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
Victory
Well-Known Member
We’ll see on Friday if those all nighters he’s been pulling at IHOP are going to pay off.
FIFY......
Vegas has two Cracker Barrels. He might be better off eating at those breakfast buffets.
Brock Huard Calls Pac-12 TV Situation 'Very Dire'
The college football world is awaiting the next move for the Pac-12 Conference, as the entire sport is waiting to see what kind of TV contract offer the league may ultimately land. That will determine the future of the conference, and ultimately the sport. On Friday during his radio show in...
www.heartlandcollegesports.com
He went on to say, “These universities, these campuses broke the trust of these networks by not showing up, by not caring. And frankly in some of the places like Palo Alto and Berkley, they’d rather not have football. Upper campus and some of their leadership don’t even need football… and once you’ve broken that trust, and these networks, who pay all the money, and they do all the work, and they’ve got all of their advertisers, they need numbers. We’ve got to have eye balls. And they tune in to watch Cal Berkeley, and there is Marshawn Lynch on the sidelines going, ‘Where the *** is everybody?'”
Last edited:
Victory
Well-Known Member
Non-Cracker Barrel related post. I came across this 2020 Wilner article about USC and UCLA. Says how Pac-12 needed them to lead and how Bohn and Jarmond were doing that. A take that wasn’t close to reality. Tells me Wilner who is as close to the P12 as it gets doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about.
Also tells me USC and UCLA were never effective leaders but rather followers. Their leaving created an power vacuum in the Pac-12. Idk if CU sees an opportunity to actually lead a conference (unlikely) but damn that would be a nice change.
Fully expecting for someone to say “what are you talking about sir this is a Cracker Barrel now”
Also tells me USC and UCLA were never effective leaders but rather followers. Their leaving created an power vacuum in the Pac-12. Idk if CU sees an opportunity to actually lead a conference (unlikely) but damn that would be a nice change.
Fully expecting for someone to say “what are you talking about sir this is a Cracker Barrel now”
these two statements don't seem congruent
Some good stuff in here on different scenarios she sees unfolding
This one caught my eye because of the bolded: Will streaming services and other networks eventually pay equal money for the non-BIG and SEC conference/s because the "top tier" of CFB needs more inventory than just 20 games per week?
This one caught my eye because of the bolded: Will streaming services and other networks eventually pay equal money for the non-BIG and SEC conference/s because the "top tier" of CFB needs more inventory than just 20 games per week?
Victory
Well-Known Member
T but I meant it more as in schools likely looked to them to lead but that’s not who they are. With them gone there’s no false sense of leadership in the conference from a brand like USC or deferring to a top media market teams.
If only those stations were to broadcast games it would be a **** deal.
Victory
Well-Known Member
Didn’t feel like a well written article tbh. On the two 20 school leagues, she’s not mentioning that many of those teams have no national appeal. Between the two there’s about a dozen national brands. I just don’t see that kind of configuration taking over college football.
That's her entire point about that scenario. Both are already at 16 each, so perhaps they each add 4 more to go to 20 each and then have an AFC vs NFC, but she doesn't think that scenario will work because the lack of inventory at the top level of the sport. Without saying it directly, she's suggesting the streaming services and other networks will want inventory of the highest level of CFB, but in order to get that, they will need to pay enough to keep more than 40 total programs on the same level.
IMO, I see a combination of a few of those scenarios. The CFB czar scenario is probably going to happen along with either scenario 1 or scenario 3 where it's an AFC vs NFC or a P3 that gets developed
Brock Huard Calls Pac-12 TV Situation 'Very Dire'
The college football world is awaiting the next move for the Pac-12 Conference, as the entire sport is waiting to see what kind of TV contract offer the league may ultimately land. That will determine the future of the conference, and ultimately the sport. On Friday during his radio show in...
He went on to say, “These universities, these campuses broke the trust of these networks by not showing up, by not caring. And frankly in some of the places like Palo Alto and Berkley, they’d rather not have football. Upper campus and some of their leadership don’t even need football… and once you’ve broken that trust, and these networks, who pay all the money, and they do all the work, and they’ve got all of their advertisers, they need numbers. We’ve got to have eye balls. And they tune in to watch Cal Berkeley, and there is Marshawn Lynch on the sidelines going, ‘Where the *** is everybody?'”
The 49ers just had their best year of attendance. Those Stanford fans have NO EXCUSES.
There's always the streaming model and especially if you want to watch the game under a tree with phone coverage which means you would have to find a way to log in onto Xfinity on a non Xfinity network. Much more convenient to get the streaming subscription. It's not just about parking your ass on the recliner and watching on your mega television while waiting on Doordash to deliver the goods. It's much more about SEEING THE GAME one way or the other. You would still have to subscribe to ESPN+ with CU in the Big 12 so what exactly are you arguing for? A CW & ESPN deal with ESPN+ would be the same thing as what we would get in the Big 12 with ESPN+.
That's the way I see things going too.
My question is will staying in the P12 improve CU's chances of being in the B1G compared to going to the B12? Would moving to the B12 be self defeating in a sense that CU admits that they have been relegated to second tier status for the time being with no hope of a B1G or SEC invite?
I honestly don't care which conference they play in, as long as they have the flexibility to move in 5-6 years. I think it's more ideal to stay aligned with the schools that actually have a chance at being added to the B1G (Oregon, Washington, Utah, and maybe Stanford, Cal, ASU), but @manhattanbuff kind of said it best, this program needs money and if the Big 12 is going to provide more money than the Pac 10, CU should go. However, I would only do that if they are able to negotiate out of signing anything that binds them to the conference in their 99 year bull****.
GoBuffs08
Well-Known Member
Quality posts like this make me want to get a subscription.
Colleges like CU gets billions for research and joining the B1G academic alliance would help bring more money in. Paying $100M+ to get out of the Big 12 in 5-6 years to be in the B1G for years to come might be a good deal after all. If CU either does not have the money or is unwilling to do that, then it is obvious that CU isn't interested in top tier athletics and it would not look good on the college overall. There's also no guarantee that the new P12 GOR will not have that 99 year provision so what's the point of worrying about those 99 year provisions? The ACC can give the P12 a copy of their GOR for the next P12 GOR then you have three conferences with bullet proof GORs.
What needs to happen is the Keg renovation and the west side of Folsom Field renovation in addition to winning football & basketball games.
Last edited:
1. The Pac 10 will certainly not have any kind of 99 year GOR in any part of their media deal. Nobody is going to agree to that willingly. I could see a provision that forces the repayment of media $$ if a program leaves within X amount of years, but nobody is going to sign up for any kind of 99 year GOR.
2. CU deciding they don't want to pay $100m exit fee from the Big 12 is not any kind of indication that they aren't interested in top tier athletics. Fact is, the $$ difference between the Pac 10 and Big 12 would have to be $10m+/year to make that kind of decision even close to a wash (if CU can make $60-$70m more in the Big 12 over the next 6-7 years, then it would be somewhat of a wash to then pay the B12 exit fee).
3. Huh? No other P5 programs want to be stuck in the Big 12 and half the ACC wants out of their GOR. Why would the Pac 10 take a copy of the ACC GOR?
Victory
Well-Known Member
I like the P3 theory but for the time being I’m giving up on the idea. Feel like conferences are entrenched in surviving individually instead of merging and doing something new.
Victory
Well-Known Member
Unless we’re banking the revenue and saving it for a rainy day, from an accounting and budget perspective, idk if that way of looking at the exit fee would fly to the admins. I get what you’re saying though.
UCLA hired Chip ****ing Kelly and the fans still dont show up. The Rose Bowl has all the history but its not an ideal location for UCLA to play there.
I feel like the ACC, Pac 10 and Big 12 probably would merge, if the brand schools from each one were OK leaving the non brand schools behind, because 36 schools in one conference just isn't going to happen.
The Pac would probably leave WSU and OSU behind, the ACC would have to leave Syracuse, BC and Wake behind at a minimum, and then the top 4-5 programs from the Big 12. The wild card in that scenario would be Notre Dame joining and a network/streaming service/combination offering up a media deal that gets them on the level of the other two.
That just feels too far fetched, though, and it would probably all hinge on ND's willingness to join.
Victory
Well-Known Member
It’s the most obvious path forward but yet no one is seriously talking about it. I also think the commissioners get in the way of these mergers and are incentivized to keep them separate.
It's really hard to consider a path which would screw current partners. Particularly when some of those partners have been ties which go back 100 years. It's more of a last resort than a plan. Much easier for a UNC, for example, to leave unilaterally for an SEC or B1G offer than to organize with others to break apart the ACC.
Victory
Well-Known Member
I can see that perspective. What those schools may not want to see is leaving individually or with another school has a similar effect on the remaining schools.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
That thinking is starting to melt away though - USC and UCLA absolutely screwed their former partners by bolting for the BIG. I’m sure they’ll argue it’s not the same as booting a member from a conference outright but the results for programs like Wazzu and Oregon State could be the same. And at a minimum they severely cratered the economic value of their former partners at their most vulnerable time.
They justify it the same way that CU and Utah justified joining the Pac-12.