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

Hank said:
Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and Nebraska were mostly responsible for blowing up the Big 12. We left a conference that was imploding. The Texas schools ruined that conference. I want nothing to do with those bastards.
Click to expand...
A&M and Oklahoma? Excellent piece of revisionist history.

I know. You'd rather join the MWC and doom the program now. If you're going to post, at least be honest.
 
Buffarino said:
Texas ruined the conference. Not the Texas schools, just Texas. OU didn't help, either.
Click to expand...
A&M was seeking admission to the SEC. OU and Nebraska supported uneven revenue sharing. Texas was primarily responsible though.

I would go back to the Big 8. The conference went to **** once it became Texas-centric. It's still Texas-centric, just with weaker Texas schools.
 
Hank said:
A&M was seeking admission to the SEC. OU and Nebraska supported uneven revenue sharing. Texas was primarily responsible though.

I would go back to the Big 8. The conference went to **** once it became Texas-centric. It's still Texas-centric, just with weaker Texas schools.
Click to expand...
So its okay for CU to seek Pac 10 admission.....but you have a problem with A&M going after SEC admission 11 years ago?

JFC-are you listening to yourself? BTW-you know left the Big 12 first, right? CU.
 
ahoelsken said:
Again-its okay in your mind for CU to seek Pac 10 admission in 2011.......but A&M can't join the SEC?
Click to expand...
Technical difficulties. For whatever reason, I cannot link an article from Bleacher Report.
 
Last edited:
BerkeleyBuff said:
Not sure if posted yet
Click to expand...

ACC has a media revenue problem which gets worse as they're locked in for another decade+.

PAC's biggest issue has been on the distribution side along with an unprofitable network which didn't enrich anyone besides Larry Scott and his cronies.

This could work since it helps solve problems for both.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Serious question: Why would the SEC want Clemson, FSU or Miami? I get that from a brand perspective, they are nice, but the SEC already owns the TV/streaming market in the entire region, especially Florida, and elevating three potentially elite programs to the SEC level only dilutes the recruiting there.

If they were to kick out Vandy, Miss State and Arkansas and replace them with those three, then I can see the value, but I really don't understand the value in those three programs to the SEC as just pure expansion
Click to expand...
Wolf Of Wall Street Laugh GIF
 
Where are people getting the idea that the new B12 is going to generate a lot more money than the P12(0)? Is this an article I missed or a random twitter guy or what
 
White_Rabbit said:
Where are people getting the idea that the new B12 is going to generate a lot more money than the P12(0)? Is this an article I missed or a random twitter guy or what
Click to expand...
I would expect money to be roughly a wash, but I think the new B12 would be far more stable. Including UO and UW and depending on them to stay is a big risk, IMO.
 
White_Rabbit said:
Where are people getting the idea that the new B12 is going to generate a lot more money than the P12(0)? Is this an article I missed or a random twitter guy or what
Click to expand...
I think people are getting the idea that most of the Pac value is tied to Oregon and Washington (which is true at the moment), and that they are going to bail. So there is no Pac.

I think there is a very good chance the Pac survives (at least for the next few years).
 
I kinda like this ACC/Pac 14 idea.

We add 4 from Big 12 or MWC to get to 14. Add Gonzaga for basketball only. Then do a scheduling alliance where we schedule 2 ACC teams in football (one home, one away) plus 8 conference games. And four in basketball (2 home, 2 away). Single network with a lot of content.
 
Buffnik said:
I mostly believe it when the B1G says it has no intention of expanding further at this time unless it's to get Notre Dame. ND has 2 years on its NBC deal and its GoR contract says that the only conference it can join for football is the ACC until 2036.
Click to expand...

But what the penalty is for ND if they join another conference isn't entirely clear other than the cost of their ACC TV revenue thru 2036. But ND doesn't share their NBC deal with the ACC and they don't get ACC TV money for football so their cost of getting out of the ACC contract shouldn't be that big of a deal especially when they'd be looking at $100 million+ in another conference.
 
Buffarino said:
I would expect money to be roughly a wash, but I think the new B12 would be far more stable. Including UO and UW and depending on them to stay is a big risk, IMO.
Click to expand...
But this is basically an admission that the Big 12 doesn't have any schools that are as desirable as Oregon and Washington.
 
With how rapidly things are changing in college football, I think planning out 5+ years is a fool's errand.
 
ahoelsken said:
Why? We left the conference in the first place because of a school who is on its way to the SEC. Just be honest with us Hanky-you want your wine and cheese more than you want to see successful football in Boulder.

That goes for all of you who are trying to argue for staying in the Pac 10.
Click to expand...
Nobody is arguing that we should stay in the Pac 10. Lots of people ARE arguing that it doesn't make sense to make a panic move at this moment.

Sidebar: I've been negotiating large commercial deals for 25 years. I have a philosophy that I train my teams (and executives on) which goes something like this:

Every negotiation is a three-legged stool. We'll call the legs Speed, Risk and Economics. If you maximize/prioritize one of those legs over the others, you sacrifice the other two and fall on your ass. Unless you're dealing with morons, there is no practical way to move quick and maximize the economics and avoid risk. Similarly, if you are risk adverse it is likely to cost you money and time.

Back to the story: What do we know right now (within an acceptable range of certainty)?
  1. If the B1G wanted OR and WA, they would have gone with USC and UCLA.
  2. It is unlikely that the SEC would bring in either of those schools at this time.
  3. The ACC is not expanding to the Pacific NW.
  4. If Oregon or Washington move in the next month (unlikely) we're not in any worse shape than we are now. However, we WILL at least have data to understand our relative value.
  5. There is unrealized value in the PAC12 asset base, because the PAC12 decided to maintain ownership of all media rights as part of the PAC12 Network. That **** is likely for sale now and can be heavily monetized. Said another way, nobody is going to extend the same ****ty media deal Larry Scott put in place.
Look, we all know that the conference is not worth the same as it was a month ago, but there is likely a lot more to give/sell than the Big12 will offer. However, we may look at the data in 30-45 days and decide the Big 12 is the right move. But you make that decision based on facts, not emotions.

Keep calm, and let's see what happens.
 
Hank said:
Barring an aggressive move from the SEC, Oregon and Washington are probably going to stay put for a couple of years. Let's say they do decide to join the Big Ten in a couple of years.

I cannot imagine that CU's bargaining position could possibly be any weaker than it is at this very moment. If and when Oregon and UW leave, I would expect there will be a wave of realignment.
Click to expand...
You rebutted your own statement. Cu's bargaining position would be infinitely worse when UO & UW leave. Also, no there wouldn't be a wave of realignment in that case. What would happen is Miami, FSU, and Clemson to sec. UNC, Duke, and Kansas to B1G. CU football would officially be dead
Hank said:
There is a reason why I do what I do for a living and you don't.
Click to expand...
Salary?
 
ShnaultzSaltNMaltAssault said:
You rebutted your own statement. Cu's bargaining position would be infinitely worse when UO & UW leave. Also, no there wouldn't be a wave of realignment in that case. What would happen is Miami, FSU, and Clemson to sec. UNC, Duke, and Kansas to B1G. CU football would officially be dead
Click to expand...
The ACC schools are not leaving anytime soon, unless they are willing to pay an absolute **** ton of money to the remaining members (likely more than they would receive from the SEC over a decade). And what makes you think the B1G has any interest whatsoever in Kansas?

CU has two options right now. Big 12, or PAC 10. None of the scenarios you laid out would negatively impact CU's ability to move to the Big 12.
 
Buffnik said:
I would bet that KU + ISU are on the table as travel partner additions for the Pac-10.

Some current members love the AAU prestige. And those schools need an affiliation that gives them a reset and a hope for a seat at the table - just like the remaining Pac-10.
Click to expand...
I think ISU lost their AAU status didn’t they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top