Academically & culturally, CSU is by far the best fit, which tells us about all we need to know about why the P12 never expanded.
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
Let's say we go with the PAC-16 the way I have it. With Hawaii, UNLV, SDSU, Fresno, Tulane, and SMU.
Right now, Big XII got 31.6 for 6 years with 12 schools. ESPN is said to be willing to match if they add attractive Pac-12 members.
The best offer ESPN has made is 16 per for 10 schools with two football games and non football sports. Amazon willing to give a tier 2 and 3 deal for 10 million plus the pac 12 network assets. After playoffs, bowl, and March madness profits, that's around 45 million. You get more than that right now.
Amazon wants a full licensing deal for 10 years similar to the SWAC deal which sucks ass where they own all of your media for 10 years, tier 1, 2, and 3 and can sell the license to CBS to make money for 34 million per school plus any school that also joins. That's a trash deal as you don't own your media no more. The SWAC were idiots for doing it and the PAC would be as well. Edit: The SWAC kept some of their tier 1s so it's even worse than the SWAC deal.
You need to get a superior tier. Get 16 teams. Go to CBS/Paramount. We will give you a 1PM EST game, 10PM EST game, and if Hawaii is playing, a 1AM EST game. PAC-16 all day outside of the slot they sold to the Big Ten.
You even keep your deal in place with ESPN. Understand your Amazon deal might fall to 7 million per school as does the ESPN deal due to going from 10 to 16 but 20+13+7= 40 million. After the rest of the profits, that's slightly less than 60 million per school.
Yeah, so that's a game changer. This is all about media rights. You are playing chess with media rights.
Right now, Big XII got 31.6 for 6 years with 12 schools. ESPN is said to be willing to match if they add attractive Pac-12 members.
The best offer ESPN has made is 16 per for 10 schools with two football games and non football sports. Amazon willing to give a tier 2 and 3 deal for 10 million plus the pac 12 network assets. After playoffs, bowl, and March madness profits, that's around 45 million. You get more than that right now.
Amazon wants a full licensing deal for 10 years similar to the SWAC deal which sucks ass where they own all of your media for 10 years, tier 1, 2, and 3 and can sell the license to CBS to make money for 34 million per school plus any school that also joins. That's a trash deal as you don't own your media no more. The SWAC were idiots for doing it and the PAC would be as well. Edit: The SWAC kept some of their tier 1s so it's even worse than the SWAC deal.
You need to get a superior tier. Get 16 teams. Go to CBS/Paramount. We will give you a 1PM EST game, 10PM EST game, and if Hawaii is playing, a 1AM EST game. PAC-16 all day outside of the slot they sold to the Big Ten.
You even keep your deal in place with ESPN. Understand your Amazon deal might fall to 7 million per school as does the ESPN deal due to going from 10 to 16 but 20+13+7= 40 million. After the rest of the profits, that's slightly less than 60 million per school.
Yeah, so that's a game changer. This is all about media rights. You are playing chess with media rights.
Those 6 would have to join at significantly reduced shares. Otherwise the current 10 would all make less money than they would without them. SDSU, FSU and SMU might be exceptions to that. Might.
Don’t we think that part of Saliman’s argument with his regents to hire Prime and go all in with the football program was to get us into the Big or SEC? I definitely think so. The PAC is on life support, IMO. I don’t care about CSU, SMU, Fresno, SD state, Hawaii, on and on and on.
Would you really have to? At the end of the day, the best deal for the Big XII came when they were a solidify front. Same for the CUSA. Even the Big Ten did it as a solidify front with USC and UCLA hidden in plain sight. Sometimes, expansion first then TV deal is a lot better than guessing who will be added because they aren't looking at those other teams as PAC schools. They are looking at them as American and Mountain West schools and judging them their past and current, not their future.
It's only on LS if you can't strike a good TV deal. The PAC had the best revenue for TV in the previous decade for P5. You can't convince them to take a massive paycut when their expenses won't allow it.
if the pac were going to add schools in order to get a better tv deal, it would have already added schools. if the remaining pac members could have gotten better tv deals by leaving for other conferences, they would have already left. there is a reason there was noise around the 4 corner schools to the b12 and then it didn't happen.
the members and the conference have done the analysis and i think it is clear that they have concluded their best tv deal and per school distribution is if they stick with 10 for now and sign the deal (which will have to have strong GoR terms) and then perhaps chase a few more like sdsu at some reduced rev participation.
all the evidence seems to point this way, right now. also, it appears that amazon is will to hit the per school distributions we need to remain competitive and that is going to be the first mover in decision making, ahead of eyeballs. folks will find the product (see the nfl on thursdays on prime) if the product is good.
the members and the conference have done the analysis and i think it is clear that they have concluded their best tv deal and per school distribution is if they stick with 10 for now and sign the deal (which will have to have strong GoR terms) and then perhaps chase a few more like sdsu at some reduced rev participation.
all the evidence seems to point this way, right now. also, it appears that amazon is will to hit the per school distributions we need to remain competitive and that is going to be the first mover in decision making, ahead of eyeballs. folks will find the product (see the nfl on thursdays on prime) if the product is good.
They aren’t going to come close to half of what B1G and SEC programs are getting, so in reality, they are already on life support for what matters.
In the big picture, I think there are two possible plays
1. Merge the best of the remaining teams in the Big12/Pac-12/ACC and try to create a conference that can compete with the SEC and B1G. Essentially go to a P3 model.
2. Accept that we’re headed towards the P2 and maneuver to get one of the seats at the table for the next round of expansion
The idea that the conference is going to compete by replacing big names with G5 schools is crazy to me.
1. Merge the best of the remaining teams in the Big12/Pac-12/ACC and try to create a conference that can compete with the SEC and B1G. Essentially go to a P3 model.
2. Accept that we’re headed towards the P2 and maneuver to get one of the seats at the table for the next round of expansion
The idea that the conference is going to compete by replacing big names with G5 schools is crazy to me.
the deal will be at least as good as the other 3 power conferences. it is far from perfect but it is the best we probably can get for now.
the super conferences will be here in the next round. we have to survive to advance to that round.
Yup, those schools scream small-time.
That's not true unless you are looking at the Big Ten or the Sun Belt deal. The Big Ten added elite brands in the elite market. The Sun Belt took brands from a previously stronger conference and became much stronger. The rest did it after they added the brands. That's how they got the deals they got. All got more than their previous deal but at one point, they were all on the fringes outside of the Sun Belt and B1G.
It's a lot different when the schools are a part of your conference than when they are interested in joining.
1. Will never happen. The minute they (attractive ACC schools) are out of the GoR, it will be easy pickings for the SEC and B1G.
2. That's the plan but even then, you need a strong resume by Prime and making sure he stays on board.
You don't have any other choice. As of right now, the Pac is the weakest link.
If we can get Coach Prime to commit to 10 years, we should go independent, have our own channel, and make bank.
The roadies to Hawaii would be amazeballs, bro. Ever been to a lūʻau? The Mai Tai's never stop.
Are you considering the other U Cal schools in that evaluation?
Yes. Because none of them play FBS level football. They're as irrelevant to the discussion as the University of British Columbia.
Ok, that makes sense, and
1. we've seen realignment involving FCS schools to FBS in recent past.
2. FCS has nothing to do with academic or cultural fit
i'm talking about after usc and ucla shanked the pac. at that point, everyone that could was looking at all other options-- pretty much every school that thought it could make a move, evaluated making a move. that would be everyone other than wash state and oregon state. oregon desperately wanted into the big. uw too. us too but we weren't in the mix. the b12 made a run at CU, utah, asu, and ua. no one jumped because the numbers weren't that good.
the remaining pac members and the conference are doing math. if there were opportunities for schools to leave and do better they would have done so. if there were opportunities for the pac to add schools to add increased revenue, it would already have happened.
the strongest proposition on the table right now for the current 10 members of the pac is to sign the best tv deal they can do. sdsu is arguing that they would be accretive, but the pac negotiated the numbers with the tv providers with and without adding schools. so, that tells us sdsu at this time probably isn't accretive. and it also tells us that there probably aren't many schools that easily available and that the pac members would accept that would actually increase the value of the tv deal.
also, there are multiple levels to why amazon will pay a premium for a full set of rights. and, with access to the expanded playoff now guaranteed, the key is not so much eyeballs and households for the conference as it is revenue per school. the pac will take the biggest per school distribution at the cost of less widely available tv coverage.
none of this is ideal but it is how it is, i think. the only reason the pac tv deal is not already done is folks were waiting to see if ucla would get forced to stay. that paused everything. now, the next shoe to drop is the pac tv deal (probably multi-tiered with amazon) will get closed and then the pac will evaluate possible expansion with sdsu apparently top of the list.
You know what I'd be down with? Hitting the MWC by expanding the Pac in basketball.
Stay at the 10 we have.
See if we can add SDSU, UNLV, Gonzaga and UNM for non-football.
That would definitely make our basketball more valuable, and we could pay them accordingly. With the 3 that play football, it may have to include some sort of scheduling alliance like ND does with the ACC. Not conference members, but they're each able to fill about 1/3 of their football schedules with Pac-10 teams Basically, 1 non-conference game from each of the 10 members every year if we wanted to but we probably wouldn't have to -- the MWC likely keeps them for football-only anyway since they couldn't afford to lose them.
Last edited:
They already got the best offer for a ten-team league. It's at least 5 million less and no one seems interested in giving them a six-year deal. We are talking ten years in both deals. Both of these deals are bad for the PAC-12. They want a short deal but the short deals have been highly underwhelming as Amazon wants a long-term commitment and that's who's giving them the best options as they are also buying PAC-12 Network and equipment which is the real value that the PAC has to Amazon.
As I stated earlier, the all-tiers - license deal is terrible. Similar to the one the SWAC did with Byron Allen.
I will have to disagree with you on this. It would have been done without UCLA if they were sticking with 10 and added a provision if UCLA stays. They haven't done it because the deals are really bad right now.
To me, the options can be ample if you move to 16. You can go to Turner and offer a value of 5 potential games on a Sat.
1PM EST
4PM EST
7PM EST
10PM EST
1AM EST Sun.
That's live sports for 14 hours. West Coast bars and TVs on Turner for 14 hours. A lot of bars don't close to 12 or 1AM when I was on the West coast. That's live sports at the highest level for 14 hours. You can sell this to Turner and get a deal for potentially 35/ per for 16 schools. This doesn't include 2 games for ESPN and Amazon getting a game or two. Or the CBS/Paramount deal I suggested. 12PM EST/10PM EST/1AM EST slots, with 2 to ESPN, and 2-3 games to Amazon. This would get you a far more significant deal.
As it stands, with the ESPN/Amazon potential deal, it's 2 on ESPN and 3 on Amazon or every game on Amazon with licensing to CBS for a game which profits will go to directly Amazon.
The issue with just staying at 10, you don't have enough content. If ESPN takes 2 games, you only got 3 games left. You are limited. You are basically the Sega Dreamcast.
Does Oregon want to do an underwhelming 10-year deal with a GoR? Does Washington? If it was out there, it would be done already. No matter what you do, Amazon is going to want a GOR to be done and the commish would want that too.
I don't believe sticking to 10 would work. I could be wrong, but I doubt it in this case. As I said, we have good recent case studies with the Big XII and CUSA. Both had extremely difficult situations and made out of it golden. CUSA getting double and much better visibility than their previous deal when everyone across the FBS figured they were left for dead and Judy was done.
I don't follow your logic, what's the value of adding teams to non football which adds no media value? Football is the driver and nothing else.
Last edited:
I'd argue that a lot of what drove the B12 was its competitive success as a 10-team conference. Their issue was that they lost so much value with OU and UT that its only move was to get into some huge markets (Ohio, Florida), and make sure they had a presence in all of Texas (Houston) since they were limited to basically north of I-20. So they needed a 4th and BYU made the most sense among a lot of meh candidates.
For the Pac, I can see the similarities since we've lost the premier program in USC, one of the upper half programs in UCLA, and got cut off from Southern California.
There are definitely arguments for the following as being accretive:
Fresno State (Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto is the #20 media market; Fresno-Visalia is #55 - also addresses the So Cal problem)
San Diego State (San Diego is the #27 media market - also addresses the So Cal problem)
UNLV (Las Vegas is the #40 market - also puts the Pac into NV with its fast-growing population of 3.1 million, which is not too short of Utah's 3.3M)
SMU (Dallas-Ft Worth is the #5 media market - also puts the conference in TX for recruiting and general media coverage)
I'm not sure they are, though. I'd expect that if they are we will see expansion.
The Big XII literally got murdered. They are the ones who set off this wave of expansion to being with. Their recovery was due to everyone getting on one page, realizing they are better as a group than as a collection of individuals as they were when UT and OU ran the conference. They added the most attractive schools which were left. BYU being the biggest coup and walked around as if their **** don't stink and ESPN/Fox was like, you are right, your **** don't stink. We want to make you one of the best tier 2 conferences along with the ACC which ESPN is robbing blind by the way.
So let's acknowledge that first. Their recovery was amazing but they suffered. Did you forget who they ran to when it was all falling down? The Pac-12.
None of those teams they added have any real value in that region outside of 1. They have some value but Houston is still UT and A&M country and will be till Houston is officially in the Big XII playing games. Same for Cincy (Ohio State), and UCF (FSU and Florida). BYU is the only national brand they added and that's because no one, especially the Pac-12 wanted them.
All of these schools are on the same level to me. To be good at the P5 level is a lot harder than being good at the G5 level for Football so I am more worried about the time slots which is most critical as TV sells time slots as to how they value you, TV markets as you stated above, and conference fit.
I actually think the Big XII damn near died because of going down to 10 schools. To me, even being at 12 schools which they will be in two years is risky to me. To me, all P5s should be at 14-16 schools. Content is king. More schools, more content. Quality is all about the standard you hold your conference to.
I don’t see how pulling G5 schools in helps individual teams in the conference. Oregon is still Oregon, etc. I think pac-10 makes more sense than bringing new schools
Always BUFF
I post stupid ****
You lost me at BYU being the biggest coup...
I considered BYU to be the biggest coup for the Big XII. They are the only school added by the Big XII with a national brand and had their own deal with ESPN and they delivered ratings. I do believe they helped a ton. Who do you think it was for the Big XII that was the coup of their recent expansion?