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!
Does The Big 12 Expand In The Next Two Years ?
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
CVBuff
Well-Known Member
BYU to the PAC 12? Sarcasm, trolling, or am I reading a Salt Lake Tribune BYU blog with a comment from an uber fan? Lately Utah State is Utah's second best team with BYU in 3rd place. BYU won't play on Sunday, is only ranked in the top 400 educationally, has questionable academic freedom, brings little additional television market share, and has an honor code that will hamper recruiting and prevent significant improvements to the quality of its teams. They are also difficult to work with in a conference, something to do with arrogance. Here's as good an idea: dump Utah and add CSU to the PAC12. CSU has a decent football team for this year and a great women's volleyball team historically.
Proctor & Gamble, Home Depot, Coors, Buffalo Wild Wings, et al. will need to see some sort of synergy that benefits them before they buy spots in those time slots of those games. Thats where your P12 money comes from. Don't forget it.
That might work as well. It fits the pattern of the p12, two natural rivals from each state or city
I don't get the hostility towards the old traditions of the Big 8 and the Big 12. So emotional about it and I don't get it.
The Big 8 was a great conference. Until we wrecked it by creating the B12. We can't go back. An 8 team conference is a dinosaur anyways.
All this upheaval by the way is largely the fault of our very source of revenue; TV. These are the people that drove the bowl to grow larger and larger with bigger and bigger payouts. Then they concocted the Bowl Championship Series, elite bowls that left out the have nots and that broke the tradition of conference/bowl tie in. That drove a lot of teams to start moving around to try and get into a better conference so that that better conference could cement its position in BCS (winners: SEC, Pac, B1G, ACC losers: Big East, WAC, MWC, et al.)
Now those same TV people are changing it again to a playoff system that will, once the conferences understand it, force them engineer more realignments to insure most of their teams dominate the playoffs.
Enjoying the red polyester hordes' inability to win big games, making fun of KjSU's "academics," calling for **** Baylor to eat a bag of dicks, and making fun of Stoolwater, Manhatten, Lubbock, et al isn't being hostile to the old traditions, it's honoring them.
Last edited:
There's no hostility.
But just as CU once moved on from the Mountain States conference to join the Big 7 (8) (12), CU has moved on from that to join the Pac-12.
Times change and certain things regarding alumni base, recruiting base, research affiliations, prestige, undergrad application rates and MONEY all made both of those decisions smart ones.
There were cool things about the Big 7/8/12. There were cool things about the Mountain States. The Pac-12 is the best for CU right now and into the foreseeable future.
He's a national football guy - both NFL and college:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=active&q=Chris Landry
Heard him on 104.3
BlackNGold
Club Member
Because you are being a troll....you had a little credibility with me until this thread where it becomes totally obvious you are just trying to peeve people off.
So, this is the Stasi? You're not allowed to have different opinions? Is that what you are saying?
Godwin's law confirmed. We have a troll.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
The only hostility towards the Big 8 is towards :rip:cornholie:rip:. Hate is hate and I will always hate the evil red horde.
As for the Big XII-I-I, there is a tremendous amount of hostility.
After the Big 8 bailed out the failed SWC, the balance of power shifted to the state of Texas where it was abused in grand fashion. Colorado was treated as a step child or outcast for the remainder of our tenure. Colorado submitted bids to host both the football and men's basketball conference championships and were told that it would never happen. Specifically, any school outside of the I-35 corridor would never be eligible, i.e. CU.
The financial distribution in the Big XII-I-I was heavily tilted to maintain the new powers, essentially creating a setup resembling indentured servitude. The majority of the Big XII-I-I reside in states or regions with a shrinking population base, making all of the members' futures largely dependent on the success of Texas, and to a lesser extent the Longhorn Network, for future TV revenue.
The cultural gap between CU and the rest of the conference increased every year, we no longer fit. As has been mentioned several times, we have a larger alumni base in each Pac 12 region than the entire Big XII-I-I. Very few CU fans traveled to the other conference cities that offered very little welcome or desirability. Whereas now, we have one of the best traveling fan bases in the PAC 12.
I say again, **** the Big XII-I-I!
Last edited:
yes, all of this.
Isn't XX-I-I = 18? at first I assumed typo but it was used several times, not getting the reference
Yes. I believe the correct nomenclature is: Big 12-2+2-2 to represent the loss of CU and NU, the addition of WVU and TCU, then the loss of aTm and MU.
Deleted member 807
Guest
"No take backs"
every Big 12 member on subject of Colorado
every Big 12 member on subject of Colorado
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Deleted member 807
Guest
Typo, I typed one of my product names instead of XII. Force of habit.
Dos Equis. Must work in liquor.
Well, he's clearly not drinking Louis the XIII now is he...
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
My job does make me drink.
Heh - don't worry about it, ****sticks.
BlackNGold
Club Member
I agree that the future is tough to predict but it can also go the other way (less revenues). I listened to John Malone discuss net neutrality and the cable business. He addressed sports specifically - right now only about 40% of the cable subscribers are interested in sports content but the current modem is for providers to bundle channels into packages and 60% of the subscribers are paying fees to subsidize the other 40%. He sees in the future the netfilixs becoming more significant in the market place. So what does that do to future revenues if cable subscribers start dropping to consume entertainment in others ways. People in those industries know things are in a state of flux.
Ive heard rumblings of that as well. Its possibly a house of cards for college football. Think unemployed millenials that are carrying student loans as big as a mortgage payment. The law of diminishing returns....
There is definitely a law of diminshing returns. However, there is also a contraction of sorts taking place in college football as we speak. In another 10 years, there will be 65 teams that get televised, maybe 66 if you throw BYU into the mix. Nobody is going to cover a game between Tulsa and Memphis.
There is that.
However, if 60% of the people with cable or dish are not watching sports (but pay for it), and they drop their service for a streaming service like Netflix that will essentially destroy college sports. Thats a lot of subscribers. I think streaming is the future and I think alternatives like Netflix and Hulu (and now CBS and HBO) will eventually force us into a la carte model. In the future there are certainly people who will pay $5-15 a month to access ESPN. But its no where near the scale they're currently getting when everyone is forced to pay into the evil commi socialist collective that supports everyone. That could mean something more like 30 relevant college teams.
I think you'll have a mix.
I'd probably build my own channel lineup to include sports stations.
A lot of folks won't, though. And that means that just like the big boxing matches on PPV that make ridiculous amounts of money, we'll start seeing PPV revenue for a lot of big games and elite programs being something that moves the needle.
As a benefit to fans, this new dynamic of media being king will drive better matchups because individual stream will be so valuable. We won't be seeing 3 or 4 cupcakes on the non-conference schedules as this develops. That's going to kill the low end of the D1 conferences.
Revenue model of:
1. How many subscribers at what rate can you get for PACN?
2. How valuable are Pac-12 feature games to ESPN/FOX to drive their subscriptions?
3. What programs and matchups will drive the PPV streaming of Pac-12 games?
SD Buff
Club Member
Every demo subsidizes the other. It's why the system has worked. Will the rate card of ESPN and the like end up killing the golden goose? Maybe. The more people who cut the chord, the faster we'll see another model where providers still get their money. Interesting times
From phone
From phone