What's new
By:
  • 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!

Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

JPinCO said:
My gawd the delusions over at Ramnation, tho. To them it's totally obvious that FTC is a way better football destination than Austin.
Click to expand...
It is pretty funny, they think they're on the cusp of greatness like Utah before going to the Sugar Bowl and beating Bama.
 
Buffnik said:
There's a part of me that really likes the paired in-state rivalries in the Pac-12. UO-OSU, UW-WSU, USC-UCLA, Cal-Furd, UA-ASU. So pairing CU with CSU or AFA while pairing Utah with BYU or USU has a certain appeal.

More over, I wish that none of the states divided affiliations with power conference teams in different conferences. Iowa and ISU should be together. UGA-GA Tech, Clemson-SCar, Penn State-Pitt, UT-TTU-TCU-aTm-BU, UF-FSU-Miami, Kentucky-Louisville. Regionality and local rivalries are a big part of what make college football different and special.

But unless the television networks take over the alignments, this isn't how the modern landscape works. When the conferences are competing with each other for media markets instead of it being a national league with a focus on maximizing fan interest within each market, it changes the dynamics considerably. Texas Tech is more valuable to the Pac-12 than it is to the Big 12. Virginia Tech would be more valuable to the B1G than to the ACC. A national body would be more concerned with filling stadiums and drawing the biggest possible number from each game on the schedule, not with gaining additional distribution for a conference.

So, in the world that is, CSU makes no sense for the Pac-12. It would cost other members millions while diluting an already mediocre state for recruiting. Even a New Mexico, Boise State, UNLV and SDSU - which bring new states or major western metros and drivable games for conference members that would do well for fan base building - they don't even move the needle since the conference already has PACN distribution in those places. Under the current format, it's pretty much Pac-12 expansion into Texas or standing pat.
Click to expand...
Meh
 
3750814315_17ba3bd18f_m.jpg
 
NW Buff said:
It may not be UCLA or this year but if the Pac12 continues to fall behind the other conferences in terms of revenue there is a real possibility of schools getting poached down the road. Everyone has a price and schools that compete nationally aren't going to be happy falling behind financially.
Click to expand...
I don't think the CA schools (any of them) think in those terms. If there's a move to increase their global (academic) brands, they'll make it. If there's a move to appease their densely concentrated donor base, they'll make it. Going to the B12 doesn't really do much of anything, and actually would go against those two tenets.

And while money talks, any potential bump would be couch change in the grand scheme of things. Sure, college sports are a big business, but the conference pay out specifically is such a tiny fraction of a university like UCLA's financial picture. We view these discussions through a football lens, rightfully so, but Chancellors/Presidents at these schools don't. In the Pac, UCLA has the 4th biggest endowment in its own state with Stanford, USC, CAL above them. In the Big12, they would be at the top with Texas. They're not going to leave their peers to join a collection of mostly irrelevant brands, with less value, further away from their donor base. In this case, the money isn't really talking.
 
newkid said:
I don't think the CA schools (any of them) think in those terms. If there's a move to increase their global (academic) brands, they'll make it. If there's a move to appease their densely concentrated donor base, they'll make it. Going to the B12 doesn't really do much of anything, and actually would go against those two tenets.

And while money talks, any potential bump would be couch change in the grand scheme of things. Sure, college sports are a big business, but the conference pay out specifically is such a tiny fraction of a university like UCLA's financial picture. We view these discussions through a football lens, rightfully so, but Chancellors/Presidents at these schools don't. In the Pac, UCLA has the 4th biggest endowment in its own state with Stanford, USC, CAL above them. In the Big12, they would be at the top with Texas. They're not going to leave their peers to join a collection of mostly irrelevant brands, with less value, further away from their donor base. In this case, the money isn't really talking.
Click to expand...

#1 - research partnership opportunities. Big 12 is bad and likely getting worse after this expansion.
 
JPinCO said:
That, and they'll double their attendance by just being invited to play in the BIG12. So obvious.
Click to expand...
That part probably isn't fantasy; it's likely that attendance would increase a lot, maybe even approach doubling (for some games). It's just that they would be filling the stadium with other teams' fans - not their own.
 
skibum said:
That part probably isn't fantasy; it's likely that attendance would increase a lot, maybe even approach doubling (for some games). It's just that they would be filling the stadium with other teams' fans - not their own.
Click to expand...

That's a short-term bump. KU only drew like 25k for Baylor last year. Losing gets old in a hurry. You find out what your base is in a hurry and then watch that erode a bit every year. CU just went through that and found out its base is 35-40k. CSU is probably 15-20k. What I'm getting at is that being in a P5 instead of a G5 isn't some cure-all. Some G5 programs draw a lot of fans even when it's not a "name" opponent coming in and have a base similar to CU's. It is clear that CSU is not one of those fan bases.
 
Buffnik said:
That's a short-term bump. KU only drew like 25k for Baylor last year. Losing gets old in a hurry. You find out what your base is in a hurry and then watch that erode a bit every year. CU just went through that and found out its base is 35-40k. CSU is probably 15-20k. What I'm getting at is that being in a P5 instead of a G5 isn't some cure-all. Some G5 programs draw a lot of fans even when it's not a "name" opponent coming in and have a base similar to CU's. It is clear that CSU is not one of those fan bases.
Click to expand...
When we turn this around people will pack Folsom.
 
DBT said:
When we turn this around people will pack Folsom.
Click to expand...

For sure. Everyone loves a winner and there are a lot of casual CU fans who simply weren't going to spend the money or deal with the hassle of having a Saturday revolve around watching them get whipped.
 
Buffnik said:
For sure. Everyone loves a winner and there are a lot of casual CU fans who simply weren't going to spend the money or deal with the hassle of having a Saturday revolve around watching them get whipped.
Click to expand...
Now that I have the Pac 12 Network, I'll be able to scalp my tix for double or triple face value and watch on TV! Better yet, we'll be so hot, our games will be on the major networks!
 
Buffnik said:
That's a short-term bump. KU only drew like 25k for Baylor last year. Losing gets old in a hurry. You find out what your base is in a hurry and then watch that erode a bit every year. CU just went through that and found out its base is 35-40k. CSU is probably 15-20k. What I'm getting at is that being in a P5 instead of a G5 isn't some cure-all. Some G5 programs draw a lot of fans even when it's not a "name" opponent coming in and have a base similar to CU's. It is clear that CSU is not one of those fan bases.
Click to expand...
What I'm getting at isn't the number of CSU fans that will be in the stadium, it's the number of opposing team fans. I think the number of CSU fans in the seats will increase, but I agree with you, that increase will be temporary rather than permanent in nature.

OTOH, I think the number of opposing team fans in the seats will also increase, but that number will be more permanent. So, assuming that CSU's on-field performance sucked, you'd be looking at something like this:

[TABLE=nohead]
|CSU Fans|Opposition Fans|Total butts in seats
MWC|16,000|1,500|17,500
B12 Year 1|21,000|6,000|27,000
B12 Year 5|17,000|6,000|23,000
[/TABLE]

So, a 55% increase in year 1, but a long term increase of 32%.

Because of a having such a low base, an influx of an additional 4,500 opposition team fans would really move the needle for them - whereas we probably went the other way (removed an average of 4,500 opposition team fans) with the move the Pac12, but given the higher base with which we work, it's not nearly as meaningful.

If their on-field performance were good, I think the absolute numbers would change (say, add 10-15 thousand to the right hand column), but the proportions wouldn't: the increase in home team fans would be matched by a proportional increase in opposing team fans - so in Big 12 year 5, you'd have 27k CSU fans in the stadium, and 11k OU fans.
 
Good post @skibum . I agree.

Getting back to CU, one thing that I said from the beginning would cause short-term pain but be very good for changing the culture and business model of CU was the attendance change in the Pac-12. No longer could 5k or more opposing fans be counted on for conference games, with some like Nebraska and KSU being close enough to take that much further.

This has forced CU to focus on selling CU. Improving fan experience with stadium enhancements, beer gardens, Buff Walk tailgating, etc. It is no longer about selling the opponent to draw fans, it's about selling CU. That was a very healthy change.
 
I really cannot imagine any of the original Pac 8 teams ever leaving. I also doubt the AZ schools leave either. Our P12 brethren are pretty proud of their heritage, and with good reason. Moving to the B12 would probably offend their fan bases in such a way that there would be the proverbial pitchfork and mob scene outside the AD's office when the residents of Palo Alto, Westwood, Seattle, Eugene, LA Berkeley et al. understood they would be going to Ames, IA and the little apple every other year....

B12 expansion is not going to take a P12 team away from the P12.

The B12 ought to grab UH, Memphis, Cincy and if they can reclaim Mizzou or NU, they should stand pat at 14. I don't think the Nubs are going to leave the Big Integer, so nabbing Mizzou would make the most sense. BYU is too much trouble with their no Sunday rule for sports, CSU doesn't have the pull, I think they look CST or EST for their new victims.
 
Wilner also said the UC system would never split up their schools between two conferences so that idea is flat out dumb whoever started it.
 
Arizona (especially Phoenix) thinks they are part of SoCal. I do not see any reason they would consider leaving. Ditto for UCLA. Money is not greater and there is not the disruption in the PAC12 that there was in the Big 12 when several teams left.
 
Stephens seems to be swamped at work if he can just drive out to the airport on a hunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top