I’ve believed, even during the lean years, that Colorado can draw fans. I can almost guarantee that we will lead the Pac in percentage of capacity sold. Hopefully a sleeping giant is awakening.
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
CU will draw locally if they win, no matter who is the head coach (see 2016). The viewership numbers are going to determine CU's fate, though, specifically the viewership numbers in 2024 as that will be the first year of the new media deal and the games will mostly be on streaming services it seems, along with the potential for 2024 to be a season CU is competing for the conference championship and a playoff spot.
If Prime and CU are successful over the next two years, CU will be a major draw nationally in 2025 and going forward and it will be due to CU being a really good football team, not just for the "novelty" and curiosity of Prime, and that will determine if CU football has staying power if Prime leaves.
This.
The good news is that "history" is also on our side here too.
In the 90s, when fewer games were televised overall, and way fewer were televised "nationally," the games chosen to be televised nationally were decided on by the networks pretty much based solely on viewership.
In that landscape, Notre Dame had more "nationally televised" games than any other school. Not surprising at all.
But, coming in at #2 wasn't tOSU, Michigan, OU, USC, etc - it also wasn't the MNC winning programs of the era, FSU, Miami, the nubs.
No, it was CU.
The eyeballs will be there if we win.
CU is a program that needs Prime to revive the brand and jump start the attention, hype, etc. but I do think the brand and success can be sustained as a nationally prominent one in the same way Oregon has sustained its brand post Belotti/Chip Kelly. And, while Oregon has the biggest booster in college sports behind it, I think their model of appealing to recruits through marketing and flashy uniforms, and ultimately building a winning product, is the same model that can make CU successful and sustain that success.
I remember her and Byyny, in a presser declaring the days of the old boys club in the AD were over. Weird way to defend your head coach....
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Rick is off the hook for the Dorrell hire and the Tucker fiasco if he keeps Prime after his kids are done here.
Totally agree. CU needs to become must see TV. When CU plays, say, an Oregon, those games have to be prime time national broadcasts with huge ratings.
And Prime is doing something the CU administration has failed to do in the past: He is marketing CU. He is making CU a brand.
Streaming is going to get fewer eyeballs than broadcast TV for the foreseeable future, but that is likely only going to apply for Fox, CBS and NBC because they are not reliant on a cable package. Everyone can get those networks with a $15 purchase of a digital antenna. ESPN is the network that's affected by cord cutting, and may be trending toward some kind of streaming only model for the majority, if not all, of it's content. It's why they are desperate for night time inventory, while Fox and the other networks don't really care about it.
Also, what happens when Apple TV or Amazon come out with their own version of live TV with all the OTA channels like Hulu, YouTube TV, Sling, etc? Let's say they launch their own live TV subscription programming and create the ability to hit "last" or "back" or "previous" on the remote so their TV viewing experience is in line with standard cable where you can quickly switch back and forth. Then Apple TV or Amazon is just another "network" that carries live sports and the only real "hurdle" is removed?
I think you're nuts if you think Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN/ABC are going to outlast Google, Amazon and Apple now that all 3 of them are seemingly entering the media and live sports business.
The 2023 season is not subject to the new media rights deal. CU will have at least one more season with Fox and ESPN/ABC broadcasting their games
I said "next year's Colorado/Oregon game"
as for tv packages..
ESPN wants late night games for mainly restaurant/bar patrons not Mr. Football fan sitting in his basement eating a pizza.
Those games are on multiple tv's while customers are having a late dinner or shooting a game of pool or throwing darts.
It's not all that important if it's SMU at Washington St or Arizona hosting Cal but who might look up and see that Budweiser or
AFLAC commercial.
and another thing... these streaming services aren't doing well at the moment..losing $$
For sure. But success will make CU a brand. Success and marketing. Branding has to become sustainable after Prime moves on. I think it’s realistic to believe it can if, like @The Alabaster Yak points out, CU buys into doing what is necessary.
God dammit, man, now I have to go full hokie because you're being an idiot. Anyone talking about "next year's" college football season is obviously referring to the 2023 season as that is the next college football year. Anyone talking about 2024 in that context is a moron or trying to hide the fact that they slipped up.
I don't really know what your point is about the ESPN late night time slot. It's not a great time slot to be in, as you say.
Streaming services are just starting to gain traction and they are very small pieces of the largest companies in the world. The free delivery through Prime lost Amazon a ton of money for a long time.
I agree with you that streaming isn't there yet to seamlessly replace broadcast TV, but if the money is within a few million/year of the Big 12 programs, I would rather go exclusively to Apple TV with the Pac 10 and take our chances getting a B1G/SEC invite in 6 years. As others have said, if a B1G invite doesn't come, the Big 12 will still be there for CU.
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Big12 should take Oregon and Wash on whatever terms those schools want and CU should join B12 under same obligation.
Lol leaving out the best teams in the Big 12? The more apt comparison is Oregon, Washington, Utah, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, etc or TCU, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati, BYU, Baylor, UCF, Kansas State, Houston, etc. It may not change your opinion, but make an equal comparison
From a TV standpoint, it's actually pretty close, IMO. I get that the roadies are way better in the Pac.
Make any comparison you like. The result is the same. At least for me.
Assuming CU is about to be on a similar level of competitiveness as Oregon, Washington and Utah, I would probably lean toward the Pac programs as those are true marquee matchups. I have almost zero interest in playing OSU, WSU, Cal, Stanford, Arizona or ASU, though.
There are teams in every conference that aren’t fun matchups. Taken on the whole, the PAC is still the better conference. I do wish we could figure out a way to add BYU before they make the move to the b12 though. That’s the one team in the new B12 that I think would be a great addition to the PAC.
From a purely foorball enjoyment perspective, there is really no comparison. Sold out, rowdy, competitive games in the middle of nowhere are far more entertaining than games in half empty stadiums (Stanford, Cal) in a conference that can't even get teams into the annual playoff.
From a travel perspective, you might have a point. But, in my view, even that has been a massive disappointment in the PAC. My best road trips have been to Big 12(8) ****holes. The game day experience is entirely different, and far more fun, when the games are the only show in town.
That’s what makes horse races, I suppose. The B12 does nothing for me at all. I wish we were able to make our choice on conference affiliation based on the quality of the football as opposed to how many TV sets we will be on or how much our media contract is going to pay us. I fully appreciate that is an outdated and unrealistic way of looking at things, but it would be nice.
they call me elitist and i agree we have to do the deal that makes the most sense given all the circumstances. but more rednecks is going to be hard to embrace. i will do what we have always done and lean into their toothless hate. it makes me warm.
LOL...
It's 2023 so I think of it as this year while isn't 2024 next year ?
Not giving you **** or anything near that. Find it funny.
If CU can go undefeated beating TT, Baylor, KSU and ISU and go to the college football playoffs then there will be plenty of enjoyment.
Sure road trip are better to Palo Alto and Seattle than Manhattan, KS and Waco but how often do I do that.
I find it hard to believe Oregon will love the idea playing Washington or Utah behind a paywall on AppleTv.
1. We have no idea what the details of a streaming package would look like, so proclamations like this is useless
2. I find it hard to believe Oregon will love the idea of playing Oklahoma State and Iowa State for the next 90 years unless they pay $100m to get out
3. If it's true that FOX is not agreeing to increase their payouts pro rata for P5 additions to the Big 12 like ESPN is, I have a hard time seeing Oregon and Washington taking $20m/year to play in the Big 12 and lock themselves into the conference.