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!

Imagine if this happened to the Pac

USC hasn't sold out a football game since 2013. I don't believe they can put together a schedule more attractive to fans than a Pac12 schedule.
 
Don’t let the door hit ya where the San Andreas fault split ya.
 
hokiehead said:
USC hasn't sold out a football game since 2013. I don't believe they can put together a schedule more attractive to fans than a Pac12 schedule.
Click to expand...

Texas game sold out this year.

DJ9DBVMUEAAhdi3.jpg:large
 
USC's problem is not the PAC12. It's this:

Losing to WSU, a mediocre team.
Beating Texas in LA by a gift (3 points).
Beating a very average Utah team by 1 at home.
Getting boat-raced in their biggest game of the year (ND) 49-14.
Barely edging Stanford in the championship game in a game they could easily have lost.
 
SerenityBuff said:
USC stated the game was sold out.

http://usctrojans.com/news/2017/9/12/saturdays-usc-texas-football-game-in-coliseum-is-sold-out.aspx
Click to expand...
interesting. either USC is wrong, ESPN is wrong, or approximately 10,000 people who bought tickets didn't show.

the last option is a possibility as the NCAA allows schools to report attendance either by turnstile count, number of tickets distributed or "other appropriate means". 2 minutes of googling didn't immediately answer which method USC uses. But man, that would be a shjt-ton of no-shows for any event, much less such a high-profile game.
 
Last edited:
After all those years in the Big 12 watching UT throw their weight around, I have little patience for when USC acts the same way in our new conference.

Spoiled children, and all that.
 
Spoiled children? Yes, but I think the more attention we put on Larry Scott's botched attempt to build his TV network with no help, the better. Thats the only reason why we're so far behind everybody else revenue wise.
 
Several major flaws in logic.

1. If BYU can go independent, so can we. Reality: Independence hasn’t been good for BYU. It’s football program is on a downward slope. It’s basketball has been hurt. The money is marginally better than MW schools, but far lags the Pac.

2. Big Ten schools like Maryland and Rutgers make more than USC. Reality: They make more because the top of the conference draws more eyeballs. If USC, UCLA and Cal were actually able to carry California TV sets, then the whole conference would make more money. Larger problem is that residents in the west don’t watch football as much as their counterparts back east.

3. Notre Dame can do it, so can we. Reality: USC would have to sign a lucrative TV contract that I don’t think they can get since they don’t draw a national audience. Notre Dame has a national fan base (which is diminishing). They draw Catholics. People often tune in because they love em or hate em. USC doesn’t have any significant following back east at all. Further, this also a terrible time to attempt to negotiate a good TV deal when people are cord cutting and likely bidders are hemorrhaging revenue.
 
LA is a big market but it is an unusual one. In the Pete Carroll era it was a huge market...swamping all others in the NCAA. When USC is down its fan base is no bigger than the ND fan base within LA. So it would be feast or famine for an independent SC.

Best revenue scenario for both SC and the PAC12 is to have USC become the most perennially dominant team within the PAC12 and the country. Then you will have all of Southern California watching; which is where most of the population is within the PAC12 footprint.
 
8Jah said:
LA is a big market but it is an unusual one. In the Pete Carroll era it was a huge market...swamping all others in the NCAA. When USC is down its fan base is no bigger than the ND fan base within LA. So it would be feast or famine for an independent SC.

Best revenue scenario for both SC and the PAC12 is to have USC become the most perennially dominant team within the PAC12 and the country. Then you will have all of Southern California watching; which is where most of the population is within the PAC12 footprint.
Click to expand...

LA as a whole is just not a sports town, unless they have a championship team to root for.

Furthermore, BYU and especially ND have national appeal from their religious affiliations. Both schools enjoy a large following from non-alumni and fans independent of geographic location. USC does not have that. It's core is nearly all limited to California.
 
hokiehead said:
interesting. either USC is wrong, ESPN is wrong, or approximately 10,000 people who bought tickets didn't show.

the last option is a possibility as the NCAA allows schools to report attendance either by turnstile count, number of tickets distributed or "other appropriate means". 2 minutes of googling didn't immediately answer which method USC uses. But man, that would be a shjt-ton of no-shows for any event, much less such a high-profile game.
Click to expand...
It's LA. It's not that hard to imagine 10k not bothering to show up. They were stuck in traffic, drunk, stoned, at the beach, sexually assaulting their assistants, getting plastic surgery, just plain forgot the game was that day, etc, etc.
 
buffaholic said:
USC's problem is not the PAC12. It's this:

Losing to WSU, a mediocre team.
Beating Texas in LA by a gift (3 points).
Beating a very average Utah team by 1 at home.
Getting boat-raced in their biggest game of the year (ND) 49-14.
Barely edging Stanford in the championship game in a game they could easily have lost.
Click to expand...

I wish we had their problems.
 
If they wanted to make some real noise, and I highly doubt that they have or would consider it, they would partner with UCLA, create a package deal for their own TV network, and bolt for the Big 12.

Then the dominoes would fall - Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon would go too, and CU would be left hoping that that WVU would say **** it to multiple annual trips to the West Coast, join the ACC or the SEC, and we'd back in to another P5 conference. Unless, of course, the Big 16 would rather have the Phoenix market than the Denver one.

Never happen, but talk about a nightmare scenario for us.
 
Alfred91 said:
If they wanted to make some real noise, and I highly doubt that they have or would consider it, they would partner with UCLA, create a package deal for their own TV network, and bolt for the Big 12.

Then the dominoes would fall - Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon would go too, and CU would be left hoping that that WVU would say **** it to multiple annual trips to the West Coast, join the ACC or the SEC, and we'd back in to another P5 conference. Unless, of course, the Big 16 would rather have the Phoenix market than the Denver one.

Never happen, but talk about a nightmare scenario for us.
Click to expand...
I don't really see CU being left out in that scenario though.
 
onealcd said:
I don't really see CU being left out in that scenario though.
Click to expand...

Well, we'd bring a lot to the table, including historical rivalries with a lot of Big 12 schools, obviously.

But you know that the LA schools would be welcomed with open arms. Cal would be, and would be allowed to bring Stanford if it meant access to SF and NoCal.

That, and the present Big 12, brings you to 14. Maybe WVU bolts, maybe they don't have a landing place and thus stay.

That leaves a lot of schools, with prestige, history, reputation, large markets, money, or some combination of the above, angling for 2 spots. UW, UO, ASU, UA and CU all hoping to be picked.

Or the Big 14 stands pat there and lets the emaciated Pac-8 wither on the vine while they take their time picking their next targets.
 
Alfred91 said:
Well, we'd bring a lot to the table, including historical rivalries with a lot of Big 12 schools, obviously.

But you know that the LA schools would be welcomed with open arms. Cal would be, and would be allowed to bring Stanford if it meant access to SF and NoCal.

That, and the present Big 12, brings you to 14. Maybe WVU bolts, maybe they don't have a landing place and thus stay.

That leaves a lot of schools, with prestige, history, reputation, large markets, money, or some combination of the above, angling for 2 spots. UW, UO, ASU, UA and CU all hoping to be picked.

Or the Big 14 stands pat there and lets the emaciated Pac-8 wither on the vine while they take their time picking their next targets.
Click to expand...
In terms of the Big-12, I would say CU would be preferable over Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Arizona and possibly ASU. If the Big-12 wanted to raid the Pac-12 I would think they would try to add USC, UCLA, Arizona State, Colorado, Calfiornia, Washington and Utah/Oregon if WVU went to the ACC.
 
onealcd said:
In terms of the Big-12, I would say CU would be preferable over Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Arizona and possibly ASU. If the Big-12 wanted to raid the Pac-12 I would think they would try to add USC, UCLA, Arizona State, Colorado, Calfiornia, Washington and Utah/Oregon if WVU went to the ACC.
Click to expand...

I could see that. I have a feeling Uncle Phil would be ponying up major cash to stay with the big boys, though.

Of course, all of this would be lame if we went into the Big 12 and still had to play by Texass's rules.

buffedup said:
Sigh...here we go again. Get that dead horse!!! Beat it!!
Click to expand...

I don't know, it's a twist on an old theme. Besides, what we all want to do is get this thread going just to see sacky's reaction.
 
Anyone who thinks that Rutgers getting $20 million (and growing) more per year than USC is a stable and sustainable arrangement is an idot.

I will not speculate about what or how change will come about, but I am 100% sure that change, and probably dramatic change, will happen.
 
skibum said:
Anyone who thinks that Rutgers getting $20 million (and growing) more per year than USC is a stable and sustainable arrangement is an idot.

I will not speculate about what or how change will come about, but I am 100% sure that change, and probably dramatic change, will happen.
Click to expand...
They are talking about TV money, which USC does make $20 million less than Rutgers as it stands right now.
 
skibum said:
Anyone who thinks that Rutgers getting $20 million (and growing) more per year than USC is a stable and sustainable arrangement is an idot.

I will not speculate about what or how change will come about, but I am 100% sure that change, and probably dramatic change, will happen.
Click to expand...
I think the push will be for the Pac-12 to start treating its athletic conference and network as a business instead of a celebration of Olympic sports and an alignment of western research institutions.

  • Cut the spending on Olympic sports.
  • Eliminate the regional networks.
  • Add a PACN2 as a cheap subscription.
  • Develop an App for all the streaming tv platforms.
  • Commit to a strategy for owning Friday and Saturday nights in college football while also having games competing for eyeballs during the day on Saturday.
  • Be completely open to expansion though institutions who would bring value to conference media regardless of their academic focus & standing or politics -- yes, that means San Diego State, Boise State, BYU and UNLV from the western G5 should be evaluated/ in play and that institutions like K-State, TCU and Okie State should absolutely be potential targets.
  • Move away from completely equal revenue sharing. If ESPN or FOX picks up your game, you should get a bonus. If you're in the conference championship for football or go deeper in the men's hoop tourney, you should get a bonus. If you make the NCAA tourney, a bowl game or NY6, or earn the conference money in other sports through a tourney appearance or major network broadcast... you should get a bonus.
 
skibum said:
Anyone who thinks that Rutgers getting $20 million (and growing) more per year than USC is a stable and sustainable arrangement is an idot.

I will not speculate about what or how change will come about, but I am 100% sure that change will happen.
Click to expand...

The change might not come from within college football though, but from without. Even though there's harmless fun prognosticating, the Pac-12 still might be in the catbird's seat when the next round of contracts are up.

ESPN is losing money. We all know this. Word is that Disney is taking money from their other business divisions to keep ESPN afloat. That's not sustainable. I don't know if Fox is in such dire straights, but I would be surprised if at least their sports division isn't. Disney's acquisition of Fox and their subsequent (required) spin off of the TV networks are not going to help them. These guys are not going to be able to afford the contracts they've given to these conferences.

Owning their own content might actually be a very good decision after all, even if Larry Scott really just will have gotten lucky.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top