****ing wild goose chase is what it is. Thanks Bruce, didn't think about that back in 1995. 
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
Leave me out of this.****ing wild goose chase is what it is. Thanks Bruce, didn't think about that back in 1995.
I would be willing to pay a la carte, even if the unit price were higher, as I suspect I would buy fewer units. For instance, I would gladly skip all the major pro sports, except maybe MLB, and just buy CFB and MBB.
Ditto regular channels too. Do I really need seven or eight "news" channels saying virtually the same thing over and over? I dropped local TV from my DISH bundle, and I can't say I have missed it. On the off chance something is on OTA channels, I can always use my antenna. I would probably dump 70% of the channels on my DISH bundle if I could.
I guess I should look into FUBO or YouTube TV.....
What you describe is typical, and that’s the problem for media companies. In my case, I will pay to watch the Buffs and that’s about it. I’ll watch the NFL casually, maybe some NHL too, but wouldn’t pay for them.
i think lefty and Cree are onto the big problem with networks going a la carte. they want to provide us more options than their competitors do. they want us to be exposed to their self-promotional content. they want to be able to develop new audiences for new content by teasing it with current auidences.
i'm sure there are workable hybrid models we're not considering, but I don't see any of the major services going "full" a al carte.
i'm sure there are workable hybrid models we're not considering, but I don't see any of the major services going "full" a al carte.
Last edited:
BlackNGold
Club Member
If you were correct, regional sports networks would not be going bankrupt and the PAC 12 network would be going gang busters. Most people are not that interested in paying for just one conference. Sheer number of fans is a smaller number than you think (or wish).
RSNs are an entirely different conversation due to the product they cover. NBA, NHL and MLB have never been appealing on a per game basis, until the playoffs, which is why the big networks pay a ton for those rights. RSNs survived because of the forced subsidy that is no longer there. The NFL, and to a lesser extent CFB, is completely different, which is why I think CFB is ultimately headed in the NFL direction.
Any of you guys have full-time jobs? I am amazed how active some of you guys are at all hours of the day. Anyway, keep up the great work. We should know where we will end up soon, and this would never have been possible without your efforts.
BlackNGold
Club Member
I love how you talk out of both sides of your mouth - you say "The value of live sports is not going down, exactly the opposite actually, but the revenue model is changing." Then you say "NBA, NHL and MLB have never been appealing on a per game basis" are those not live sports. The NFL in the US is a unicorn and nothing else compares. After that a majority of CFB games are no more appealing than NBA basketball. How many people are going to pay $450 per year for a college football subscription?
The end of subsidizing sports channels thru linear means less revenue to buy inventory
Attendance for college football is decling.
HSFB participation is declining.
Over 5 years, Super Bowl viewership declined -19% while college footballchampionship viewing declined -24%
Amazon Thursday night NFL ratings werent good.
Apple is supposedly struggling selling MLS Season Pass.
Young people are showing no interest in sports. They dont watch live TV. Students dont show up for games on campus. College enrollment is starting to decline due to costs.
The idea that the sky is the limit on ever rising rights deals is suspect. If you dont have viewership and high ratings your ad revenue is going to tank. And that makes that expensive contract a liability.
Welcome to Colorado Cloak & Dagger Friday!
Colorado's BOR Agenda for Monday, April 17th has been released. https://go.boarddocs.com/co/cu/Board.nsf/vpublic?openhttps://www.cbssports.com/college-footb...
www.youtube.com
Greg Flugaur is live on YouTube, the first guy with ucla/usc to the B1G. I believe also had Oklahoma and Texas moving first. Just said that colorado is deep in talks with the Big 12 about membership and scheduling
Has pointed out that the law cited in today’s announcement of a BOR meeting is the same law cited for the BOR meeting before joining the PAC in 2010.
I always questioned the PACN model of having 6 stations for the 12 teams.
The fiscal reasoning behind it was that local market broadcasts draw inflated in-market numbers. Therefore, aggregating those local market numbers for a time slot gives you a much bigger total audience than you'd get from a single PACN that covered the entire conference more generally. It's the exact same thinking that led to initial failure of Fox Sports and a major pivot to national focus later on. I remember listening to Olberman when he went to FS and how they'd convinced him that aggregating local numbers would actually pull a much larger total audience than ESPN gets.
So it was tried and failed. But Larry Scott still made this his model. I think part of that is because LS didn't really know media and wasn't versed in that obvious FS case study. But I think the main part was that it was mostly a justification he was able to use with Pac-12 presidents who were dead set on using the network to give equal time to women's and Olympic sports to showcase the progressiveness and broad success of their schools as the "Conference of Champions".
So the conference started the network on a horrible model that was clearly going to have issues with carriage of all those networks along with massively inflated production costs to broadcast so many sports that draw viewers measured in hundreds of eyeballs for most events. Throw in 100% ownership which meant no one sharing costs or driving carriage and he killed what should have been an elite media cash cow of a conference.
The fiscal reasoning behind it was that local market broadcasts draw inflated in-market numbers. Therefore, aggregating those local market numbers for a time slot gives you a much bigger total audience than you'd get from a single PACN that covered the entire conference more generally. It's the exact same thinking that led to initial failure of Fox Sports and a major pivot to national focus later on. I remember listening to Olberman when he went to FS and how they'd convinced him that aggregating local numbers would actually pull a much larger total audience than ESPN gets.
So it was tried and failed. But Larry Scott still made this his model. I think part of that is because LS didn't really know media and wasn't versed in that obvious FS case study. But I think the main part was that it was mostly a justification he was able to use with Pac-12 presidents who were dead set on using the network to give equal time to women's and Olympic sports to showcase the progressiveness and broad success of their schools as the "Conference of Champions".
So the conference started the network on a horrible model that was clearly going to have issues with carriage of all those networks along with massively inflated production costs to broadcast so many sports that draw viewers measured in hundreds of eyeballs for most events. Throw in 100% ownership which meant no one sharing costs or driving carriage and he killed what should have been an elite media cash cow of a conference.
No, we all sling dope. My motto is, just stay signed in when you don't remember your ****ing password. Then you don't have to dick around with it.Any of you guys have full-time jobs? I am amazed how active some of you guys are at all hours of the day. Anyway, keep up the great work. We should know where we will end up soon, and this would never have been possible without your efforts.
FIFY. It's not cost, there are simply far fewer kids graduating high school than there were a decade ago - and the number is getting smaller every year.
As to kids watching sports - I agree, you're right. I actually think part of it is the consolidation of high schools and/or just building larger schools and/or expanding existing schools instead of building new ones.
There was a time when >1,000 student high schools were pretty rare. Fewer kids in high schools meant more kids per capita played sports. If there are 50 kids on a high school football team, in a 500 kid high school, that's one out of every 10 kids, and 1 out of every 5 boys. If the school is 1,500, you're down to 1 out of every 15 boys.
The numbers extend across almost all sports. And my general observation is that kids who don't play some team sport in high school (whether it's basketball, football, hockey, baseball, lacrosse, etc) aren't usually sports "fans" when they grow up.
Any of you guys have full-time jobs? I am amazed how active some of you guys are at all hours of the day. Anyway, keep up the great work. We should know where we will end up soon, and this would never have been possible without your efforts.
I've wondered that for years about some of our posters. Believe me, that's not a criticism. And it's not just the volume of posts, it's also the necessary research that has to go into many of these posts therefore adding to the required time involved.
Your name is Bruce?
Yep, Bruce Leg. What ****ing movie did I see that from, D.C. Cab or some ****?
Outstanding
Ya
Pac 12 won't start their punch back campaign with this guy but could be a good start with some of his bullet points.
Any of you guys have full-time jobs? I am amazed how active some of you guys are at all hours of the day. Anyway, keep up the great work. We should know where we will end up soon, and this would never have been possible without your efforts.
Allbuffs breaks down like this:
20% of posters are self-employed and can do what they want to do.
15% of posters are retired.
10% of posters are employed part time.
5% of posters have actual 8-to-5 jobs and post on the fly.
The remaining 50% are incarcerated in Federal minimum security prisons for non-violent crimes and are allowed to have personal laptops.
Last edited:
That’s all probably accurate… until Oregon and Wash get a B1G invite and others have no choice but go to the B12
Money Post. Everything might have peaked a few years ago.
Last edited:
Victory
Well-Known Member
Exactly. That threat is looming. That’s why I keep saying our best bet at a B1G or SEC invite is to re-sign with P12 for 5-7 years, beat them + Utah repeatedly. We check all of the boxes other than beating teams B1G or the SEC care about.
The "enrollment cliff" refers to the dramatic drop in the college-age population beginning in 2025.
Forecasting the number of college-age youths is a relatively simple task. Take the birthrate of a given year and fast forward 17 and 18 years — when most kids start college.
Now consider birthrates during the Great Recession, which began in 2008. During that time of economic stress and uncertainty, notes Carleton College economist Nathan Grawe, people were having fewer children. The number of kids born between 2008 and 2011 plummeted dramatically.
So if you graph demographic projections, the precipitous descent resembles a cliff beginning in 2025. Over the succeeding four years, the number of 18-year-olds will decrease by 15%.
How does that translate into enrollment figures? During that four-year span, colleges will lose approximately 576,000 students.
Unfortunately for higher education, this situation isn't an aberration. College enrollments have been declining steadily since 2012. During COVID-19's apex — from 2019 to 2022 — undergraduate enrollment dropped by 7%.
But it's not just demographics and pandemics affecting college enrollments. A strong job market and low unemployment rates mean companies are willing to pay high wages to attract employees and persuade some high school graduates to put off collegetemporarily, if not permanently. One New York construction company is offering kids fresh out of high school $47 an hour following an apprenticeship.
Add that four-year opportunity cost together with student loan debt and the calculus doesn't make sense to a growing number of young adults — especially when a company as exalted as Google tells them they don't need a bachelor's degree to work there
Looming Enrollment Cliff Poses Serious Threat to Colleges | BestColleges
Lower birthrates during the Great Recession will result in fewer college-age students starting in 2025, threatening tuition-dependent private colleges.
www.bestcolleges.com
Between fall 2020 and fall 2022, the equivalent of roughly 24,000 currently enrolled undergraduates disappeared from the Cal State system.
I didnt break this part out at my link.
High school tackle football participation has dropped more than 10% in the past decade, even as overall high school sports participation continues to rise.
Boys’ football participation has dropped over the past few years, but the decline was more pronounced among Black and Latino athletes, whose participation dropped 6 and 4 percentage points respectively, compared with white athletes, whose participation dropped just 3 percentage points.
Is the future of football getting whiter? What we know about the changing face of the game.
Research and anecdotal evidence suggest the same forces that affected which schools were impacted most by the COVID-19 pandemic also affected which kids made it onto the football field.
www.al.com
Last edited: