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!

ESPN gives Colorado an "F" on move to Pac-12

tante said:
What if the PAC took Utah and CSU instead of CU. There would have been a meltdown here.
Click to expand...

There would have been a meltdown in the offices of the President for a bunch of PAC schools as well. Giving up an equal share of media revenue for a school that doesn't draw at home, doesn't travel, doesn't bring anything resembling prestige other than a vet school, and doesn't deliver it's own media market.

We may have seen some uncomfortable questions aimed at the commissioner.
 
MtnBuff said:
There would have been a meltdown in the offices of the President for a bunch of PAC schools as well. Giving up an equal share of media revenue for a school that doesn't draw at home, doesn't travel, doesn't bring anything resembling prestige other than a vet school, and doesn't deliver it's own media market.

We may have seen some uncomfortable questions aimed at the commissioner.
Click to expand...

Let's not pretend that the Denver market (and large amounts of cal transplants there) was not a large part of why we were invited. I absolutely agree we put more fans in the seats and have more academic prestige but Denver wasn't the icing, it was the cake.
 
tante said:
Let's not pretend that the Denver market (and large amounts of cal transplants there) was not a large part of why we were invited. I absolutely agree we put more fans in the seats and have more academic prestige but Denver wasn't the icing, it was the cake.
Click to expand...

This was the point. CSU doesn't draw ratings in the Denver TV market which by the way includes the northern front range. By taking CU the PAC got the most ratings significant college team in the region. Utah gave them a solid in to the SLC market which is rapidly growing and closing in on being one of the top 20 TV markets.

The rest of the stuff does matter as well. It's all about $$, The conference members believed that CU would add more value than it cost. Can't see than for CSU. These schools aren't in the business of giving away money without some kind of return. TV is the big revenue source but the bean counters don't ignore the other stuff as well.
 
Mtn do you think there are more CU fans in the metro area or fans of all other PAC 12 teams combined?
 
tante said:
Mtn do you think there are more CU fans in the metro area or fans of all other PAC 12 teams combined?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the breakdown is. Again I think you are arguing something that we both agree on. The PAC took CU because they wanted to lock down the front range TV markets. Denver far and away the most important but also the rest of Colorado.

What I do know is that in terms of ratings CSU doesn't move the needle, CU does. If you want to look at it from a standpoint of overall PAC fans you can do this as well. USC vs. CSU isn't going to draw close to the Viewer that USC vs. CU does, doesn't matter if the game is in LA or Colorado.

Just look a few years back when CSU was coming off their glory years and not far from when they were ranked. They played a #10 Cal team in Ft. Collins and couldn't sell 30,000 seats. The game was not on TV.

The conference changes were, and will be in the future, business decisions. They are made by people who know a lot more about the financial ramifications than either of us do but with the amount of money involved they aren't made without a lot of close examination.

Bottom line is that if the PAC didn't have good reason to think that adding CU would add to the overall value of the brand they wouldn't have made the offer, same for Utah although indications are that Utah wasn't their first choice.

What we do know is that CSU has been sitting out there ready to listen to any incoming offers and they haven't arrived. This isn't because the conferences have "something" against CSU. It is simply based on the fact that from a financial viewpoint they aren't seen as providing enough value to justify sharing existing revenues.
 
The point of the article is how the schools have leveraged their moves not if they should of done it or not. CU has totally fumbled the ball in those aspects. I could lay out a lot of reasons but Bohn's firing should serve as validation.

On second thought I will lay out a few points.

1. CU was totally unprepared for the financial impacts of the conference move. I estimated the cost to be about $20 million (I was called crazy on this board), turns out I was right.
2. CU was a regular on national TV broadcasts in the past, this year we did not even make the top 80 teams for TV viewers over the season. Part of that is CU's lack of attractiveness on the field and part due to the Pac12 not doing well on TV slots. (the PAC12 needs to look at getting better time slots).
3. Connecting with the West Coast fan base was suppose to be a big benefit (better donations) - that has not happened.

There are some intrinsic problems with the move to the PAC 12. CU has not handled them very well. I think the F grade at this point in time is justified. The fan base that is left seems to just want to deny the issues and claim the criticism is unjustified. Funniest post in this thread was the one claiming California recruiting has improved.
 
MtnBuff said:
I don't know what the breakdown is. Again I think you are arguing something that we both agree on. The PAC took CU because they wanted to lock down the front range TV markets. Denver far and away the most important but also the rest of Colorado.

What I do know is that in terms of ratings CSU doesn't move the needle, CU does. If you want to look at it from a standpoint of overall PAC fans you can do this as well. USC vs. CSU isn't going to draw close to the Viewer that USC vs. CU does, doesn't matter if the game is in LA or Colorado.

Just look a few years back when CSU was coming off their glory years and not far from when they were ranked. They played a #10 Cal team in Ft. Collins and couldn't sell 30,000 seats. The game was not on TV.

The conference changes were, and will be in the future, business decisions. They are made by people who know a lot more about the financial ramifications than either of us do but with the amount of money involved they aren't made without a lot of close examination.

Bottom line is that if the PAC didn't have good reason to think that adding CU would add to the overall value of the brand they wouldn't have made the offer, same for Utah although indications are that Utah wasn't their first choice.

What we do know is that CSU has been sitting out there ready to listen to any incoming offers and they haven't arrived. This isn't because the conferences have "something" against CSU. It is simply based on the fact that from a financial viewpoint they aren't seen as providing enough value to justify sharing existing revenues.
Click to expand...

This is the type of misinformation that is getting you off the reservation. CSU had almost 2.8 million viewers when it played Alabama. CU did not play a game this year on a major network - 10 of our games were on the PAC12 Network, 1 on CBS sports network (not CBS) and one on FS1 which was the USC game and had 338,000 viewers.
 
BlackNGold said:
This is the type of misinformation that is getting you off the reservation. CSU had almost 2.8 million viewers when it played Alabama. CU did not play a game this year on a major network - 10 of our games were on the PAC12 Network, 1 on CBS sports network (not CBS) and one on FS1 which was the USC game and had 338,000 viewers.
Click to expand...

How many viewers would the game have gotten if it had been Central Arkansas or Southern Utah. My guess is virtually the same. People tuned in because it was Bama' not because of CSU.

Historically CU has drawn decent TV ratings. CSU has not.

By your thinking the PAC should have extended invitations to some MAC schools because they had big audiences when they were playing against Ohio State or Michigan.
 
I think Mtn greatly over values the CU brand.

CU will soon make more from their TV contract than from ticket sales.
 
tante said:
I think Mtn greatly over values the CU brand.

CU will soon make more from their TV contract than from ticket sales.
Click to expand...

TV is the biggest driver of all this.

It doesn't matter what I value the CU brand. In comparison to a lot of other schools that brand has been badly damaged by the past decade of administrative incompentence/neglect regarding the football program.

What does matter is that the existing PAC members valued the addition of CU to the league. They are the ones who looked at the numbers and decided that the PAC was worth more to each school with CU than without.

For CU that decision looks to be worth at least millions of dollars each year in increased revenues. CU is not a marque name in the PAC and in recent years wasn't a marque name in the B12. It was enough to make the PAC interested in having us.

Do you think that if the PAC could have gotten Texas and Oklahoma without their friends and without their baggage (LHN) that we would have been selected instead. Our ability to generate revenues is a joke compared to Texas and even with a much smaller state OU makes money and draws viewers. Under that view the only shot we have at the PAC is if they decided to go to 14 instead of 12.
 
BlackNGold said:
The point of the article is how the schools have leveraged their moves not if they should of done it or not. CU has totally fumbled the ball in those aspects. I could lay out a lot of reasons but Bohn's firing should serve as validation.

On second thought I will lay out a few points.

1. CU was totally unprepared for the financial impacts of the conference move. I estimated the cost to be about $20 million (I was called crazy on this board), turns out I was right.
2. CU was a regular on national TV broadcasts in the past, this year we did not even make the top 80 teams for TV viewers over the season. Part of that is CU's lack of attractiveness on the field and part due to the Pac12 not doing well on TV slots. (the PAC12 needs to look at getting better time slots).
3. Connecting with the West Coast fan base was suppose to be a big benefit (better donations) - that has not happened.

There are some intrinsic problems with the move to the PAC 12. CU has not handled them very well. I think the F grade at this point in time is justified. The fan base that is left seems to just want to deny the issues and claim the criticism is unjustified. Funniest post in this thread was the one claiming California recruiting has improved.
Click to expand...

Also gone are the packed visitors sections filled by Huskers, Aggies, Longhorns, Sooners, and other B12 fan bases.
Other Pac 12 fans travel about as poorly to Boulder as CU fans did in the Big 12.
 
MtnBuff said:
TV is the biggest driver of all this.

It doesn't matter what I value the CU brand. In comparison to a lot of other schools that brand has been badly damaged by the past decade of administrative incompentence/neglect regarding the football program.

What does matter is that the existing PAC members valued the addition of CU to the league. They are the ones who looked at the numbers and decided that the PAC was worth more to each school with CU than without.

For CU that decision looks to be worth at least millions of dollars each year in increased revenues. CU is not a marque name in the PAC and in recent years wasn't a marque name in the B12. It was enough to make the PAC interested in having us.

Do you think that if the PAC could have gotten Texas and Oklahoma without their friends and without their baggage (LHN) that we would have been selected instead. Our ability to generate revenues is a joke compared to Texas and even with a much smaller state OU makes money and draws viewers. Under that view the only shot we have at the PAC is if they decided to go to 14 instead of 12.
Click to expand...

Cross out the word CU and replace with the word Denver market.

Do you agree the Denver market was more valuable than CU?
 
Skidmark said:
Also gone are the packed visitors sections filled by Huskers, Aggies, Longhorns, Sooners, and other B12 fan bases.
Other Pac 12 fans travel about as poorly to Boulder as CU fans did in the Big 12.
Click to expand...

Funny, I only recall Fuskers and Mildcats filling the stands, not Aggies or Whorns or Dirt Thieves. U$C did pretty well considering the weather; them and those bandwagon jumpers from the other OU.
 
Junction said:
Do you agree that CU is by far the best means of entry to the Denver market?
Click to expand...

I think so, but I would think that Scott also looked at Force and CSU.

All I am saying is if CU was in Cheyenne, we would not be in the pac12 right now. The Denver market was huge for us.
 
tante said:
Cross out the word CU and replace with the word Denver market.

Do you agree the Denver market was more valuable than CU?
Click to expand...

CU was the means to the Denver market just like UW is the means to the Seattle market and UA and ASU are the means to the Arizona markets. In the end this is all about TV markets but you can't separate the schools from their makets.

You can talk about CSU and AFA but they don't deliver the same punch in the Denver market. The point about PAC alumni in Denver is a good one but if that was the driver they would simply take the market without CU. It is all tied together.
 
Here are some interesting questions.

Who delivers the Portland market?

If the pac12 were to start from scratch to maximize value, would Washington State and Arizona be invited? Would we invite both Oregon schools?
 
Last edited:
tante said:
Here are some interesting questions.

Who delivers the Portland market?

If the pac12 were to start from scratch to maximize value, would Washington State and Arizona be invited? Would we invite both Oregon schools?
Click to expand...

Those are some interesting questions.

I would guess that the biggest college force in Portland is the Ducks as they are the most prominent and traditionally successful program in the state. To maximize value it is likely that if they could start over there would be some serious questions asked about WSU and Zona along with Oregon State. How those numbers would work out I can't say but it would be a good question.

It may be that all of those schools are included to prevent some other conference from getting a foothold in what the PAC considers their "territory."

You could probably ask every conference similar questions. Would the B12 still include Iowa State, Would the SEC end up looking the same, who would the B1G look at replacing.

I think it's pretty unlikely that major conferences would kick out any of the current members but 15 years ago who would have thought that we would have conference set-ups like we do right now.

In the future the money isn't going to get any less important and as the environment continues to change who can be sure what the conferences will do.

Would it be impossible to see for example the top 32 schools (based primarily on $$) decide to push the rest aside and break off into their own super league. I haven't seen anything to suggest that is on the table but as the millions of dollars get bigger and more competitive is it impossible? If it did it's likely that CU and a lot of schools like CU are on the outside looking in.
 
CU should have no problem being one of the top 30 teams, if our leadership wasn't so inept. AAU membership and top 20 media market in close proximity. It is almost criminal how bad our ad mins have failed us.
 
tante said:
CU should have no problem being one of the top 30 teams, if our leadership wasn't so inept. AAU membership and top 20 media market in close proximity. It is almost criminal how bad our ad mins have failed us.
Click to expand...

^^This statement may be the truest thing you have ever posted here^^^

Some time in the past for a different thread I went back and looked up the numbers. CU was consistently in the top 30 athletic programs in the country. This with almost no contribution from basketball in those years.

Over the past couple of decades the Denver-Boulder market has been one of the faster growing cities in terms of population. At the same time CU football has been allowed to decay into a point of almost being irrelivent. We are no longer on national TV, attendance is down, and most importantly interest is gone for all but the most dedicated fans.

Thank you Dr. Phil and Co.
 
MtnBuff said:
How many viewers would the game have gotten if it had been Central Arkansas or Southern Utah. My guess is virtually the same. People tuned in because it was Bama' not because of CSU.

Historically CU has drawn decent TV ratings. CSU has not.

By your thinking the PAC should have extended invitations to some MAC schools because they had big audiences when they were playing against Ohio State or Michigan.
Click to expand...

Historically is in the past, this year CU did not make it on National TV. That did not happen historically. Right now CU is not delivering the viewers that Larry Scott envisioned.

AND where did I say anything about extending invitations to anyone...I hate people who try to misrepresent what I have said. The simple fact is that CSU in the 2013 football season probably played in front of more TV viewers than CU, which leads to the "increased visibility" criteria. Yes we will be making more money in the future but it is coming at a cost...The PAC12 network is not reaping the benefits yet that Larry Scott envisioned. Revenues for the schools from the Network are Zilch. CU has to get games off the Pac-12 network and onto the ESPN and Fox. You seem to think we have a great brand, BUT no one is seeing us...(which may be a good thing at the moment).
 
If Scott is unhappy about TV ratings he should look in the mirror...his inability to strike deals with the #1 Satellite Network and some of the bigger Cable companies has been the problem with the Pac 12 Network...it still pisses me off I can watch the Big 10 Network but not the Pac 12 Network that this state has a team playing in
 
SECOBuffsFan said:
If Scott is unhappy about TV ratings he should look in the mirror...his inability to strike deals with the #1 Satellite Network and some of the bigger Cable companies has been the problem with the Pac 12 Network...it still pisses me off I can watch the Big 10 Network but not the Pac 12 Network that this state has a team playing in
Click to expand...

there is a solution to this
 
SECOBuffsFan said:
If Scott is unhappy about TV ratings he should look in the mirror...his inability to strike deals with the #1 Satellite Network and some of the bigger Cable companies has been the problem with the Pac 12 Network...it still pisses me off I can watch the Big 10 Network but not the Pac 12 Network that this state has a team playing in
Click to expand...

He is unhappy that CU is not good enough to be picked up by Fox or ESPN. The Mountain time slot would be great for east coast football fans and would help deliver the Denver Market. Games on the Pac 12 Network fill empty time slots that few watch.
 
BlackNGold said:
The PAC12 network is not reaping the benefits yet that Larry Scott envisioned. Revenues for the schools from the Network are Zilch. CU has to get games off the Pac-12 network and onto the ESPN and Fox. You seem to think we have a great brand, BUT no one is seeing us...(which may be a good thing at the moment).
Click to expand...

I know you know this, but just to clarify for others, PAC 12 Network(s) were never expected to distribute revenue for the first few years. (start up costs).

Agreed, CU needs to find a way off the PAC N. We all know that won't happen until CU can at least get competitive and not be one of the worst PAC games every week. When that happens, CU will get picked up. But as it is, PAC 12 Network >>>>> not being on TV or FCS where our games would have fallen to in the past.

CU would have always been one of, if not the top target for the PAC. Maybe less to do with CU and more to do with a lack of viable options. CSU certainly isn't in the conversation. Utah was the next best alternative outside of CU. Other than us two, there are none that really fit the PAC's criteria on their own merit. CU being a high research partner with many PAC Universities absolutely played a role with the presidents.
 
Whose this ESPN? I haven't watched regularly in over 10 years. Is Olberman and Patrick still on? They were money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top