CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

[Denver_sc]

I get the larger population argument, it makes a ton of sense.

But, to go to the specific example noted above (Maryland) - CO and MD have essentially the same size population, so that "excuse" is eliminated in terms of the actual example.

My hypothesis as to what ultimately drives that difference is that MD funds the **** out of its schools, starting with pre-k and rolling right through to the universities. Of course, there are much higher tax rates in MD than CO to, you know, actually pay for that.

But other note: @Creebuzz, did you get the finance degree from Smith? That's a world class B-school, so not too fair to compare to the broader university.

That said, I know someone with a MFA in Poetry from Maryland, who yeah - runs intellectual circles around everyone I know with an MFA from CU. (Also: she later got an MBA at Smith, so probably a better validation of being smart than my observation...)

I understand what you're saying here, but as recently as 1980 Maryland had twice the population of Colorado.

I'm not sure if the point here is limited to "in state" students only, but Boulder is more than 500 miles from any other metro area ranked in the top 30 in population, whereas College Park is part of the DC metro area (6) and under 150 miles from Philadelphia (7), none of the which shows up in the Maryland official count.

 

[skibum]

I understand what you're saying here, but as recently as 1980 Maryland had twice the population of Colorado.

I'm not sure if the point here is limited to "in state" students only, but Boulder is more than 500 miles from any other metro area ranked in the top 30 in population, whereas College Park is part of the DC metro area (6) and under 150 miles from Philadelphia (7), none of the which shows up in the Maryland official count.

"as recently as 1980" is literally before my wife was born. It's *not* "recent."

My emphasis was more on taxpayer support. DC and Philadelphia taxpayers don't pay a single cent of state taxes to support education in MD, and if they go to school there, they pay out of state tuition.

There are a lot of things that one can point at with the decline of CU's academics, and holding leadership accountable for their failures is appropriate.

However, the amount of fiscal support the state government has provided (in real $ per capita) to the university has also been declining during this time period as well.

 

[buffaholic]

I understand what you're saying here, but as recently as 1980 Maryland had twice the population of Colorado.

I'm not sure if the point here is limited to "in state" students only, but Boulder is more than 500 miles from any other metro area ranked in the top 30 in population, whereas College Park is part of the DC metro area (6) and under 150 miles from Philadelphia (7), none of the which shows up in the Maryland official count.

This is what's typically missed in these comparisons. It also applies to recruiting geographies.

What is the population TAM within a few hours drive, to pull potential fans from?
The population of folks within 2 hours drive of the Univ of Maryland, of people who are not already completely tied to another University (i.e. they attended another University they root for because they attended that University or grew up in that University's backyard) is the metric that is most important.

So many of our fans are from somewhere else and they are Iowa/Wisconsin/Michigan/OSU/USC/etc fans. It's part of their culture and who they are.
I'd imagine you have a lot of the Washington DC area also from somewhere else and thus it's population is a less fertile base for U of MD.

But I think when you look at this as the "serviceable addressable market", you find that Colorado's market is much lower than population alone would indicate.

With that said, when the Buffs were #1, there were a lot of fans from all over the world who jumped on the band wagon.

 

[RetainedGecko98]

As far as the "decline in CU's academics" - it is unfortunately true that CU has dropped over the last 20 years on lists like US News and Forbes. That's disappointing, and leadership deserves heat for it. But does that really mean that CU students are getting a lower quality education in 2022 than they were in 2002? I am skeptical that's the case, and again, I feel like we're only talking about this because of the struggles on the football field. So I suppose we can all agree it's time for new leadership and energy at the highest levels of the university.

If we did add all 4, that would actually be a lot of fun until the next realignment happens.

SDSU, SMU, UNLV, BSU

Assuming it did happen and the Pac-14 went to 3-5-4 scheduling like the ACC, who would you all want our 3 annual games to be?

(3-5-4 is 3 conf rivals you play every year, half the rest of the rest of the conference you play 2 years on/2 years off, and 4 non-con opponents.)

I'd pick SMU, Utah and ASU.

To get back to sports - I like the idea of staying in the Pac-12 if at all possible, and SDSU would be a major boost to the basketball side of the conference. My concern is that it's a collective action problem. We can say we plan to stay and support the conference's expansion, but what happens if one day Oregon and Washington announce they're leaving out of the blue, like USC and UCLA did? That would be a huge blow to the conference, and something we seem to have little control over in this everyone-for-themselves environment.

It's a tough situation to be in and I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions. I am also concerned about our leadership's ability to make smart choices, for all the reasons stated above.

 

[Bread]

"as recently as 1980" is literally before my wife was born. It's *not* "recent."

My emphasis was more on taxpayer support. DC and Philadelphia taxpayers don't pay a single cent of state taxes to support education in MD, and if they go to school there, they pay out of state tuition.

There are a lot of things that one can point at with the decline of CU's academics, and holding leadership accountable for their failures is appropriate.

However, the amount of fiscal support the state government has provided (in real $ per capita) to the university has also been declining during this time period as well.

I'm telling your wife you called her "not recent"

 

[Denver_sc]

"as recently as 1980" is literally before my wife was born. It's *not* "recent."

My emphasis was more on taxpayer support. DC and Philadelphia taxpayers don't pay a single cent of state taxes to support education in MD, and if they go to school there, they pay out of state tuition.

There are a lot of things that one can point at with the decline of CU's academics, and holding leadership accountable for their failures is appropriate.

However, the amount of fiscal support the state government has provided (in real $ per capita) to the university has also been declining during this time period as well.

It's before I was born, too. The point is that Colorado "catching up to Maryland's population" is a somewhat recent phenomena, so it makes a difference in terms of trends.

But your latter point is a great one. I believe that last I heard, Colorado provided less than 5% of the overall funding for CU (in my recollection it was as low as 2%, but I'm not sure how accurate that is). I would be deeply curious how that compares to peers (Washington, Maryland, etc.)

 

[Creebuzz]

I mentioned in jest a few months ago, but the play for the PAC really is to try and dominate two time zones by poaching the remaining key football schools in the mountain and pacific time zones. SDSU, UNLV, and Boise State are definitely the ones that make sense. That would kill the Mountain West conference and I think New Mexico and Hawaii might consider dropping football altogether.

I would also bar any member in the PAC 12 from playing USC and UCLA in ANY sport. Freeze them out. Make it painful on UCLA.

I’m not sure if it would work, but I’d explore expansion on the the basketball only side to include St. Mary’s and Gonzaga, and New Mexico if they dropped football.

 

[hokiehead]

...

I would also bar any member in the PAC 12 from playing USC and UCLA in ANY sport. Freeze them out. Make it painful on UCLA.

...

understand the angst, but I'm not on board with conferences dictating to member schools who they can and cannot play in non-conference. stipulating schools can only play one non-P5 game each year is one thing, stipulating they can't play a specific school is too prescriptive IMO.

it seemingly would be in Stanford and Cal's best interest to continue rivalries with other California FBS schools. asking those two to support a policy that is more painful to them the other member schools doesn't seem right.

 

[Buffnik]

As far as the "decline in CU's academics" - it is unfortunately true that CU has dropped over the last 20 years on lists like US News and Forbes. That's disappointing, and leadership deserves heat for it. But does that really mean that CU students are getting a lower quality education in 2022 than they were in 2002? I am skeptical that's the case, and again, I feel like we're only talking about this because of the struggles on the football field. So I suppose we can all agree it's time for new leadership and energy at the highest levels of the university.



To get back to sports - I like the idea of staying in the Pac-12 if at all possible, and SDSU would be a major boost to the basketball side of the conference. My concern is that it's a collective action problem. We can say we plan to stay and support the conference's expansion, but what happens if one day Oregon and Washington announce they're leaving out of the blue, like USC and UCLA did? That would be a huge blow to the conference, and something we seem to have little control over in this everyone-for-themselves environment.

It's a tough situation to be in and I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions. I am also concerned about our leadership's ability to make smart choices, for all the reasons stated above.

Strangely, while I think UO & UW have the value to be locks as B1G targets in the next round I don't think them leaving hurts the P12 much since we'd still have the OR & WA markets covered. For media deal, we'd be fine. Where we'd suffer is competitiveness and prestige.

 

[Creebuzz]

understand the angst, but I'm not on board with conferences dictating to member schools who they can and cannot play in non-conference. stipulating schools can only play one non-P5 game each year is one thing, stipulating they can't play a specific school is too prescriptive IMO.

If you want UCLA to stay in the conference, then you have to make it exceedingly painful for them to leave. No more women’s lacrosse games up at Cal. No water polo against Stanford. I agree, though, that universities are not nearly as aggressive as I am.*


*Occupational hazard where I often have to go scorched earth to collect from developers and other real estate investors. I let them know that I may not win, but they will be sufficiently bloodied up to remember my name for the rest of their lives.

 

[hokiehead]

If you want UCLA to stay in the conference, then you have to make it exceedingly painful for them to leave. No more women’s lacrosse games up at Cal. No water polo against Stanford. I agree, though, that universities are not nearly as aggressive as I am.*


*Occupational hazard where I often have to go scorched earth to collect from developers and other real estate investors. I let them know that I may not win, but they will be sufficiently bloodied up to remember my name for the rest of their lives.

gotcha.

also, I actually think the near term future of college sports will be national "power" conferences for football and regional conferences for all other sports.

 

[Buffs35]

And again I will ask the question, in his time as Chancellor in what areas has CU become a better school. Which departments provide a higher quality education than they did, how has the schools status in research improved. What one area would people in the know say that CU has become a leader, is now a standout?

Clearly you are forgetting the swimming pools and improved cafeteria services.

 

[patebuff]

If we did add all 4, that would actually be a lot of fun until the next realignment happens.

SDSU, SMU, UNLV, BSU

Assuming it did happen and the Pac-14 went to 3-5-4 scheduling like the ACC, who would you all want our 3 annual games to be?

(3-5-4 is 3 conf rivals you play every year, half the rest of the rest of the conference you play 2 years on/2 years off, and 4 non-con opponents.)

I'd pick SMU, Utah and ASU.

The numbers don't work for 3 conf rivals every year?

 

[Buffnik]

The numbers don't work for 3 conf rivals every year?

"3" is what I posted.

 

[ahoelsken]

I'm telling your wife you called her "not recent"

Thank God @skibum isn't made to Rebecca if that's happening.

I'm kind of meh on any G5 schools. I mean SDSU is fine if you want to get back into SoCal......but there's NOTHING after them. Nobody in Dallas cares about SMU athletics. Boise? Meh.

 

[ahoelsken]

Strangely, while I think UO & UW have the value to be locks as B1G targets in the next round I don't think them leaving hurts the P12 much since we'd still have the OR & WA markets covered. For media deal, we'd be fine. Where we'd suffer is competitiveness and prestige.

I disagree. I think the media deal the conference would get if the Ducks and Huskies left would be so bad that the four corners schools would likely have no choice but to go to the Big 12.

 

[patebuff]

"3" is what I posted.

Right. How does a 14 team conference, where every team has an annual game against the same 3 opponents, work every year? Unless I am missing something, the math doesn't add up.

 

[hokiehead]

Right. How does a 14 team conference, where every team has an annual game against the same 3 opponents, work every year? Unless I am missing something, the math doesn't add up.

what's not adding up? that's exactly what the ACC just announced they were going to next year.

link

 

[SINKRATZ]

Right. How does a 14 team conference, where every team has an annual game against the same 3 opponents, work every year? Unless I am missing something, the math doesn't add up.

Year 1-2, you play 8 conference opponents (3 fixed rivals, 5 others alternating every 2 years)

Year 2-4, you play 8 conference opponents (3 fixed rivals, the OTHER 5 alternating opponents)

Thats 13 teams, and we would be the 14th.

 

[patebuff]

what's not adding up? that's exactly what the ACC just announced they were going to next year.

link

Thanks. I knew I was missing something but after reading what the 3-5-4 is, it makes more sense.

I'll go sit in the corner for a while......

 

[Denver_sc]

Right. How does a 14 team conference, where every team has an annual game against the same 3 opponents, work every year? Unless I am missing something, the math doesn't add up.

Because Team "A" plays Teams B, C, and D every year. This does not mean that Team B plays A, C, and D. It's not pod scheduling.

 

[SuperD]

Not sure if he's just throwing stuff at the wall, but Wilner seems to think the P10 is strongly considering going all in with Amazon for the broadcast dal now that the NFL has proved the model. I still think you need the Mouse involved though. Presumably Amazon could leverage the same deal they worked out with Direct TV to make the broadcasts available for the commercial market, so we'd probably be able to watch P10 games in most bars again.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09...with-amazon-on-media-rights-and-so-much-more/

 

[InTheBuff]

Not sure if he's just throwing stuff at the wall, but Wilner seems to think the P10 is strongly considering going all in with Amazon for the broadcast dal now that the NFL has proved the model. I still think you need the Mouse involved though. Presumably Amazon could leverage the same deal they worked out with Direct TV to make the broadcasts available for the commercial market, so we'd probably be able to watch P10 games in most bars again.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09...with-amazon-on-media-rights-and-so-much-more/

What's worse ? PAC12 Net or having games on Amazon ? meh...both suck
I want my school on ESPN, FOX or the the Big 3 Networks. Heck...I'd be fine with TBS or TNT.as well.

I want my school showcased not hidden. The Big12 is going to have better TV deals so that's where I want CU to be.

 

[HighlandsBuff]

Thank God @skibum isn't made to Rebecca if that's happening.

I'm kind of meh on any G5 schools. I mean SDSU is fine if you want to get back into SoCal......but there's NOTHING after them. Nobody in Dallas cares about SMU athletics. Boise? Meh.

One interesting item for SDSU is that it is the 17th largest metro area in the country and it now lacks an NFL team. I think interest in SDSU, particularly if they joined the Pac-X, would jump.

That said, I grew up a Cal fan as my grandpa had played there and the thought of any other non-current CA school in the Pac is totally meh to me. There's no real replacement for what is being lost, not even close.

 

[GoBuffs18]

What's worse ? PAC12 Net or having games on Amazon ? meh...both suck
I want my school on ESPN, FOX or the the Big 3 Networks. Heck...I'd be fine with TBS or TNT.as well.

I want my school showcased not hidden. The Big12 is going to have better TV deals so that's where I want CU to be.

I would actually really like to be the one conference on TBS and TNT. The crew they have for NHL, NBA and now adding Jay Wright for college basketball would make me excited for the product they could put together for college football.

 

[BlackNGold]

I'm kind of meh on any G5 schools. I mean SDSU is fine if you want to get back into SoCal......but there's NOTHING after them. Nobody in Dallas cares about SMU athletics. Boise? Meh.

I agree with this. I do not see conference expansion with G5 schools being financially beneficial. If they were so great everyone would be clamoring for a TV contract with the MWC. SDSU has pretty poor TV ratings. Boise brings nothing of value to a deal. Only expand if the networks tell you it is worth while.

 

[Not Sure]

What's worse ? PAC12 Net or having games on Amazon ? meh...both suck
I want my school on ESPN, FOX or the the Big 3 Networks. Heck...I'd be fine with TBS or TNT.as well.

I want my school showcased not hidden. The Big12 is going to have better TV deals so that's where I want CU to be.

Right now, we should be happy that it’s damn near impossible to see CU play on TV.

 

[Not Sure]

I agree with this. I do not see conference expansion with G5 schools being financially beneficial. If they were so great everyone would be clamoring for a TV contract with the MWC. SDSU has pretty poor TV ratings. Boise brings nothing of value to a deal. Only expand if the networks tell you it is worth while.

What happens if the PAC does this is the MWC likely folds. That eliminates the only other college conference in the West. The dominoes on this round or realignment are just starting to fall.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

B1G cares about money and status. So it's about universities in the right markets which have tradition, academic prestige, B1G alumni population, and a base for drawing media dollars and qualified out-of-state applicants.

Um its only about premium properties and large TV markets. PP that create marquee matchups that deliver multiple must see tv with 4 million plus viewers per pop. That makes the people who sign the conference remittance checks happy. Thats why UT and OU are now in the SEC.

 

[MtnBuff]

One interesting item for SDSU is that it is the 17th largest metro area in the country and it now lacks an NFL team. I think interest in SDSU, particularly if they joined the Pac-X, would jump.

That said, I grew up a Cal fan as my grandpa had played there and the thought of any other non-current CA school in the Pac is totally meh to me. There's no real replacement for what is being lost, not even close.

San Diego is a big market and affluent as well. Add to that the value of the market directly across the border.

So why don't they have an NFL team? Same reason they don't have an NBA team, same reason why SDSU doesn't belong in a P5 conference. When it comes to sports it is a bad market. The Padres do well which makes sense since spending a day at the ball park in San Diego is a pleasant day.

SDSU has been one of the better teams in the MWC but still haven't drawn well. They are building a new stadium (Snapdragon Stadium) but it is going to be marginal as a P5 stadium at 35k and very limited expandability.

This is a big part of the problem. College football is just not a part of the culture like it is in the South or the Midwest. The remaining schools that aren't P5 haven't been added to a P5 conference for reason, they just don't add value. If you are looking for programs that justify a full share of a conference payout they just aren't there.