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!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
Yea Colorado has done everything they can to get relegated the last 20 years. I was quitting on the football program for that reason. I don't know why anyone thinks we are worth **** on the larger scheme of things. Coulda been different, but we ****ed around and are now finding out.
Unless the B1G and the SEC get ruthless and decide to cut out and replace the Iowa states and Vanderbilts, we are probably not even on the tier 2 invite list
Unless the B1G and the SEC get ruthless and decide to cut out and replace the Iowa states and Vanderbilts, we are probably not even on the tier 2 invite list
USC is a true blueblood in college football and was the premier draw in the Pac12 despite their lack of high-level success over the past 15 years. They were a no-brainer for the B1G. UCLA only got dragged along because of their location, and maybe a tiny bit because of their renowned basketball history.
CU remains a longshot for the SEC. The advantages we have are the Denver market and we would also meet the criteria of continguous states, if that really even is an important factor. Football tradition and future potential, especially now, would be a plus. All of the SEC's additions have made sense in the key areas - footprint, great fan support, success across most sports. The one exception is Missouri, that one still seems odd.
Expansion won't come from the conferences at this point. The numbers barely worked for the B1G to add USC & UCLA. Their addition had to increase revenue for the 14 current members. The next additions would have to increase revenue for the 16 current.
Whether the B1G or SEC, the only addition which might increase revenues at this point is Notre Dame.
Whether the B1G or SEC, the only addition which might increase revenues at this point is Notre Dame.
I don't know that you necessarily have to increase revenue for the 16 current members.
I 100% believe that you can't decrease net revenue for the current members, and that "net" might actually be important, because theoretically some additions could actually decrease some costs for other members.
Basically, if adding another member was revenue neutral for the current members, and the addition brought value in other areas (prestige, easier travel, improved alumni relations, etc) it might make sense to add another member.
But... all that does is establish the value that your school needs to add to the conference. Would the media rights to this hypothetical schedule be worth $80MM?
CU - Michigan State
UCLA - CU
Purdue - CU
CU - Northwestern
Iowa - CU
CU - Illinois
Maryland - CU
CU - USC
NU - CU
Each game's broadcast rights would basically need to be worth about $9MM. I just don't see it. Two or three games would maybe be over that number, but you need 4 or 5 games to be over it in order to hit the average. *If* CU was reliably good, then you might be able to put together a schedule that gets you there some years, but every year? You can't play Michigan, tOSU, Penn State, USC, and NU every year. You might be able to play 2 or 3 of them every year, but CU-Iowa is never going to draw a lot of eyeballs no matter how good either team is.
Basically, we're on the outside looking in unless we start independently drawing viewers the way we did in the 90s (when CU was the school with the second highest number of nationally televised games - Notre Dame being #1). We got those numbers back then by being very, very good, playing in conference with NU, OU and in the late years UT, *and* scheduling a
I am not trying to but there is literally no path to the SEC or B1G anytime soon for CU. To be frank, I can confidently say that for all of the remaining Big XII and Pac-12 schools that are not a part of the latest expansion to the B1G or SEC. There maybe a path in 5 years which is when I expect the next window to open up as ACC teams may consider challenging their GOR. That could open up a new path and if Colorado having success for 5 years, Colorado will be seen as a must have in that case. As of right now, that's just not the case.
I am as optimistic as they come but we must be honest about where Colorado currently is and where expansion is. Buffnik is 100% correct. If you aren't adding substantial value, it's hard to convince these newly elite conferences to want to add you. Notre Dame, Clemson, and FSU has the cache and the pull. Miami has a lot of B1G interest. But outside of the South and ND, it's hard to find those values elsewhere. Maybe Colorado can become that. That's the plan.
Oregon is considered the 15th best brand in the nation and they can't get an invite to the SEC or B1G. That's the biggest brand in the Pac-12 money wise. Even if USC and UCLA is worth double Oregon due to market, location, media value, etc. No one makes more money out west than Oregon and they aren't getting an invite. Nor is Washington which is right there.
Last edited:
What you are forgetting is that Colorado (both the state and the University) have a “cool” factor. People everywhere think of us as a destination state and they want us to be good in football. As long as we demonstrate a commitment to being good, we will be in demand.
Compare CU to Oklahoma before Bob Stoops. We routinely kicked their ass. Had we stayed committed to being at that level twenty years ago we would still be kicking their ass and it would be CU and not OU going to the SEC. We would be a FAR more valuable brand.
You're still my favorite- but the truth hurts.
I believe in Colorado's future which is why I am here. That said, these expansion aren't about your future, it's about the elite aka the bluebloods.
It can happen in time. I agree.
I disagree. It’s network driven and they are paying for future value, much of which is built on long, storied histories of blue blood programs. They are consolidating the no brainer brands and locking down the automatic future ratings giants.
However, the idea that no further additions/expansion will happen unless it clearly makes the other members more money is just not accurate. Not unless the SEC and B1G are OK with keeping five P5 conferences with essentially equal access to the playoff.
yes, mostly,,,, i know you are relatively new to CU football, but we are not oregon state. and we are not 11/12 of the p12 for an invite to the big.
big isn't expanding right now--- unless nd.
sec, no one is accretive that is easily available-- down the road, clemson, fsu, and so forth.
acc, not doing nothing.
so, that leaves the pac and the b12 in some flux.
also, ranking desirability to the big whenever they decide in the future to do something...
pac schools left for big:
washington
oregon
stanford
CU
cal
asu
utah
ua
wsu
osu
we're about 3-4 of remaining schools...
if the big 12 eats the pac, then:
CU
utah
asu
ua
... everyone else...
if the pac expands, then it is probably sdsu and maybe they take a run at some b12 schools.
I disagree with #1 not because of Deion leaving, but of a reawakening of a program that was top 5-10 for a decade before self castrating itself. However, the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Vanderbilt, Missouri, and even Mississippi State are ultimately less valuable than a fully engaged Colorado.
Prime plugged us back in, and there is work to do, and we could and should pay Deion $12 million a year if we can keep this up, but the trajectory and the need to get the CFB properly structured is critical, and if not the SEC, then a 3rd super conference is a must.
Screw conferences, put the best together
Prime plugged us back in, and there is work to do, and we could and should pay Deion $12 million a year if we can keep this up, but the trajectory and the need to get the CFB properly structured is critical, and if not the SEC, then a 3rd super conference is a must.
Screw conferences, put the best together
Do you guys remember MHver3
on Twitter ? West VA guy?
He dumped a bunch of stuff 8-9 hours ago regarding the PAC12 and the mess that the TV deal or lack of a good one is causing. There's too much to post but if any is true.... oye vey
So much negative news this past week. Tea leaves aren't good. Sure seems to me the Big12 is about to get bigger.
on Twitter ? West VA guy?
He dumped a bunch of stuff 8-9 hours ago regarding the PAC12 and the mess that the TV deal or lack of a good one is causing. There's too much to post but if any is true.... oye vey
So much negative news this past week. Tea leaves aren't good. Sure seems to me the Big12 is about to get bigger.
Is the Big 12 ready to pay whichever programs they add the same amount as everyone else? Are they going to amend their new media deal that was just signed?
Five Thoughts on the Big 12's New Media Rights Deal
The Big 12 has a new television extension with ESPN and Fox, a six-year extension that will pay the league $2.28 billion, an annual average of $380 million. This extension starts after Oklahoma and Texas leave the conference, meaning the valuation is based on the 12-team configuration that will...
www.heartlandcollegesports.com
If this article is correct then expansion could happen and terms amended.
It won’t happen, but what does a Big 12 conference media deal look like with CU, AZ, ASU, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and then UT and OU staying?
I know that’s 21 programs, but covers every time zone, has 2 true blue bloods and another 2-3 national brands and the biggest markets remaining out West
I know that’s 21 programs, but covers every time zone, has 2 true blue bloods and another 2-3 national brands and the biggest markets remaining out West
I can possibly see the 4 corners and Oregon and Washington.
This is why we should have been negotiating an exit 6-12 months ago, not bunkering in “wait and see” mode. Our bargaining position is deteriorating by the day.
Any negative news that you can share regarding the Pac-12 media negotiations this past week? I haven’t seen any and would like to read it.
Edit: Wilner didn’t seem negative or as if there has been any changes in his Q&A article yesterday.
I'm just going to say that last time CU switched conferences, nothing leaked until a few days before.
Likewise with most of our coaching hires.
CU has a history of keeping things pretty quiet, and I would expect any future conference change to be pretty similar. Nothing will leak until the deal is all but done.
I think one wild card factor to consider here is this….. it will become an issue that USC and UCLA are so outside the Midwest and it’s going to make travel a real headache. For 5 away conference football games that might not be so bad……but for soccer, volleyball, men’s and women’s basketball….. how is this going to work for them? The UCLA or USC vs Rutgers, Maryland and even Penn state is a long way to go.
I think the big 10 adds UW, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame and……. Could it be Colorado?
I think it's more likely we get to national conferences for football and regional conferences for the other sports.
They calculated that ucla will be spending 20 million in additional travel costs across all of their sports.
That makes sense. BUT how about this….
So….. UCLA leaves us for for the big 10 leaving the pac 12 in football with a bad tv deal and revenue.
personally, I don’t think CU and the rest of the PAC should just jump to rescue USC and UCLA by giving them a regional conference for our volleyball, basketball, soccer or other programs.
I hope they enjoy their trips through the Midwest.
Not so much the cost as it is the time. It’s a lot of travel time and doing it every week during a long basketball season is going to be unpleasant.
I hope they hate it.
Im thinking the SEC add Miami and some combination of FSU, UNC, Duke, or Clemson way way way before they ever add CU and Zona.
Shortly after this…
Losses at the company’s direct-to-consumer arm, driven by its Disney+ service, more than doubled to $1.47 billion in its fiscal fourth quarter, due to higher programming expenses and the cost of global expansion. Weakness in cable-television advertising revenue also hurt Disney’s performance.
Sales, at $20.2 billion, came up about $1 billion short of analysts’ projections.
…Disney dumped Chepak as CEO and brought Bob Iger back from retirement.
Its not looking rosy for ESPN…
Although spending on content will remain near $30 billion next year, the company is seeking to reduce expenses in other areas of its business
Revenue from Disney’s traditional TV business, which includes networks such as ESPN and ABC, fell 5% in part due to ad sales weakness. Profit rose 6% to $1.74 billion due to lower programming costs in cable TV, particularly for sports. Disney reduced the number of Major League Baseball games it aired this season under a new contract.
That sounds to me like cutting and or not expanding. It doesnt sound like growth by spending to get more content.
Last edited: