Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

Buffnik said:
I don't know. Considering ROI for football national broadcasts, if we look at Pacific and Mountain Time Zones, let's say you have the following in a new CFB league which separates from the NCAA:

USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona, BYU and Colorado.

That's an 8-team division and while there may be substitutes like Cal, Utah or ASU which could do relatively equal to their alternatives there's no fiscal reason to go beyond 8 because 2 from the same market doesn't add value unless we're talking about LA with a population larger than like 45 states. It captures every major market.

So we're at 8.

FL and TX are the only other states which command more than 2 - and I still don't think you need more than 3 in any. UT, aTm & TCU hit the 3 Texas population centers. Same for UF, FSU & Miami in Florida.

That's another 6 for 14 total.

As far as states with populations which justify more than 1, the only other is NY and that's not a good CFB market.

Then, CFB is different from pro because it doesn't have to be in the big city and there's a valid argument that it actually is more of a hindrance than help to be in one. So you look at which schools can represent a state, region or national audience.

From the B1G region, you want Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers. You add Notre Dame to this and you secure both Chicagoland and IN along with national marquee. So you don't need Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana or Michigan State since they won't increase ROI.

That adds 11 for 25 total.

From SEC country (beyond FL and TX which had already been addressed), you want Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Georgia and Alabama plus Auburn being such a marquee national brand that you take 2 from AL despite not needing based on population & markets.

That adds another 9 for 34 total.

From the ACC in addition to the 2 FL schools, Clemson is the choice over South Carolina for that state, plus you want to have North Carolina and Virginia.

That's another 3 for 37 total.

From the Big 12, in addition to what I mentioned in the PTZ & MTZ and TCU, you would want Kansas.

That's 1 more for 38.

If you go to 40, you could make the case that New England is too large of a market to ignore and that while none of the programs (Boston College, Syracuse and UConn) are national draws you still need to be in the region. I'd pick UConn since it has the highest engagement due to its basketball programs, ESPN in its backyard and can do a bit to get more of a foot in the door in that lucrative NYC market which Rutgers doesn't come close to owning.

We're now at 39.

For #40, I think the best cases can be made for GA Tech (GA is massive), Michigan State and South Carolina. With the latter 2, you don't fill a 75k+ stadium unless you have a very engaged fan base.

Take all 3 and you're at 42.

Beyond that, maybe Indiana as a flagship (since Notre Dame isn't really that state's school), West Virginia to represent a region and its passionate fans, Pitt for its history and regional clout, etc.

It's hard to get to 48 (even if I brain farted and missed a couple as I was going through this) and I have trouble finding an argument to go beyond 48. Beyond 48 doesn't seem accretive to ROI and maintaining fan engagement across the country.
Click to expand...
You’re essentially talking about the nfl model, which I agree is the ultimate goal of the networks. At 42 programs all under one umbrella you’re talking about a media deal of $3.1B/year to get every program at the current high watermark of $75m/year. The B1G and SEC by themselves are at $1B/year as it stands, so I don’t think that’s out of the question, but it would require an NFL structure
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I don’t see an odd number being acceptable, but is suppose they could go to 22 instead of 24.

I also don’t think it’s always coming down to whether a program adds $70m+ in Tv revenue by themselves because if it is, the networks will ask the conferences to remove the bottom half at some point. Also, if Oregon and Washington (and maybe Stanford, Utah and Colorado) don’t bring the requisite value, then Louisville, VT, NC State, Pitt, Duke, and GT certainly don’t either.

However, I look at the NFL and see a league that has an $11B/year TV deal. Do the Jags or Texans bring $350m/year of media value to the league? Of course not, but it’s about the league as a whole and how it engages the entire country. IMO, that’s probably the only way CFB media deal $$ continues to grow, and where the networks will usher the the sport over the next 10-15 years.
Click to expand...
To get to 20 or 24 it will take a bit of creativity to pay for it.

I think the reasons that could help are:

1). Conference semi-final games.
2). More berths in the CFP playoffs. By going to 24 schools you could guarantee an additional berth, and one less conference taking bids.
3). Basketball forward thinking. Revamped March Madness with additional revnue and berths owned by the 3 main conferences. Basketball and football as seperate packages.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I don’t see an odd number being acceptable, but is suppose they could go to 22 instead of 24.

I also don’t think it’s always coming down to whether a program adds $70m+ in Tv revenue by themselves because if it is, the networks will ask the conferences to remove the bottom half at some point. Also, if Oregon and Washington (and maybe Stanford, Utah and Colorado) don’t bring the requisite value, then Louisville, VT, NC State, Pitt, Duke, and GT certainly don’t either.

However, I look at the NFL and see a league that has an $11B/year TV deal. Do the Jags or Texans bring $350m/year of media value to the league? Of course not, but it’s about the league as a whole and how it engages the entire country. IMO, that’s probably the only way CFB media deal $$ continues to grow, and where the networks will usher the the sport over the next 10-15 years.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but I still have to just disagree on a lot (but not all) of it (which is fine/ no animosity or anything). I think an odd number is fine at some point, and anyways ND might want to enter the B1G in the same partial-play way they do the ACC now. Further, as I said, I don't think the B1G can monetarily swing 2 schools from Florida. In their dream scenario I see the B1G taking ND, UNC, UVa, and FSU or Miami for a total of 20.

I see both the SEC and B1G wanting one school each from North Carolina and Virginia, two large and growing states where neither has a foothold. So in this hypothetical, the SEC can find value in Va Tech and NC State. After that perhaps the "big matchups" factor of whoever is left in Florida is additive for the SEC. Or maybe not and the SEC stops at 18.

To your second paragraph, I absolutely would not be surprised if someday the bottom half teams DO get demoted (or rather, the top of the SEC/ B1G will simply leave and reform a new conference).

Final paragraph: I think you're describing what many CFB fans would like to see, and something closer to what it was before the OU/ GA lawsuit. But there is not governing body looking out for the sport as a whole. Each conference is concerned with itself and what gets it the most money, and there's simply too many CFB teams to maximize money for the top teams while doing so in a way that benefits all (at least that they've discovered thus far; I agree in principle that there is likely to be some eventual cutoff, where further contraction begins to dilute nationwide fan interest).
 
ScreamingBeagle said:
To get to 20 or 24 it will take a bit of creativity to pay for it.

I think the reasons that could help are:

1). Conference semi-final games.
2). More berths in the CFP playoffs. By going to 24 schools you could guarantee an additional berth, and one less conference taking bids.
3). Basketball forward thinking. Revamped March Madness with additional revnue and berths owned by the 3 main conferences. Basketball and football as seperate packages.
Click to expand...
#1 is where I think it's at.

Let's say we end up with 4 20-team conferences that are part of a new FBS.

Each conference has a 4-team playoff. Then the champions play a 4-team playoff.

That would get us a 16-team playoff and a national champion.

Honestly, they could do this with 4 16-team conferences. It would be worth a lot of money.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
I get what you're saying but I still have to just disagree on a lot (but not all) of it (which is fine/ no animosity or anything). I think an odd number is fine at some point, and anyways ND might want to enter the B1G in the same partial-play way they do the ACC now. Further, as I said, I don't think the B1G can monetarily swing 2 schools from Florida. In their dream scenario I see the B1G taking ND, UNC, UVa, and FSU or Miami for a total of 20.

I see both the SEC and B1G wanting one school each from North Carolina and Virginia, two large and growing states where neither has a foothold. So in this hypothetical, the SEC can find value in Va Tech and NC State. After that perhaps the "big matchups" factor of whoever is left in Florida is additive for the SEC. Or maybe not and the SEC stops at 18.

To your second paragraph, I absolutely would not be surprised if someday the bottom half teams DO get demoted (or rather, the top of the SEC/ B1G will simply leave and reform a new conference).

Final paragraph: I think you're describing what many CFB fans would like to see, and something closer to what it was before the OU/ GA lawsuit. But there is not governing body looking out for the sport as a whole. Each conference is concerned with itself and what gets it the most money, and there's simply too many CFB teams to maximize money for the top teams while doing so in a way that benefits all (at least that they've discovered thus far; I agree in principle that there is likely to be some eventual cutoff, where further contraction begins to dilute nationwide fan interest).
Click to expand...
I think the conversation around one governing body is getting louder and louder, though. There are too many issues right now that pretty much everyone agrees are not good for the sport (collectives, unbalanced scheduling, revenue gaps, etc) and influential people are starting to talk about them publicly.

The idea that there is more money to be had for all in an NFL style setup is legitimate and I think we could see a merger of sorts between SEC and B1G like we did between AFL and NFL. Instead of two giant leagues competing for smaller individual network pies, you merge and negotiate with all of them (at this point it will also be Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, etc). However, I maintain that to maximize revenue it will require the entire country involved and if SC and UCLA are the only programs west of Texas in this league it’s not going to work

It’ll be interesting to see how the next round of media negotiations go because if the networks don’t have more money to add over the current deals, you could easily see this type of thing happen, IMO.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I think the conversation around one governing body is getting louder and louder, though. There are too many issues right now that pretty much everyone agrees are not good for the sport (collectives, unbalanced scheduling, revenue gaps, etc) and influential people are starting to talk about them publicly.

The idea that there is more money to be had for all in an NFL style setup is legitimate and I think we could see a merger of sorts between SEC and B1G like we did between AFL and NFL. Instead of two giant leagues competing for smaller individual network pies, you merge and negotiate with all of them (at this point it will also be Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, etc). However, I maintain that to maximize revenue it will require the entire country involved and if SC and UCLA are the only programs west of Texas in this league it’s not going to work

It’ll be interesting to see how the next round of media negotiations go because if the networks don’t have more money to add over the current deals, you could easily see this type of thing happen, IMO.
Click to expand...
I think you may be more optimistic than I about the desire for a larger governing body. I could see the SEC and B1G merging at some point, but also maybe just the top teams from each. Something like 24 teams or so even if you include, say, USC, UW, UO, and a few others from the west. Whatever the number is, I just think there's still some cutoff, be it at the level of CU, or UNLV, or maybe of even someone like Illinois/ Michigan State/ Iowa, where further inclusion nets the bog boys less money, and I'm too pessimistic about their desire to sacrifice some money for the benefit of all. Will be happy to be proven wrong at some point of course.
 
Buffnik said:
From this morning: UA fans seem pretty unanimous in the comments about needing to go to the Big 12 and ready to tar & feather President Robbins if he fvcks it up.

www.azdesertswarm.com

Arizona can (and should) put the final nail in the Pac-12's coffin

If the Big 12 wants us, why say no?
www.azdesertswarm.com www.azdesertswarm.com
Click to expand...
On one hand, Kansas fans having to deal with Arizona fans makes me happier than it should.

On the other, Jason Scheer gets to be happy.

Confused Curb Your Enthusiasm GIF
 
Seeing more Utah chatter, too. Not sure if there's anything to that but it would make some sense if UO/UW aren't going to pull the trigger.

Revised pod scheduling for a different configuration (you play your 3 + 2/4 of the others each year):

1. CU, UA, BYU, UU
2. KSU, KU, OSU, ISU
3. UH, TCU, TTU, **** bailer
4. UConn, Cincy, WVU, UCF
 
Buffnik said:
Seeing more Utah chatter, too. Not sure if there's anything to that but it would make some sense if UO/UW aren't going to pull the trigger.

Revised pod scheduling for a different configuration (you play your 3 + 2/4 of the others each year):

1. CU, UA, BYU, UU
2. KSU, KU, OSU, ISU
3. UH, TCU, TTU, **** bailer
4. UConn, Cincy, WVU, UCF
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, why does it make sense that UO and UW would stay?
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
From a different board, take it FWIW:

BIG expansion info from a poster on the PSU 247 board who seems to be connected and is well-respected by their board:
Click to expand...
I am of the OPINION that Pennsylvania is not that important. I believe what was posted is being written through a blue lens.
 
H.E. Pennypacker said:
Out of curiosity, why does it make sense that UO and UW would stay?
Click to expand...
UW may have political issues in WA, though that never seems to have stopped anyone.

Potentially, Stanford threatening to blackball any future research partnerships with them (rumored to be going on for years and why they had inordinate influence over the other Pac-12 board members).

Also, they may not want to change a thing unless it's for the B1G and would rather have an easy path to the playoffs as they build their resumes for the next 5 or 6 years + have the resources to cover any media revenue shortfalls + have the leverage to force unequal revenue distribution from the Pac-8.
 
Buffnik said:
UW may have political issues in WA, though that never seems to have stopped anyone.

Potentially, Stanford threatening to blackball any future research partnerships with them (rumored to be going on for years and why they had inordinate influence over the other Pac-12 board members).

Also, they may not want to change a thing unless it's for the B1G and would rather have an easy path to the playoffs as they build their resumes for the next 5 or 6 years + have the resources to cover any media revenue shortfalls + have the leverage to force unequal revenue distribution from the Pac-8.
Click to expand...
Big 12 should take Utah and SDSU then and make it a Pac 6 where they can almost assuredly not maintain a conference
 
Buffnik said:
UW may have political issues in WA, though that never seems to have stopped anyone.

Potentially, Stanford threatening to blackball any future research partnerships with them (rumored to be going on for years and why they had inordinate influence over the other Pac-12 board members).

Also, they may not want to change a thing unless it's for the B1G and would rather have an easy path to the playoffs as they build their resumes for the next 5 or 6 years + have the resources to cover any media revenue shortfalls + have the leverage to force unequal revenue distribution from the Pac-8.
Click to expand...
You also have the exposure issue. I would assume the difference to make up between Pac12 and Big12 deals would be more money overall than an exit fee from the Big12. (These issues would only apply to UW and UO, I'd think.)
 
Last edited:
if ua, uo, and uw end up in the b12, i will have to stop referring to it as the truck stop 12.

it shall be the truck stop 16.

no, actually, it would be the perfect example of how absolutely ****ed the college football landscape is. in what world does this conference make any sense whatsoever, geographically, culturally, historically, etc.?

thinking more about some of the things CU has said about this... is it possible that someone who has spent his entire working career in the west coast "bubble" may have underestimated the lack of visibility and coverage for a school like us in the pac?

i mean, sure, usc is going to draw and oregon and we still draw despite our challenges, but when CU folks talk about time zones, kick off times, broadcast, and recruiting grounds, i guess i have to listen at this point.

i recall a conversation i had with a colleague who is a die-hard uw fan awhile back. she didn't follow any college football outside the pac and didn' know anything about CU prior to joining the pac. a lot of the fans in the northwest "seem" to be this way. uo is a perhaps a different beast because they have worked so hard to be a national brand.

i think that might be the takeaway... whatever conference you are in, you need to be a brand. an actual brand that draws eyeballs beyond your own people.

Mind Blown GIF
 
Liver said:
if ua, uo, and uw end up in the b12, i will have to stop referring to it as the truck stop 12.

it shall be the truck stop 16.

no, actually, it would be the perfect example of how absolutely ****ed the college football landscape is. in what world does this conference make any sense whatsoever, geographically, culturally, historically, etc.?

thinking more about some of the things CU has said about this... is it possible that someone who has spent his entire working career in the west coast "bubble" may have underestimated the lack of visibility and coverage for a school like us in the pac?

i mean, sure, usc is going to draw and oregon and we still draw despite our challenges, but when CU folks talk about time zones, kick off times, broadcast, and recruiting grounds, i guess i have to listen at this point.

i recall a conversation i had with a colleague who is a die-hard uw fan awhile back. she didn't follow any college football outside the pac and didn' know anything about CU prior to joining the pac. a lot of the fans in the northwest "seem" to be this way. uo is a perhaps a different beast because they have worked so hard to be a national brand.

i think that might be the takeaway... whatever conference you are in, you need to be a brand. an actual brand that draws eyeballs beyond your own people.

Mind Blown GIF
Click to expand...
That's it. That's what the disconnect has always been. The left coasters never grasped that a Maryland vs Nebraska game kicking off at noon (that's 9am, for crissakes!) is going to draw more eyeballs and interest than Washington vs Stanford at 8pm PT. That the first example is much more valuable to a media company.
 
Buffnik said:
Potentially, Stanford threatening to blackball any future research partnerships with them (rumored to be going on for years and why they had inordinate influence over the other Pac-12 board members).
Click to expand...
I'd find that very, very hard to believe. Even if for no other reason than it would insinuate Stanford "needed" the others, which is not a very Stanford thing to do.
 
You guys have no idea.

Penn State football schedules hang in every PA bar (and many other places in the 5th largest state in the country). They have either the largest alumni network in the country or they're still close (every PSU campus in the state are Nittany Lions, unlike how CU does its system). They pack a stadium that seats over 100k. They have all the hardware.

They were able to absorb the Sandusky scandal with all of the scholarship restrictions and bowl ban without having a single losing season followed by Franklin having them in the Top 10 just 5 years after it hit. USC couldn't bounce back as quickly or thoroughly from its much less serious Reggie Bush penalties.

This is the dominant program in college football for the region north of the Carolinas and east of Ohio.
 
Buffnik said:
That's it. That's what the disconnect has always been. The left coasters never grasped that a Maryland vs Nebraska game kicking off at noon (that's 9am, for crissakes!) is going to draw more eyeballs and interest than Washington vs Stanford at 8pm PT. That the first example is much more valuable to a media company.
Click to expand...
You eat the appetizers first. Not at the end of night when your too busy being drunk and sleepy.
 
Buffnik said:
1. You guys have no idea.

2. Penn State football schedules hang in every PA bar (and many other places in the 5th largest state in the country). They have either the largest alumni network in the country or they're still close (every PSU campus in the state are Nittany Lions, unlike how CU does its system). They pack a stadium that seats over 100k. They have all the hardware.

3. They were able to absorb the Sandusky scandal with all of the scholarship restrictions and bowl ban without having a single losing season followed by Franklin having them in the Top 10 just 5 years after it hit. USC couldn't bounce back as quickly or thoroughly from its much less serious Reggie Bush penalties.

4. This is the dominant program in college football for the region north of the Carolinas and east of Ohio.
Click to expand...

1. True.... I have no idea.
2. True... or at least every bar that is not owned by a Pitt grad.
3. Sorta True
4. False. Only if you measure that by the size of their fanbase. They haven't been to the CFB playoff yet. your limits of North of the Carolinas and East of Ohio only has them competing with Syracuse, West Va, Pitt, UVA, Tech, UMASS, UCONN, Boston College, Rutgers, Maryland, and Penn (haha) ....

There are NO football teams east ofOhio and North Of Carolina!
 
Buffnik said:
That's it. That's what the disconnect has always been. The left coasters never grasped that a Maryland vs Nebraska game kicking off at noon (that's 9am, for crissakes!) is going to draw more eyeballs and interest than Washington vs Stanford at 8pm PT. That the first example is much more valuable to a media company.
Click to expand...
Do people not have to manage their time? I don’t think I know anyone at this point who randomly sits down and flips through the channels and says well I might as well watch this game because it is on. My tv viewing is planned and intentional as is everyone I know. Good lord I am more disconnected than I realized and that is saying something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top