprint and those 4 still represent significantly fewer households than were lost with the 2 LA schools.
If the Pac is going to stay together, it almost has to be via going aggressively to 14: SDSU, FSU plus UH and 1 of TCU/TTU/SMU. (#5 DFW + #8 Houston is almost as many households as LA).
This isn’t about the consumer. The networks do not include ANYTHING in LA because the Pac-10 no longer has any schools who are within that TV market. They will be on TV, but alumni don’t dictate the TV tiering. The Pac-10 will get the $0.06-$0.08 per viewer in LA. That’s it.
I feel like you’re not understanding what I am saying.
There’s an overall deal. This is driven by who and where. Big names, big ratings get big money.
This has two component parts:
a) Top tier primary guaranteed money - the TV markets of influence attached to the members of the conference pay the highest guaranteed amount because they see the value of the ad dollars. This amount is usually 8-10x (b) below.
b) Secondary tier guaranteed money. The network has the games signed up for regional coverage, but there’s nobody from that market in the game. The consumer still sees the game. It is just that the share of the pie is smaller for the conference in this scenario.
Let’s use the B1G and LA. Before they signed up U$C and UCLA, they were only getting $0.10 per subscriber per month in LA when they were broadcast on Fox, ESPN, etc. Now that they have U$C and UCLA, that number is now $1.00 per subscriber per month in LA. That money has shifted away from the Pac-10 and to the B1G.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Nobody wants to leave the Pac outside of maybe UA. The writing might be on the wall as far as the fate of this league to both of them.
i do not like what you are selling. but, if it shakes the way you are suggesting, there is no pac. it is done.
i won't weep over her grave. ...
I’m not selling anything. I’m simply clarifying the economics of these TV deals. This is why I have repeatedly stated that the Pac-10 was killed by losing top tier LA money.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Let me respond to this and make a bigger point. Let me start with possible Big 12 additions-I haven't heard a realistic argument on why any Big 12 school should join the PAC. TV money's what's driving this-and theirs is going to be better. Not only that, but Jason Scheer made a comment that stands out on an interview I heard him do last week-the Pac 12's arrogance is why its here. The Big 12's remaining schools WANTED to join last year. The Pac told them to **** themselves. What honestly makes you think that would all of a sudden change?
On the MWC-If the $24.5M per number is accurate, do we really want to be adding schools right now? Here's another thing-We're still talking about culture fits for this conference even after the two flagship programs (USC football and UCLA basketball) are gone. Who's to say Fresno would even get approved? UNLV? New Mexico?
Here's where I'm going with this-The first thought I had after the moves were announced was going back to the Big 12 is likely inevitable. Does the admin not want to do it? Yes. Totally believe that. Do I think they recognize that they might not have another choice? Yes. There's one way forward for CU here-and its blatantly obvious to at least me. Join the Big 12. Re-commit to success in football. Assume that we're going to have at least one more round of this early next decade-say 2033-34. Hope that's enough to get into the B1G or SEC in 10 years.
Last edited:
Ok? I’m just saying, there’s no way the Arizona schools can leave each other if they share the same BOR.
Yeah. If anyone thinks the attendance in Berkeley or Palo Alto, or the TV viewing in the Bay Area is sucky now, try shoe-horning losers like New Mexico and UNLV into the PAC. And in coastal CA, Fresno State is considered a violent high school and SDSU is a total afterthought. None of that MW bolt-on stuff works in terms of fan interest on TV or otherwise.
Last edited:
I didn't realize they shared the same BoR. But i wouldn't exclude the possibility that they could be persuaded that the best situation for the system was for the schools to split up.
I think people are confusing tier 1&2 tv deals with tier 3 deals. Losing UT and OU is 10x worse than USC and UCLA. UCLA isn’t even in the same stratosphere as the other three in terms of ratings which is what FOX and ESPN care about. These are your nationally broadcasted games so it doesn’t matter which is your home market or not. The big 12 doesn’t have a network so the in market vs out of market charge is irrelevant. The pac has a network that is paying out a very small amount per school because of the directv issue so it doesn’t really matter there either. Even if the big 12 had a network for their tier 3 content Adding Cincy and UCF isn’t just going to magically let them start charging higher rates because those schools don’t move the needle (especially UCF) for eyeballs.
Thisuniversityisf’ed!
Well-Known Member
I say cut football, take the money and cure cancer. Problem solved.
Like UCLA and Cal?
Losing the LA schools effectively makes the PAC the MWC 2.0. Losing OU & UT doesn't hurt as much because the Big 12 added three new fertile recruiting grounds in Utah, Ohio, and Florida plus those new TV regions. The PAC is extremely limited in how they could proceed in this case but adding SDSU seems to be a must and it's debatable who the 12th school would be. UNLV appears to be the logical choice but the PAC has got to make inroads into DFW with perhaps SMU. DFW is supposed to surpass Chicago as the third largest metro region in the US next decade.
SDSU & SMU to the PAC!
SDSU & SMU to the PAC!
Exactly. If UCF, Houston and Cincy moved the needle from a media revenue standpoint so much so that they are making up for the 75% of current Big12 value by themselves, they would have been in a P5 conference a long time ago.
Also, Navigate is literally the only outlet that has ever reported new B12 TV money increasing at all, let alone to over $50m per school after the departures of UT and OU. It’s not happening.
Doesn’t the Pac own the China market? I say we cut a deal with Chinese television. And the Saudi’s seem to be willing to throw gazillions at a golf tour with zero coverage. Let’s go after the Saudi market as well. Think outside the box! Cut a $1 billion TV deal with China!! That’s only a dollar a household!
Take each Pac 12 school and develop sister cities in China. Then advertise in that city. Like “The Peking Buff Club!”
Take each Pac 12 school and develop sister cities in China. Then advertise in that city. Like “The Peking Buff Club!”
Last edited:
Even in San Diego nobody watches SDSU, SMU and some other schools may be in Texas but that doesn't mean people care about them. In Texas most people care about UT and A&M. Those are the schools that get ratings.
Those schools would only dilute an already too small pie.
It would be like saying the B12 should add DU as a basketball member because it would give them a school in Denver and grab that market.