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!
Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025
There's a lot to like about that for both parties. But money rules all
Pac12 had their chance 10 years ago
Oh wow. Didn't know that
OU & UT are 100% gone from the Big 12 and the damage has been done between the ADs of the Big 12 and the departing schools especially after OU & UT leveraged the Big 12 with the threat of changing conferences to get better terms during the last 10 years. The issue would be how the Big 12 would split the TV money 14 ways instead of 10 ways so it's more likely the Big 12 pushes those two out the door in 2023 much like they pushed CU out the door "a year early" in 2011.
Penn State football had to wait three years before starting Big Ten play after being invited but it's not like they were leaving a conference. At the same time, Missouri's move to the SEC was announced under 9 months before the Tigers actually joined the conference. I think OU & UT really has until the end of this month to decide if they are moving to the SEC next year but I think they are staying one more year. College ADs are still impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak for Fiscal Year 2021-23 and things should look much better for 2022-23 but with all of those coach firings, that might not matter.
In 2023 the SEC will be in its final year of the CBS contract and OU & UT could operate as independents much like CU & Utah did back in 2011 that year. The Pac-10 was in its final year of their media rights deal at that time too. OU & UT didn't do themselves any favors by making the announcement after July 1st this year and they are kind of forced to stay an extra year due to that ESPN clause that they can redo the Big 12 deal if the conference falls below 10 members anytime.
The last thing the Big 12 wants to is see OU & UT file a federal lawsuit against the Big 12 GOR and that ends up at the SCOTUS who destroyed the NCAA's longtime business model with that NIL ruling. The Big 12 is legislated as an A5 conference and will remain that way even after OU & UT leaves but the members of the NCAA could vote to undo that.
OU & UT might owe $80M each but I think both schools would be free with $25M upfront minus what has been withheld by the Big 12 and the rest paid off over a number of years. The Big 12 then can send the AAC $30M for those three schools, the WCC about $3M, and BYU about $8-9M to buy out their 2022 football games but some of those would be rescheduled anyway which would reduce the BYU football buyout bill. The AAC can give C-USA $24M to buy out the six schools slated to join the AAC. When a school announces they are leaving the conference, a good portion of their conference distributions are withheld. The Big 12 might have enough to buy out the three AAC schools from the money they would have withheld from OU & UT this year and work out a loan with BYU and call it a day.
Lastly, I don't think OU & UT will tolerate having less conference distribution money for up to four years and there is no telling if that damages both football programs if not their other athletic teams. Paying the exit fees could end up being the better option for those two in that case.
I think 2023 is the year OU & UT joins the SEC but I'd not rule out next year.
****ing MtnBuff, is that you?
And he liked my post too.
With a hat tip to @Jalapeno for posting the following tweet:
This is something that the Pac-12 should look at closely when it considers expansion.
San Diego State and UNLV are the 2 schools in the footprint that bring the following:
- booming metro locations within the footprint which are not currently owned by the conference
- new football stadiums in those cities
- major campus expansions underway in those downtowns
Long-term, they would be good bets and increase game attendance.
For the USC folks who worry about dilution of SoCal, it's not like UT and aTm recruiting are harmed in the least by TTU, TCU, Baylor and soon Houston being P5 programs. They weren't hurt by being in the same conference as them. California can support 5 P5 programs in the same conference. The problem has not been dilution through Pac-12 members all focusing on CA recruiting. The problem has been that the other conferences have been able to come in and poach too many guys.
Go to 16.
Take SDSU & UNLV from within the footprint.
Take UH and TCU from the Big 12 to get the Houston & Dallas media metros plus a strong foothold in TX recruiting.
Each are natural travel partners which wouldn't disrupt any of the other pairings.
Fvck the politics of UC vs Cal State systems (actually, SDSU could go in the "East" so wouldn't get grouped with the original Pac-8 anyway). Fvck the politics around TCU & SDSU being Tier 2 research universities or UNLV not being respected enough academically. Fvck the politics around TCU being a religiously-affiliated university (barely, and them might be voting to eliminate that anyway). This is about doing what's best for revenue and competitiveness in the modern college sports landscape without losing your identity. It's not like taking Bosie State, BYU, Air Force and Baylor (which is what I might be saying if it was just about media revenue & football strength).
This is something that the Pac-12 should look at closely when it considers expansion.
San Diego State and UNLV are the 2 schools in the footprint that bring the following:
- booming metro locations within the footprint which are not currently owned by the conference
- new football stadiums in those cities
- major campus expansions underway in those downtowns
Long-term, they would be good bets and increase game attendance.
For the USC folks who worry about dilution of SoCal, it's not like UT and aTm recruiting are harmed in the least by TTU, TCU, Baylor and soon Houston being P5 programs. They weren't hurt by being in the same conference as them. California can support 5 P5 programs in the same conference. The problem has not been dilution through Pac-12 members all focusing on CA recruiting. The problem has been that the other conferences have been able to come in and poach too many guys.
Go to 16.
Take SDSU & UNLV from within the footprint.
Take UH and TCU from the Big 12 to get the Houston & Dallas media metros plus a strong foothold in TX recruiting.
Each are natural travel partners which wouldn't disrupt any of the other pairings.
Fvck the politics of UC vs Cal State systems (actually, SDSU could go in the "East" so wouldn't get grouped with the original Pac-8 anyway). Fvck the politics around TCU & SDSU being Tier 2 research universities or UNLV not being respected enough academically. Fvck the politics around TCU being a religiously-affiliated university (barely, and them might be voting to eliminate that anyway). This is about doing what's best for revenue and competitiveness in the modern college sports landscape without losing your identity. It's not like taking Bosie State, BYU, Air Force and Baylor (which is what I might be saying if it was just about media revenue & football strength).
Last edited:
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Keep every other P5 conference out of California. What happened to the Big12 when the SEC moved into Texas should be a cautionary tale.
It's not fair that I'm limited to just one like for your comment because you deserve more likes for that comment.
As @Buffnik brought up with the SDSU stadium naming rights that I put up in a different location, I think that deal is a big deal because Snapdragon is getting ready to up their ARM cpu game to go against Apple's ARM cpus in that case in Android, Chromebook, and Windows computers in the coming years. Another reason is to get more research dollars into the school to up it to Tier 1 status. SDSU has everything going for them and whether that translates into MWC champions remains to be seen.
CU needs to really shop for naming rights deals on all the athletic facilities and Folsom Field shouldn't be spared. I'd still label the football stadium Folsom Field just like I label Enpower Field simply Mile High Stadium. I'm sure Fred Folsom would be recognized in some way that is still visible.
SDSU offense has not always been the most exciting product and yet they got that Snapdragon deal. I'd say that deal is also aimed at attracting research dollars because that is what SDSU is aiming to do in the area around Snapdragon Stadium.
“Porn Hub stadium at Folsom Field“
If that becomes a flagship to launch a national franchise, it's possible.
Do we get sopapillas at the stadium??
I think it might be more likely to see the "Folsom Field" table at Casa Bonita
yes, the EPA is big into sports sponsorship
edit: I posted that as a snark, but it occurs to me that the military branches sponsor NASCAR teams and the USPS has sponsored cycling teams. it's precedented for federal agencies to sponsor, I guess.
According to the 2020 Census, the Pac region is the fastest growing from 2010-2020.
This is our map:
Here's what's already in the Pac-12:
Utah, Colorado, Washington, Arizona and Oregon all among the 13 fastest growing. California didn't make it for growth rate, but had the largest population increase.
I think the Pac-12 should think long-term and use the data to put together a sexy pitch on a media partnerships.
Add Boise State (Idaho #2), Houston & TCU (Texas #3), and UNLV (Nevada #6) to basically own the Top 13 while owning the #1 population state (CA) & secure a big presence in #2 (TX).
This is our map:
Here's what's already in the Pac-12:
Utah, Colorado, Washington, Arizona and Oregon all among the 13 fastest growing. California didn't make it for growth rate, but had the largest population increase.
I think the Pac-12 should think long-term and use the data to put together a sexy pitch on a media partnerships.
Add Boise State (Idaho #2), Houston & TCU (Texas #3), and UNLV (Nevada #6) to basically own the Top 13 while owning the #1 population state (CA) & secure a big presence in #2 (TX).
I'm only speculating, but I suspect this was a request of schools like Vanderbilt, Arkansas and Kentucky. I don't think Alabama, Georgia and Florida were too concerned about either the probability or the impact of another school leaving them behind.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Doesn’t having at least one private school allow big conferences to shield some of their financials from the public? Am I making that up? I always thought that was at least one consideration for each P5 having at least one private school
BIG - Northwestern
SEC - Vandy
Big12 - Baylor
Pac12 - Stanford, USC
ACC - Miami, Duke, Syracuse, Wake, BC
I wonder if part of that was to keep Vandy in check in case they ever decided trying to keep up in the SEC wasn’t worth it anymore.
1. I hadn't heard that having at least one private was a goal of the P5's prior. you may be right, but it's not something I encountered before. However...
2. I believe the P5 conferences are legally non-profits, so I think they have to report the finances of each conference (at least to the IRS), but finances of private member institutions would not need be disclosed. *** Someone please correct me if you have better knowledge
3. XII also has TCU, and ACC has 5/8 of Notre Dame
Not just financials, but a lot of contractual things. State institutions are generally subject to state level FOIA laws. But there are usually business competition type exemptions that can be cited if you're partnering with a private institution, so yes, having a private school in a conference is very much an advantage in not having to disclose not just financials but other contractual terms.
Reportedly, this was a big factor in why Baylor got picked to join the original Big12. 12 was the magic number, and none of the Big 8 was going to be left behind - it was the SWC that was collapsing. UT and aTm were obvious. So then it was TT vs Houston, and one of Baylor, TCU, SMU or Rice for the final two slots. Rice didn't/doesn't bring much, SMU was still a football disaster after the death penalty, so it was a fight between Baylor and TCU - and Baylor, as one would expect, played dirty.
If SMU hadn't received the death penalty in 1987 (or if they had actually managed to hire McCartney away from CU when started the rebuild), there's a very good chance that SMU ends up in the Big12 and Baylor would have been left behind with Houston, TCU, and Rice.
I understand your point about the privates not having to disclose finances and other contractual matters, but I'm not following you on how this impacts their respective conferences. Conferences still disclose matters like their accumulated media revenue, payouts to member institutions, commissioner salaries, etc...
Can you be specific what information, for example [1], the XII doesn't have to disclose because of Baylor and TCU that they'd have to if not for those two?
e.g. [2] What does the MWC have to disclose due to lack of private members that the Pac 12 doesn't?
Um... think about what you're asking: Can you tell me specifically what you can't tell me?
Ultimately, that's kind of it though: there's a difference between "can disclose," "does disclose," and "must disclose." I'm pretty sure that if someone wanted to, they could FOIA the entirety of the MWC media deal - every provision, every clause, every detail. The Big 12 could tell you to pound sand. "We got this much, and will get this much each year, the absolute specifics are protected trade secrets that are exempt from disclosure."
You disclose exactly as much as you either have to, or that you want to in order to further your other goals. The rest you keep to yourself.
ok, if you can't give an example, could you cite any sources for the XII selecting Baylor and TCU specifically for their private status? first order google search no help and my memory of the reporting was the Baylor had more to do with Rick Perry's influence than anything else.
to be clear, I'm not saying you and Sink are wrong on this, I'm just stating this idea of private schools' status being a benefit to their member conferences is a new take to my understanding, and I'm not finding any sources to confirm or correct what you two are getting at it.