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!

Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

Jalapeno said:
I'll bite here...if we went with pods here and rotated them every two years, I'd be all in. We'd play every Pac-16 school round robin at least once in a six year period.

Instead of two Texas and two Oklahoma schoools, why not include KU and Missouri? Missouri is not tied to a GOR in the SEC. I'd prefer to get Nebraska instead of Missouri but Nebraska is probably locked up with a new GOR that goes into the 2030s. Or if we got New Mexico, CU could be in the UT, OU, and KU pod. Those assholes in Austin & Norman will make sure we don't go against the Utah-AZ-NM pod that often.

If we got Mizzou, Okie State can take their spot in the SEC.
Click to expand...

Here is an example schedule for the pod system

Mountain: CU, UU, ASU, UofA
Midwest: OU, OkSU, UT, TTU
Northwest: UO, OSU, UW, WSU
California: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal

CU vs ASU
CU at UCLA
CU at UW
CU vs WSU
CU at OU
CU vs USC
CU at UofA
CU vs OkSU
CU vs UU

In year 2, you flip the home and away. In year 3 you switch out opponents to the other pair of teams in the other pods. In year 4 you flip home and away. Year 5 is back to year 1.
 
That's why I said we would play each Pac-16 school in six years at least two times.

That idea of having CU in a pod with KU, OU, and UT needs to be seriously considered.
 
Jalapeno said:
That's why I said we would play each Pac-16 school in six years at least two times.

That idea of having CU in a pod with KU, OU, and UT needs to be seriously considered.
Click to expand...
That makes KU our travel partner and "rival"

Do not like.

Although, Lawrence being the worst travel destination in the entire conference is pretty awesome.
 
Liver said:
run the one network, but stream all the rest with an authenticated provider account. i watched a few Buff games this way last season and it worked fine. plug the computer into the big screen and off you go. wasn't pure hd-stream the whole way, but mostly it was.

do a deal, get distribution.
Click to expand...

That model doesnt solve the bottom line problem; you need millions of homes that dont ever watch these channels to pay for them.

Being in DTV helps get us there. For the time being. As things like Sling and Vue steal accounts from Dish and DTV they will eventually be forced to lower prices and cut the bloat. The problem is which bloat gets cut? Vue recently parted ways with Viacom and its worthless content. These models still include that idea the Fox Family and ESPN family of channels hold clout. So, its hard for me to see how they dont end up selling half the network channel to ESPN. At which point the regional channels die and the programming gets cut in half (currently 850 events P12N v 470 SEC TV)
 
I have not read every post in this thread, but have thought about this pod concept over and over. The three schools I feel passionate about are Houston, Oklahoma State, and Kansas. The fourth school is up for discussion. The three I mentioned are based a couple of factors: TV market, booster support, style of play, basketball, lack of over dominating program (except KU basketball). I wish UNLV was a power as that is the only missing market in the current footprint. Same goes with New Mexico!
 
Mike Slive:
"The next step would be very, very large conferences, and there is a lot to think about here not only a difference in procedure but substance. Time frame in the 20s somewhere."

"CFP has gone extremely well. An enormous success. We have protected the regular season. So critical. We avoided going beyond 4. As long as current people are in place, won't see it go beyond 4."
Click to expand...
link

h/t to HOO86 at TSL for the find
 
An expansion that happened six years ago is not the reason that the SEC and BIG are outpacing everyone else in revenue. Missouri, Nebraska, A&M and Rutgers didn't make that much of a dent. The reason is that interest in football is growing within their original footprints and they are building the SEC and BIG into national brands.

The best thing that can happen to the PAC12 (and I hate to admit this) is the reemergence of USC as the dominant national power. PAC12 revenues will surpass the other conferences when you fully engage Los Angeles and Southern California.
 
8Jah said:
An expansion that happened six years ago is not the reason that the SEC and BIG are outpacing everyone else in revenue. Missouri, Nebraska, A&M and Rutgers didn't make that much of a dent. The reason is that interest in football is growing within their original footprints and they are building the SEC and BIG into national brands.

The best thing that can happen to the PAC12 (and I hate to admit this) is the reemergence of USC as the dominant national power. PAC12 revenues will surpass the other conferences when you fully engage Los Angeles and Southern California.
Click to expand...

Yep. Let's start with the national brand in the NCAA tournament by getting a team into the Final Four. Been too long since the Pac-12 has done that. Lot of conference prestige if we can put at least 1 in. Potential's there to have 3 this season, too. (And that would be a fortune in conference revenue, too, beyond the bump it would give to PACN value outside of football season.)
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
That makes KU our travel partner and "rival"

Do not like.

Although, Lawrence being the worst travel destination in the entire conference is pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

Considering it is now illegal for public Cali schools to pay for State employees to travel to Kansas, I'm assuming KU to the P12 is now a non-starter unless something changes with that law.
 
Not sure I agree engaging LA and southern California helps much to make the Pac-12 a desirable national brand.

The SEC has absolutely been helped by the addition of A&M, along with the simultaneous shrinking of Big 12 influence. The SEC having a foothold in Texas has absolutely helped to create that national brand. But more than anything, they won the biggest games on the biggest stages at the right time.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. Let's start with the national brand in the NCAA tournament by getting a team into the Final Four. Been too long since the Pac-12 has done that. Lot of conference prestige if we can put at least 1 in. Potential's there to have 3 this season, too. (And that would be a fortune in conference revenue, too, beyond the bump it would give to PACN value outside of football season.)
Click to expand...
I don't think this would move the needle in a meaningful way at all. I love me some March Madness, but couldn't tell you off the top of my head who was in the Final Four last year, other than Villanova and UNC. Maybe that just makes me a idot basketball fan (freely admit to that), but in the grand scheme of things, the Pac 12 isn't going to see any bump in brand value due to having a Final Four rep, IMO.
 
It will be interesting to see how the SEC does over the long term when/if Texas improves. I think it was a little bit of a perfect storm with the SEC adding A&M and Texas being so bad but that could change with time.
 
TSchekler said:
I don't think this would move the needle in a meaningful way at all. I love me some March Madness, but couldn't tell you off the top of my head who was in the Final Four last year, other than Villanova and UNC. Maybe that just makes me a idot basketball fan (freely admit to that), but in the grand scheme of things, the Pac 12 isn't going to see any bump in brand value due to having a Final Four rep, IMO.
Click to expand...
If UCLA makes the final four that will be huge for the brand itself since they are one of the most prestigious basketball programs in the country and L.A. is such a huge basketball city.
 
onealcd said:
If UCLA makes the final four that will be huge for the brand itself since they are one of the most prestigious basketball programs in the country and L.A. is such a huge basketball city.
Click to expand...
I still don't see how that moves the needle much for the conference. What the Pac 12 needs is a presence in Texas, more marquee football games in better time slots, and at least one dominant program being a legit CFP contender each year.
 
TSchekler said:
I still don't see how that moves the needle much for the conference. What the Pac 12 needs is a presence in Texas, more marquee football games in better time slots, and at least one dominant program being a legit CFP contender each year.
Click to expand...

UCLA vs Arizona in basketball can start meaning as much to a fan in New York City as Duke vs North Carolina. That's a big deal for the conference.

Basketball isn't as big as football, so it's not as big of a deal as USC being elite on the gridiron. But UCLA is our marquee brand in hoops and hoops is a pretty big sport for a conference network.

Also, nothing regarding success of current teams would be as big as grabbing the marquee brand from a state the size of Texas. No one would argue with you on that point.
 
The reason why the SEC and the BIG are doing so well is the success of Alabama and Ohio State in football. Basketball and other sports help, but it is dominance and National Championships in football that moves the needle. What is making a difference for the SEC and the BIG is that more people in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are watching.

You guys are making one of the classic blunders (the most famous of which is to fight a land war in Asia). You are assuming that you can grow through expansion when you are having trouble (relatively speaking) selling your product with your current customers.
 
8Jah said:
The reason why the SEC and the BIG are doing so well is the success of Alabama and Ohio State in football. Basketball and other sports help, but it is dominance and National Championships in football that moves the needle. What is making a difference for the SEC and the BIG is that more people in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are watching.

You guys are making one of the classic blunders (the most famous of which is to fight a land war in Asia). You are assuming that you can grow through expansion when you are having trouble (relatively speaking) selling your product with your current customers.
Click to expand...

What customers? The Pac has little availability or exposure.
 
14er said:
Apathetic fan bases in dem dar western states.
Click to expand...

One very good reason to add Boise State to the conference. I'd add them immediately if I could.

P.S. And if we had to add another to get to 14, UNLV or New Mexico. UNLV's got more population, but it's more drain on CA recruiting. UNM's in a smaller state, but it's not currently a Pac-12 market and puts us on the doorstep of Texas.
 
14er said:
I have always heard that academically they would not fit. Should that still matter?
Click to expand...

It would matter. The presidents and chancellors control expansion.

Ideally they want a member to be an AAU member (gold standard for research intensity). And that's the rub. I did this once before, but it bears repeating. Here are the AAU members that play FBS football within the western footprint (let's call it "west of the Mississippi"):

AAU (not in a P5 conference): Rice... unless we stretch it a bit and include Tulane which is technically on the east bank. That's it.
AAU (in a P5 other than the Pac-12): Iowa State, Texas A&M, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas

Those are the ones that the Pac-12 presidents would rubberstamp with no argument other than some being real outliers on geography and hard to sell as a "western" university. Then you've got a couple like UC Davis (outside Sacramento) and UC San Diego they would approve but they're a country mile away from being legitimate from an athletics standpoint.

So then we go to the compromises that aren't AAU members but are at least in the Carnegie Classification as R1 (among 115 institutions with the highest doctoral research activity). Every single Pac-12 institution is R1 and it would be hard to get the presidents/chancellors to compromise on that. All AAU members are also R1. However, within that the academic side wants the schools to not be Agricultural focused because that would deviate from current research cultures, limit partnerships, and isn't worth as much money on grant cooperation.

From the non-AAU options...

R1 (most likely get approved): CSU (Ag focus), KSU (Ag focus), LSU, Texas Tech, Hawaii, Houston, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (geographic outsider that has Pac-12 rivalries)

R2 (names we hear mentioned): Baylor, BYU, Oklahoma State, San Diego State, SMU, TCU, UNLV, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah State

R3 (names we hear mentioned): Air Force, Boise State, Fresno State

So we see how the conference is really boxed in when we have the academic component. If an R3 is a non-starter, we can forget about Boise State (the most valuable program in the Mountain West Conference). If R2 isn't even on the table, we lose a lot of the other good options.

In terms of money, athletic prestige, recruiting grounds, geographic continuity, and an academic record that wouldn't make our Pac-12 chancellors go apoplectic, the only real path forward is UT with some combination of KU, OU, TTU, Hawaii, UNM and UH to get to either 14 or 16. It's a tough spot if the Big 12 sticks together and the Pac-12 presidents won't compromise.
 
Last edited:
So what do we do?

First thing is to be aggressive going after the Big 12. It either happens or it doesn't. If you can break that conference, you've got 2 options.

1. Stand pat and hope that the SEC and B1G break it apart to leave the Pac-12 with some options out of the scraps.
2. Make a move with programs in the west like Boise State, SDSU, UNM and UNLV as "football-only" members (I just can't see BYU due to the politics) while giving them a reduced revenue share and making them agree to a 10-year plan for raising their research activity and other academic ranks, improving facilities, etc. as a path to full membership.
 
Hence why we haven't seen expansion. Only clear academic/athletics fit it the last option most would want. The long-Whorns. KU and Mizzou could be real options as Mizzou can't be happy with their irrelevance in the SEC (except the $). KU would be an easy pickup if UT bolts B12. Houston might be best remaining option and would make 4 teams in their own pod and bring the biggest TV markets yet untapped.
 
BuffHerd said:
Hence why we haven't seen expansion. Only clear academic/athletics fit it the last option most would want. The long-Whorns. KU and Mizzou could be real options as Mizzou can't be happy with their irrelevance in the SEC (except the $). KU would be an easy pickup if UT bolts B12. Houston might be best remaining option and would make 4 teams in their own pod and bring the biggest TV markets yet untapped.
Click to expand...

I dismissed the idea of being able to target Missouri or Texas A&M. The SEC revenue dwarfs the Pac-12 revenue. It would be such a sh!tty deal for them that they couldn't realistically consider it. Same with B1G programs like Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. Pac-12 doesn't pay enough to make a reasonable offer. I'm not sure that we are even in a position to poach from the Big 12 if we're the first mover or sole mover unless, maybe, we did something crazy like buy LHN and allow UT to continue getting a better deal than everyone else in the conference.

I guess one proactive option would be Houston + New Mexico (both R1s) and hope that's enough to expand carriage into Texas.
 
Buffnik said:
I dismissed the idea of being able to target Missouri or Texas A&M. The SEC revenue dwarfs the Pac-12 revenue. It would be such a sh!tty deal for them that they couldn't realistically consider it. Same with B1G programs like Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. Pac-12 doesn't pay enough to make a reasonable offer. I'm not sure that we are even in a position to poach from the Big 12 if we're the first mover or sole mover unless, maybe, we did something crazy like buy LHN and allow UT to continue getting a better deal than everyone else in the conference.

I guess one proactive option would be Houston + New Mexico (both R1s) and hope that's enough to expand carriage into Texas.
Click to expand...
BN - you keep bringing up New Mexico, Boise State, San Diego St, UNLV, etc. I just don't see it. No one else is going to snap up those teams, and we own the footprint without them. The only expansion that makes sense is raiding the Big 12 and possibly Houston - which brings an x factor no other non-P5 team has to offer, IMO.
 
Highlander said:
BN - you keep bringing up New Mexico, Boise State, San Diego St, UNLV, etc. I just don't see it. No one else is going to snap up those teams, and we own the footprint without them. The only expansion that makes sense is raiding the Big 12 and possibly Houston - which brings an x factor no other non-P5 team has to offer, IMO.
Click to expand...

We really don't own Idaho and New Mexico, though. I'm not sure that the PACN is even on all the cable systems in Boise and Albuquerque.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top