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!
Larry Scott Gets Contract Extension Through 2022
- Thread starter cmgoods
- Start date
That's got to be the hope, right? That what got done sets up the Pac for a long-term position that's very advantageous. And, frankly, we probably need to admit that the conference simply isn't worth as much as other conferences where they've got more population that's more passionate about football.
Maybe its just me that's burning out, haha.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
I am just mix on this. Do I think Scott has done some good things for the conference? Yes, he has. I do think he's given a good brand to the league, but I do not think he is utilizing the brand to the best of his abilities. His refusal to get DirecTV is hurting the conference. I have Comcast, so I can't really complain about not being able to see Pac 12 Network games, but a large portion of Pac 12 don't have that access. Yes, we may take a hit on making a deal with DirecTV, compared to the deal with the other providers, but isn't it better to make some money than no money? I think most people have the mindset that it's all about getting the most cash as possible, but sometimes its better to take smaller amounts of cash. Big money only comes every so often, but smaller sums do come more frequently. Goes back to the question, would you want a lot of money every 10 years or so, or make a decent amount of money every year? I'd take the money ever year. As for the Pac 12 Network, I would love to see the conference negotiate with a large network like Fox and make the network comparable to the SEC Network's ESPN contract.
I think 2020 is the year for Pac-12 expansion to a Pac-14.
And I'm thinking the expansion will be within the footprint with UNLV and New Mexico. UNM is already R1 as of the 2015 Carnegie ranks for research intensity. That's a requirement for membership. Adds a market (though a small one) and bridges us to Texas if that state is in the picture down the road. UNLV was R2 (deal killer), but is in a 3 million population state that's growing like crazy and is becoming a very good recruiting area with several programs beating top Texas programs in interstate matchups this year. Marquee name in basketball and a football program that could take off with a new stadium. Regarding its research status, they have invested heavily in medical research programs and have a plan for getting there when the 2020 ranks come out: Top Tier Initiative.
With those moves, we'd be in good shape from several standpoints:
1) Pac-14 with those additions moves Utah to the North, which makes sense.
2) Having 14 teams equalizes the number of teams with the B1G, our closest alliance, which makes it easier to do scheduling alliances in football and basketball for "conference challenges" that would benefit both
3) Increases game volumes for the network (revenue)
4) Maintains and extends ownership of geography and cultural DNA of the Pac
5) Both programs would be very willing to accept reduced revenue shares that would still be much more than they get from the MWC
And I'm thinking the expansion will be within the footprint with UNLV and New Mexico. UNM is already R1 as of the 2015 Carnegie ranks for research intensity. That's a requirement for membership. Adds a market (though a small one) and bridges us to Texas if that state is in the picture down the road. UNLV was R2 (deal killer), but is in a 3 million population state that's growing like crazy and is becoming a very good recruiting area with several programs beating top Texas programs in interstate matchups this year. Marquee name in basketball and a football program that could take off with a new stadium. Regarding its research status, they have invested heavily in medical research programs and have a plan for getting there when the 2020 ranks come out: Top Tier Initiative.
With those moves, we'd be in good shape from several standpoints:
1) Pac-14 with those additions moves Utah to the North, which makes sense.
2) Having 14 teams equalizes the number of teams with the B1G, our closest alliance, which makes it easier to do scheduling alliances in football and basketball for "conference challenges" that would benefit both
3) Increases game volumes for the network (revenue)
4) Maintains and extends ownership of geography and cultural DNA of the Pac
5) Both programs would be very willing to accept reduced revenue shares that would still be much more than they get from the MWC
Sorry, Buffnik. I completely disagree. Expansion is almost exclusively about what teams can offer in regards to TV revenues and even if those two would take less money, it may not offset what would be virtually nothing new coming in.
Of course, academic requirements are going to be considered, but that doesn't improve UNLV's and UNM's chances vs. others we have talked about non stop on here that would actually move the bar in regards to TV revenue.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
Well does UNLV offer the academics that have come to make the Pac 12? It's a big market and when the Raiders build a stadium, I do think it will help UNLV with either by playing there, or the Raiders helping with renovations at the current UNLV stadium, until their stadium is built. I do hope when the stadium is built that the football champioship is moved there from Santa Clara.
As regards to expansion as whole, I do believe Texas is still the ultimate goal. I am not sure when that will happen, but most likely Texas and OU will leave at the end of the Big 12's TV deal. I think the SEC makes a push for them. If the Pac 12 wants to get into Texas, it may be easier for them to go after Houston. Which offers academics, facilities, large market, and a hotbed for recruiting.
We may be in much better position to add Oklahoma than Texas. Paired with Kansas, Houston or Texas Tech, that would be a situation that would absolutely raise conference prestige nationally to get the carriage we need... without the UT headaches.
Imagine if we did UNLV/New Mexico now and Oklahoma/Kansas later.
For scheduling, would put CU in a pod with OU/KU/UNM. ASU/UA/Utah/UNLV another pod. That's the Eastern Division.
CA pod of USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford. NW pod of OU/OSU/UW/WSU. That's Western Division.
That would absolutely work for national prestige and brand strength. (You can sub KU for UH or TTU or even OSU if you have to bite the bullet on academics to get OU and this still works very well.)
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
Ideally, I think you add Texas, KU, OU, then preferably Tech over KSU and Okie State. If that were the case, you would have your NW and Cali pods, then the Rocky Mountain pod which would be the UofA, ASU, CU, and UU. The final pod would be the Great Plains with KU, OU, UT, and Tech. I do admit that Tech could possibly be replaced by a Houston or another team, but I am not sure who that would be. You can still give each team a travel partner, so lets keep it the way it is, and pair UT with Tech and OU with KU.
Each school plays the three other teams in their pod, plus have a two year cycle with 2 teams in each pod. So if CU played their in-pod games (UofA, ASU, and UU), then lets say they got USC, UCLA, KU, OU, Oregon and OSU. The following two year cycle, you just switch in the teams you didn't play. This way you can keep a nine game schedule. Nice thing with the Big 12 teams is they are okay with a 9 game conference slate. I don't want to add another game, but if you did, you could do a championship bracket of the 4 pod winners. But personally, I would have the teams with two most conference wins overall play in the championship, hopefully at the Raiders' stadium.
For basketball sake, again keep the pods and travel partners. That gives you 6 games right there. Now you just play every other team once and do it on a one year cycle. So if you have UCLA on the road one year, the next year you get them at home.
In regards to UT, OU, and KU. They all offer what the Pac 12 wants in academics. Even Tech is a good engineering school. You not only add Texas' markets, but would add OKC and KC with OU and KU, plus a national following off all three major schools. Tech is sort of the odd man out, but Lubbock is a bigger market than Pullman and Corvallis.
That's the most revenue value. An awful lot would have to break right for the Pac to get our pick of the Big 12 litter, though. The big question, I guess, is whether the conference should stand pat and leverage the 1 advantage it will have in 2025 -- being able to take 4 teams -- in hopes it can hit the lottery.
Where I'm at is that I'd rather not change the culture of the conference to that extent by going so heavily into the CTZ. Besides, I don't think UT would do it because they are all about the money and the Pac has 1) equal revenue sharing and 2) less revenue per team than SEC or B1G. And unlike Oklahoma, they don't value CA recruiting like OU does. Plus, OU would really love the research partnerships and academic opportunities that would come with Pac membership vs SEC. But my guess is that if Notre Dame is locked into the ACC that we'll see the B1G grab both Oklahoma and Texas in the first move that breaks up the Big 12 as a power conference. I honestly don't think we've got much of a shot.
Here's what I think happens if we wait:
B1G goes to 16 though Oklahoma & Texas
ACC goes to 16 through Notre Dame and West Virginia
SEC goes to 16 through Oklahoma State & TCU (Mizzou moves to the west & Alabama/Auburn go to the east)
Pac-12: would we go to 16 through KU, OU, TTU and either UH or UNLV? Is that better than building up UNLV & UNM now with OU & KU added later?
This is an expansion scenario I can fully support.
Ideally, you never, under any circumstances, ever, ever add Texas to your conference. Ever.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
I agree, just thinking from a money standpoint. In the end, I do think OU/OSU and UT/Tech are a package deal and go to either the SEC or B1G to make both conferences 16. ACC would probably go after ND and WVU as stated by . If that happens, I think the Pac 12 should make a move at KU maybe TCU (again, religious affiliation), Houston would be a better option though. So now the Pac stands at 14. I respect UNM, but I don't know if they are a better get than lets say CSU. UNLV is definitely the wild card. Don't know much on their academics, but adds a big market. Could go with BYU and Boise. BYU has solid academics, but refuses to play on Sundays so that's a problem. Boise doesn't add much in a market and the academics would make an ASU degree look good.
White_Rabbit
Well-Known Member
Houston seems like a no brainer. What's their downside?
New Mexico seems really meh. That state is poor as **** and isn't even increasing their population and their football team is historically awful.
UNLV seems promising if they just up the research and stuff. NHL team and NFL going there plus their entire state population is in Las Vegas so that seems like a plus.
SDSU needs to somehow merge their football team with UCSD's school. Perfect!
New Mexico seems really meh. That state is poor as **** and isn't even increasing their population and their football team is historically awful.
UNLV seems promising if they just up the research and stuff. NHL team and NFL going there plus their entire state population is in Las Vegas so that seems like a plus.
SDSU needs to somehow merge their football team with UCSD's school. Perfect!
TCU, Boise State and BYU aren't R1 and never will be. If we're talking Big 12, neither are Oklahoma State and Baylor. I'm 99.9% sure that this makes all of these schools non-starters for the Pac-12 university presidents who vote on conference expansion. For the record, neither is SDSU, and there are also the politics of the UC vs Cal State systems which probably makes them DOA.
UH and TTU are R1. Kansas and UT are both R1 and AAU members (very big deal).
With schools like CSU (an R1, but a less valuable one due to agg focus), the business people are going to say that there is no added market revenue and the state of Colorado is too small of a market to be dividing it in half. AFA would be more interesting due to national/international appeal, but AFA isn't R1, will never be, and I don't think the service academies see it as serving their mission to try to compete at the power conference level.
So, within the existing basic footprint of the MTZ and PTZ, UNM (R1) plus UNLV (R2) or U Nevada (R2) are what make any sense to me as possibilities... if one of the NV schools can raise itself to R1. And between the two, I'd much prefer UNLV - larger school in a larger market with a new P5-worthy stadium being built and more national cache due to its hoops history. Beyond that, we're leaving the footprint -- maybe something as crazy as UH + Tulane (AAU & R1) if the Big 12 doesn't break up.
awesome discussion.
I believe the next wave of realignment will be about content. not geography, not TV rights, not academics. content -- quality content. Adding schools in NM and NV does not add content. Adding schools that invest in athletics and already have a serious fan base is the only expansion option that will benefit any program.
I believe the next wave of realignment will be about content. not geography, not TV rights, not academics. content -- quality content. Adding schools in NM and NV does not add content. Adding schools that invest in athletics and already have a serious fan base is the only expansion option that will benefit any program.
You're thinking like an AD or a fan. We don't run this show.
Disagree. I believe that I'm thinking like a University president responsible for the P&L.
They are. Research partnerships for things like biotech and aerospace along with affiliations that bring more prestige in attracting more international grad students are worth a sh!tload more money to them than a conference sports network. In the Pac-12, the athletic departments are self-liquidating advertising that enhance donations. The tail does not wag the dog in this conference.
To put it another way: Bruce Benson gives zero ****s about out-competing the Broncos & Nuggets for the sports entertainment dollar in the Denver metro as part of the university mission.
UCSD doesn't have D1 football and UC Davis is FCS. If they committed to building to FBS, the presidents would be on board with adding them. Scott and the ADs might go apoplectic, though, about media markets and diluting the recruiting grounds.
Agree with everything you just said, except for the unstated assumption that research alliances are based on athletic conferences. I believe the trend is moving away from this and that AAU membership will mean much more for this than shared athletic conference membership. Hell, the trend is even moving further and further away from any notion of "full membership" even as relates to athletics, with more conferences adding "members for this sport only" schools.
couldn't find the nice summary of schools that CU is partnering with, but when I look here, and I don't see any strong correlation of research with other Pac-12 schools.
