What's new
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

My respect for the leadership of the Ivy League and U of Chicago back in the day continues to grow.

If college football is turning into minor league NFL, it's not something I'm all that interested in. I don't watch minor league pros in anything.
I think what I’m hearing is the PAC should take this opportunity to create a super league in soccer in anticipation of the demise of football in America. Our thinking is just so far ahead of the SEC right now!!
 
The craziest thing about hockey is Ive never met someone who didn’t like it, they all love it when they watch it but it’s hard to get them to do that. It’s sort of the anti baseball where you either hate it or love it. I think the NHL can definitely grow as a sport if the market things right because it’s an amazing product, even on tv.
 
I think what I’m hearing is the PAC should take this opportunity to create a super league in soccer in anticipation of the demise of football in America. Our thinking is just so far ahead of the SEC right now!!

Too late 😂

 
Maybe it’s just me, and I like college football, but if we’re going hard towards Bama or Buckeye QBs making $800K on endorsement deals as sophomores, and SuperMega conferences slobbering all over ESPN, I can be just as happy checkin’ out of all that, buying season tickets to Wyoming for a few hundred bucks and going up to Laramie 3 times a year…..At some point in life ya gotta choose not to be a sucker.
Why does watching the highest quality college football make someone a sucker?
 
The craziest thing about hockey is Ive never met someone who didn’t like it, they all love it when they watch it but it’s hard to get them to do that. It’s sort of the anti baseball where you either hate it or love it. I think the NHL can definitely grow as a sport if the market things right because it’s an amazing product, even on tv.
You think the 95% of population that doesn’t watch hockey just hasn’t ever seen it?
 
You think the 95% of population that doesn’t watch hockey just hasn’t ever seen it?
No I’m saying that a ton of people don’t watch/follow hockey but when they have watched it or went to a game in the last they enjoy it. It’s a huge marketing issue, imo because you can’t deny how awesome the sport is.
 
The craziest thing about hockey is Ive never met someone who didn’t like it, they all love it when they watch it but it’s hard to get them to do that. It’s sort of the anti baseball where you either hate it or love it. I think the NHL can definitely grow as a sport if the market things right because it’s an amazing product, even on tv.
Baseball has a pacing problem that purists don’t mind but will always result in a swath of people who hate it because they think it’s boring. Golf is similar in that most people love it or hate it.

I see more people who are just totally ambivalent to Hockey - they might go to one game every couple years when their friend talks them into it but they won’t watch it on tv and don’t really care to invest any energy in being a fan. If you’re not from an area where hockey was part of your childhood, I think it’s very difficult to get a casual sports fan into hockey which is why I think that sport have limited upside.
 
Baseball has a pacing problem that purists don’t mind but will always result in a swath of people who hate it because they think it’s boring. Golf is similar in that most people love it or hate it.

I see more people who are just totally ambivalent to Hockey - they might go to one game every couple years when their friend talks them into it but they won’t watch it on tv and don’t really care to invest any energy in being a fan. If you’re not from an area where hockey was part of your childhood, I think it’s very difficult to get a casual sports fan into hockey which is why I think that sport have limited upside.
Exactly. Those ambivalent people who go to a game and like it but never ever watch again, it’s a weird issue to me because plenty of people like sports they weren’t around growing up.
 
Why does watching the highest quality college football make someone a sucker?
Let’s say the SEC added tOSU and Michigan along with whoever else it wanted and created a super league in college football and invited CU to join - I think there’s a real argument about whether a program like CU could really be successful in that scenario. If there was real parity and we could compete, awesome sign me up. But if not, would CU be better off as a punching bag in that league or accepting that the landscape of college football has moved away from CU and we’re better off being competitive in a lesser league?
 
Exactly. Those ambivalent people who go to a game and like it but never ever watch again, it’s a weird issue to me because plenty of people like sports they weren’t around growing up.
It’s a novelty to those people. They had fun going to the arena and appreciate the skill, but don’t know any of the players (most of whom are foreign), don’t quite understand the rules, they don’t know anybody who plays it around them, they don’t have fond memories going to games or watching it growing up, so they move on to what they know better.
 
It’s a novelty to those people. They had fun going to the arena and appreciate the skill, but don’t know any of the players (most of whom are foreign), don’t quite understand the rules, they don’t know anybody who plays it around them, they don’t have fond memories going to games or watching it growing up, so they move on to what they know better.
But again, look at how fast European soccer is growing with foreign players that no one knows. I have seen a ton of people watch hockey on tv for the first time and say that was cool and then go on with their lives and never think about it again. There is a clear disconnect there. The rules argument is bogus, it’s not that hard and the announcers explain everything to you. Going to games as a kid doesn’t mean ****, again just look at soccer.
 
Because some people at least still pretended that college football wasn’t about money like the NFL.
I guess my issue is the use of the word “sucker” to describe someone who watches people play who get paid to play football.
Let’s say the SEC added tOSU and Michigan along with whoever else it wanted and created a super league in college football and invited CU to join - I think there’s a real argument about whether a program like CU could really be successful in that scenario. If there was real parity and we could compete, awesome sign me up. But if not, would CU be better off as a punching bag in that league or accepting that the landscape of college football has moved away from CU and we’re better off being competitive in a lesser league?
CU’s been a punching bag for almost two decades with no actual means to compete with the top teams in the Pac 12, let alone the SEC/BIG, so I don’t think much would be different.

However, in your scenario, they would be 1/24 or 32 teams in a league where all the top recruits would want to play, and they would have a lot more money and resources at their disposal than they do now. In theory, CU’s recruiting should pick up substantially to at least be somewhat in line with the league peers (average - still not close to Bama, etc). This is also all under the assumption that this new league that only competed among itself wouldn’t have NFL-style rules in place that helps with competitive balance. Regardless, does that really make someone a sucker for wanting to watch that? Are Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, and Illinois all suckers for being the punching bags for the SEC/BIG elite right now?
 
But again, look at how fast European soccer is growing with foreign players that no one knows. I have seen a ton of people watch hockey on tv for the first time and say that was cool and then go on with their lives and never think about it again. There is a clear disconnect there. The rules argument is bogus, it’s not that hard and the announcers explain everything to you. Going to games as a kid doesn’t mean ****, again just look at soccer.
The issue with hockey, as you mentioned, is marketing. They do a horrible job of marketing their stars. Tampa Bay just won back to back Cups and was the Presidents trophy winner a year before that and I couldn’t name a single player on that roster, prior to this years Finals. Like baseball, it’s regional with its rooting interests because there’s also very few nationally televised games.
 
But again, look at how fast European soccer is growing with foreign players that no one knows. I have seen a ton of people watch hockey on tv for the first time and say that was cool and then go on with their lives and never think about it again. There is a clear disconnect there. The rules argument is bogus, it’s not that hard and the announcers explain everything to you. Going to games as a kid doesn’t mean ****, again just look at soccer.
American kids all over the country play soccer, and their parents played soccer as kids. The same isn’t true about hockey.

The cost of entry is super low in soccer - poor kids all over the world can play it. The same isn’t true for hockey.

Everyone I know has been to a soccer game - either as a player when they were kids, or as an adult watching their kids play. I can count on one had the number of people who have attended a hockey game in their lives - that connection matters.

Top European soccer hasn’t been as accessible on TV in America until recently. The same isn’t true about hockey it’s been on TV for years and huge swaths of Americans don’t care.

Professional soccer, particularly in Europe, is a glamour sport, hockey is not. European soccer is filled with handsome, tan, millionaires dating super models and vacationing on mega yachts. Hockey players are disproportionately pasty, white Eastern Europeans who speak little english and have dental problems. Which is more appealing in today’s social media landscape to attract youth to the sport?


1627247633438.png
Or this…
1627248009733.gif
Ronaldo has over 300M IG followers, the NHL MVP (McDavid) has less than a million. One of the best players in the NHL for the past decade, Sydney Crosby, doesn’t even have an IG account. That has an impact. (And yes I realize that gif is Crosby, not McDavid).
 
With the CTE issue with football in general, it's understandable to see football's future in a negative light. With the new NIL laws that not only benefit college athletes but even high school athletes, there is a chance that football survives for a little longer. With more money, NASCAR drivers are also having shorter careers compared to the past so those future football players will have shorter careers if the price is right. And ever since that expensive Messi contract was leaked, perhaps a few more people will be more interested in soccer as a potential career.

Yes consumer behavior is changing and I have noticed that myself. It's no accident that I'm poking around on the association football thread because I know that soccer games can last about two hours and my interest in sports that is limited by a running clock is going up. I already gave baseball the heave-ho myself (Rockies aren't helping those matters either) and hockey looks like it could be the next up. I am becoming more conscious of my time after passing the All-Buffs traditional age of 35.

ESPN+ is just $7 per month as opposed to $70 for Youtube TV. Big difference there and I imagine there is a sizable number of people who think the same way. I watched the big matchups in FCS last spring and really enjoyed it so I am going to apply it to FBS football this coming fall and any other sport. I have no plans to subscribe to traditional cable plans including YouTube TV this coming year.
I really jumped on the college baseball train this year. It’s awesome…and I haven’t watched pro baseball (other than the Cubs in 16) since about 1994.
 
Why does watching the highest quality college football make someone a sucker?
With the NIL, the over/under for a car dealership in College Station getting involved vs. a local restaurant chain in Baton Rouge for the commitment of a 5 Star wunderkind to TAMU vs. LSU is about one season. And with legalized sports betting, the over/under for an attempted game rigging scandal is probably 3 seasons. These likelihoods write themselves and my interest in the entire P5 shebang will wane strongly if not disappear completely. Too much non-football low lifer-ery will seep into the everyday heart of the sport and the fans will become unwitting accomplices, i.e. suckers.

On the other hand I can take the scenic drive to Laramie up thru Hwy 287 and look for the next Josh Allen or Chase Roullier and hear the faithful sing “Cotton Eyed Joe” during the 3rd Quarter…
(Not to mention snag a couple of burritos from the Taco John’s.)
 
CR7, Leo Messi and Neymar are extreme examples. I'd use the team's followers between Twitter, IG and Facebook to make my point.
 
Yak, my point is that if NIL can’t work as the optimists intend it to, it will become the death knell of college football. And not to be a cynic, but I’m pretty certain that without some strenuous regulations, the NIL is built almost certainly to be abused, especially in recruiting.
 
That Messi contract is a massive outlier and has been more or less public for years.

True but...

1627249143181.png

CTE isn’t going to have any effect on the future of the NFL. Even if/though participation remains flat or goes down, there won’t be a noticeable affect on the talent pipeline going to CFB and therefore the NFL.

It didn't scare me back in 1995-1997 when I played high school football. Today with all of that information, I doubt I would have gone out for football if I had to do that all again. The pool of players will be smaller for sure but still big enough to carry the sport forward even if it becomes more regionalized.

My family had season tickets to the SJ Sharks for 20 years from their first season in the NHL. I probably went to a dozen games a season and it was fun. Today I haven’t watched an NHL game on TV in years but watched a ton of European soccer this year. Anecdotal but hockey seems like way too much of a niche sport to be considered Big 4 for very long.

Same here. Going to give hockey one more try this season.

I really jumped on the college baseball train this year. It’s awesome…and I haven’t watched pro baseball (other than the Cubs in 16) since about 1994.

I didn't fully pay attention to NCAA baseball this spring but how much shorter are they than MLB games? I'm looking at ESPN+ and the recent CWS games on demand are 3 hours each. UNC baseball moved from the WAC to the Summit...I might check out that baseball team next year.
 
CR7, Leo Messi and Neymar are extreme examples. I'd use the team's followers between Twitter, IG and Facebook to make my point.
I’d argue that having recognizable, marketable stars is hugely important in marketing a sport. Star power is a huge driver in a sport’s popularity, see what Tiger did for golf in his heyday.

But ok, for comparison the defending Champions League winner, Chelsea, has over 17M Twitter followers, while the 2 time defending Stanley Cup Champion TB Lightning has just under 750k.
 
The issue with hockey, as you mentioned, is marketing. They do a horrible job of marketing their stars. Tampa Bay just won back to back Cups and was the Presidents trophy winner a year before that and I couldn’t name a single player on that roster, prior to this years Finals. Like baseball, it’s regional with its rooting interests because there’s also very few nationally televised games.

Nikita Kucherov.
 
I’d argue that having recognizable, marketable stars is hugely important in marketing a sport. Star power is a huge driver in a sport’s popularity, see what Tiger did for golf in his heyday.

But ok, for comparison the defending Champions League winner, Chelsea, has over 17M Twitter followers, while the 2 time defending Stanley Cup Champion TB Lightning has just under 750k.

In the States maybe. People care about their clubs more than individual players here.

Chelsea aren't even the biggest club in London, FWIW.
 
In the States maybe. People care about their clubs more than individual players here.

Chelsea aren't even the biggest club in London, FWIW.
I’m talking about the States. European soccer clubs are 100 years old and have a century of history and attachment to a region/city/neighborhood because they don’t relocate the way American pro sports franchises do. One third of the teams in the NHL were founded since 1991. The NHL has very few marketable franchises, and even fewer marketable stars.
 
I’m talking about the States. European soccer clubs are 100 years old and have a century of history and attachment to a region/city/neighborhood because they don’t relocate the way American pro sports franchises do. One third of the teams in the NHL were founded since 1991. The NHL has very few marketable franchises, and even fewer marketable stars.

That's fair.
 
Back
Top