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!

Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025

The Alabaster Yak said:
I"m saying a PPV per game won't work. The SEC can consolidate with all these blue bloods and then ESPN can make the entire conference schedule a subscription, but again, that will just remove eyeballs and make their revenue model subscription based, and not centered around advertising revenue (which won't happen).
Click to expand...

It seems like you haven't subscribed to ESPN+ at this point. They sell UFC PPVs on ESPN+.

Also, the monthly price of ESPN+ is going up to $6.99 per month in a couple of weeks. It's only a matter of time before it surpasses what cable is paying them (about $9 per month). I'd say that happens before 2025.

tvrev.com

ESPN's Business Doesn't Work as a TV App Only... Yet — TVREV

ESPN's going to shift to a TV app format (ESPN+ or otherwise) at SOME point... that point just won't come until other business concerns work themselves out.
tvrev.com tvrev.com

Like @MiamiBuffs said, ESPN+ is the place for most of the soccer out there. The MWC seems to be the only G5 conference that does not have a contract with ESPN and ESPN+. ESPN+ has 22 D1 conferences and only the MWC, ACC, B1G, and P12 aren't covered by that ESPN+ umbrella. I'm now seeing what is "SEC+" in some of the SEC football games this fall and I am wondering if that means I can watch SEC sports behind the ESPN+ paywall.

You might want to be ready for a day like this because it is something that the Pac-12 could do after this current media rights deal expires. That is why I'm hoping the P12 nukes their current media rights deal as soon as possible.
 
Not Sure said:
As much as I freaking hate this - I think Notre Dame just might be the lynchpin to all of this maneuvering. They’re going to have to eventually pick a side. Based on their history, I just don’t see them choosing to associate themselves with the SEC.

The way this is starting to look right now is that the SEC will take on the top end of the ACC (Clemson, FSU, Miami), the B1G will make a move for ND. UNC and UVA and Duke become embroiled in a weird tug of war. Those three schools are far more culturally aligned with the B1G than they are with the SEC. but money talks, and bull**** walks.

meanwhile, way out West, we sit here with our hat in our hands hoping the chips fall in such a way that we aren’t totally ****ed.
Click to expand...
So, the pac 12 is the only conference sitting with their hat in hand? Where is this confirmation that the ACC and Big 10 are making all these moves? Did I miss something?
 
patebuff said:
So, the pac 12 is the only conference sitting with their hat in hand? Where is this confirmation that the ACC and Big 10 are making all these moves? Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
Confirmation?!? You come here looking for confirmation of anything? Keep looking.
 
Not Sure said:
Confirmation?!? You come here looking for confirmation of anything? Keep looking.
Click to expand...
patebuff said:
I’m not sure
Click to expand...

Spider-Man Reaction GIF
 
Unless there are discussions with the Big Ten, the PAC 12’s best play is standing pat at this time. At least that’s my conclusion after weighing all of the potential expansion targets from the Big 12 leftovers and G5. Adding 4 teams from that group appears to be dilutive.
 
Creebuzz said:
Unless there are discussions with the Big Ten, the PAC 12’s best play is standing pat at this time. At least that’s my conclusion after weighing all of the potential expansion targets from the Big 12 leftovers and G5. Adding 4 teams from that group appears to be dilutive.
Click to expand...
On balance. I agree. However, If I look at it just right, I can see how adding KU, UH, OSU and Tech might add some value to the league. It would make a nice scheduling pod, would increase our footprint, and bring some hoops cache to the league.
 
Not Sure said:
On balance. I agree. However, If I look at it just right, I can see how adding KU, UH, OSU and Tech might add some value to the league. It would make a nice scheduling pod, would increase our footprint, and bring some hoops cache to the league.
Click to expand...

It would add value to the P12. Kansas City, Oklahoma City, DFW, and Houston. Honestly getting into DFW should be the focus here.

I love the P12 when to comes to basketball and adding those schools would be still pretty good.
 
I was checking out **** bailer's performance the last several years.

They've had a losing conference record 4 of the past 5 years, but still managed to get to bowl games all but one of those years by scheduling total patsies for the 4 non-conference games.

They also only have 1 top 25 recruiting class in the last 5 years, with the remainder hovering between 35-50 (247sports).

The bloom is definitely off the rose for them compared to where they were at up through 2015.
 
leftybuff said:
Really, there is only one thing to say to Bowlsby:

Kneel, surrender TT, Okie Lite, TCU to us, procure UH for our conference, pledge unending fealty and we will let you keep bailer.
Click to expand...
I get that they are a lower tier than UT and aTm, and those programs dominate the eyeballs in the state, but I would think adding three programs in Texas, two of which are top 10 media markets, would add enough value to make sense for the Pac 12.

Adding TCU and Houston would give the Pac 12 the #2 (LA), #5 (DFW), #6 (SF), #8 (Houston), #11 (Phoenix), #13 (Seattle), and #17 (Denver) media markets in the country. How can that not be monetized in a way that gets the Pac 12 on a similar level as the B1G?
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I get that they are a lower tier than UT and aTm, and those programs dominate the eyeballs in the state, but I would think adding three programs in Texas, two of which are top 10 media markets, would add enough value to make sense for the Pac 12.

Adding TCU and Houston would give the Pac 12 the #2 (LA), #5 (DFW), #6 (SF), #8 (Houston), #11 (Phoenix), #13 (Seattle), and #17 (Denver) media markets in the country. How can that not be monetized in a way that gets the Pac 12 on a similar level as the B1G?
Click to expand...
I'm a huge proponent of getting UH into the Pac, for obvious selfish reasons, but to suggest that adding them means we "have" the Houston media market is disingenuous. UH doesn't move the needle in Houston, at all. The Houston media market is dominated by UT, A&M and LSU. I think UH has done a tremendous job over the past 5 years or so, of trying to make themselves attractive during the next realignment. They have upgraded academics and athletics and positioned themselves well. We'll see if it pays off for them.
 
Yeah, adding UH gets us into the Houston market in much the same way that somebody adding CSU would get them the Denver market. That said, you never know if an association with a P5 conference might change some perspectives.
There’s a lot of moving parts in this brave new world of college athletics. I just hope we have a seat once the music stops.
 
SpacemanSpiff said:
I'm a huge proponent of getting UH into the Pac, for obvious selfish reasons, but to suggest that adding them means we "have" the Houston media market is disingenuous. UH doesn't move the needle in Houston, at all. The Houston media market is dominated by UT, A&M and LSU. I think UH has done a tremendous job over the past 5 years or so, of trying to make themselves attractive during the next realignment. They have upgraded academics and athletics and positioned themselves well. We'll see if it pays off for them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just as I'm sure UT dominates DFW. I'm just saying, having a presence in those two markets has to be worth something.
 
SpacemanSpiff said:
I'm a huge proponent of getting UH into the Pac, for obvious selfish reasons, but to suggest that adding them means we "have" the Houston media market is disingenuous. UH doesn't move the needle in Houston, at all. The Houston media market is dominated by UT, A&M and LSU. I think UH has done a tremendous job over the past 5 years or so, of trying to make themselves attractive during the next realignment. They have upgraded academics and athletics and positioned themselves well. We'll see if it pays off for them.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anyone here who thinks UH will over take Texas or Texas A&M in the Houston market if the Cougars joined the P12. Ditto for TCU in DFW but it's more of having a presence in those markets for not only recruits but also corporate support in addition to media rights.
 
I know this is a long term play for both OU and UT, but I suspect there are a LOT of pissed off folks in both Oklahoma and Texas right now and their anger is directed squarely at those two programs. I wonder what, if any, short term impacts this move will have for them. I’m thinking legislative support, enrollment, public image, etc.
 
Not Sure said:
I know this is a long term play for both OU and UT, but I suspect there are a LOT of pissed off folks in both Oklahoma and Texas right now and their anger is directed squarely at those two programs. I wonder what, if any, short term impacts this move will have for them. I’m thinking legislative support, enrollment, public image, etc.
Click to expand...

In OK? I don't think so especially when support is 90-10 within the state for OU. CSU has better support within CO than OSU within OK and it's not close.
 
Jalapeno said:
In OK? I don't think so especially when support is 90-10 within the state for OU. CSU has better support within CO than OSU within OK and it's not close.
Click to expand...
I’m also leaving open the potential for current supporters of those schools to be questioning the move. Probably not a huge number, but not nothing, either.
 
SpacemanSpiff said:
I'm a huge proponent of getting UH into the Pac, for obvious selfish reasons, but to suggest that adding them means we "have" the Houston media market is disingenuous. UH doesn't move the needle in Houston, at all. The Houston media market is dominated by UT, A&M and LSU. I think UH has done a tremendous job over the past 5 years or so, of trying to make themselves attractive during the next realignment. They have upgraded academics and athletics and positioned themselves well. We'll see if it pays off for them.
Click to expand...
AND therein lies the problem with these expansion talks. If the TV folks dont get a hard on they will not grant additional rights to those schools. People here seem to be forgetting the its ESPN and not the SEC that's behind this expansion. They want to lock up the Texas TV market and thats what theyre doing.

The Pac12 has NO compelling move with any of the leftovers in the B12 that adds TV revenue value.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Yeah, just as I'm sure UT dominates DFW. I'm just saying, having a presence in those two markets has to be worth something.
Click to expand...
As California slowly falls behind on the football recruit production, you're probably right about Texas. That adding Tx schools is IF and only IF we are able to realistically pick up a significant chunk of recruits.

The challenge in these times is that now that ALL of the SEC programs will be shopping in Texas weekly with high visibility they will be sopping up more recruits than they used to. Were likely fighting for the leftovers with those leftovers. So is it worth it to divide by 16 or 14 (TCU, TT, UH, X) instead of 12? My point is the conference might only get a marginal number of additional recruits relative to what we are paying to be there. Texas philosophically aligns better with the SEC than it does with the more liberal west which might contribute to a recruits decision. I think, as others have noted, it's the NFL potential and coach/recruiters that have the most impact on a commits decision.

Anyway, you can see why all these schools that have geographic proximity want into the SEC.



STATES RANKED BY PERCENTAGE OF FBS SIGNEES​

StateFBS SigneesPlayersRatio
1. Florida38940,6061 in 104
2. Georgia24832,9791 in 133
3. Louisiana13220,0871 in 152
4. Hawaii224,2581 in 194
5. Utah358,6381 in 247
6. Alabama8922,8411 in 257
7. Mississippi8322,3001 in 269
8. Maryland/D.C.5515,6621 in 285
9. Ohio13544,4311 in 329
1o. Tennessee6723,0031 in 343
11. California289103,4741 in 358
12. Texas459164,5541 in 359



(click me)
1628013345675.png
 
Last edited:
The Alabaster Yak said:
Yeah, just as I'm sure UT dominates DFW. I'm just saying, having a presence in those two markets has to be worth something.
Click to expand...
They are worth something, maybe worth a lot, but are they dilutive? In other words, if the 12 existing members are getting $25 million each, and the TV Networks say UH, Tech, KU and OSU add $20 million each, then you’ve just diluted your per head payout. I’m sure the commish is trying to vet out what these additions mean in per school pay outs, plus there is the added benefits of recruiting, academics, cultural fit, etc. that will all get put into the calculation.

I still think adding teams would be dilutive because every school on the target list is either second fiddle in their state (TCU, Houston, Texas Tech well behind UT and A&M, OSU behind OU) or in states that have poor demographics (Kansas). Kicking schools like Oklahoma State into football purgatory would actually help our recruiting in Texas because less competition.

If you want to be totally ruthless about it, part of the calculation has to be how much damage can you inflict on remaining schools to effectively knock them out. For example, is the act of just poaching TCU and Texas Tech enough to relegate the remaining Big 12 members to G5 status and $3 million annual TV payouts? That would crush their competitiveness in recruiting and in hiring coaches. It’s all very Machiavellian.
 
Creebuzz said:
They are worth something, maybe worth a lot, but are they dilutive? In other words, if the 12 existing members are getting $25 million each, and the TV Networks say UH, Tech, KU and OSU add $20 million each, then you’ve just diluted your per head payout. I’m sure the commish is trying to vet out what these additions mean in per school pay outs, plus there is the added benefits of recruiting, academics, cultural fit, etc. that will all get put into the calculation.

I still think adding teams would be dilutive because every school on the target list is either second fiddle in their state (TCU, Houston, Texas Tech well behind UT and A&M, OSU behind OU) or in states that have poor demographics (Kansas). Kicking schools like Oklahoma State into football purgatory would actually help our recruiting in Texas because less competition.

If you want to be totally ruthless about it, part of the calculation has to be how much damage can you inflict on remaining schools to effectively knock them out. For example, is the act of just poaching TCU and Texas Tech enough to relegate the remaining Big 12 members to G5 status and $3 million annual TV payouts? That would crush their competitiveness in recruiting and in hiring coaches. It’s all very Machiavellian.
Click to expand...
We could use a little Coach Machiavelli right now.
 
Creebuzz said:
They are worth something, maybe worth a lot, but are they dilutive? In other words, if the 12 existing members are getting $25 million each, and the TV Networks say UH, Tech, KU and OSU add $20 million each, then you’ve just diluted your per head payout. I’m sure the commish is trying to vet out what these additions mean in per school pay outs, plus there is the added benefits of recruiting, academics, cultural fit, etc. that will all get put into the calculation.

I still think adding teams would be dilutive because every school on the target list is either second fiddle in their state (TCU, Houston, Texas Tech well behind UT and A&M, OSU behind OU) or in states that have poor demographics (Kansas). Kicking schools like Oklahoma State into football purgatory would actually help our recruiting in Texas because less competition.

If you want to be totally ruthless about it, part of the calculation has to be how much damage can you inflict on remaining schools to effectively knock them out. For example, is the act of just poaching TCU and Texas Tech enough to relegate the remaining Big 12 members to G5 status and $3 million annual TV payouts? That would crush their competitiveness in recruiting and in hiring coaches. It’s all very Machiavellian.
Click to expand...
It’s dilutive.


What value would the Big 12's Left-Behind 8 bring to a new conference?

I combed through every Big 12 TV game from 2018 and '19 not involving Texas or Oklahoma.

It's ... humbling.

New subscribers: Sign up for 50% off.

theathletic.com

Mandel: Big 12's TV numbers explain divide between Texas, Oklahoma and the rest — and why remaining 8 should worry

The reality is there’s very little difference between the TV interest in Kansas State and West Virginia and the interest in UCF or Houston.
theathletic.com theathletic.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top