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!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

What I don't get is, if the big12 media deal has a clause in it that any P5 school coming into the league would get the same amount per school like is being reported, than whats to stop the big12 and pac12 from merging under the big12 media deal? And if that is the case, how can fox and ESPN afford to do that, but not give the same amount to the PAC per school in the PAC?

Something seems fishy.
 
jaybird said:
What I don't get is, if the big12 media deal has a clause in it that any P5 school coming into the league would get the same amount per school like is being reported, than whats to stop the big12 and pac12 from merging under the big12 media deal? And if that is the case, how can fox and ESPN afford to do that, but not give the same amount to the PAC per school in the PAC?

Something seems fishy.
Click to expand...
I'm rooting for weird. Find a 3d way!
 
30Something said:
Money rarely has anything to do with it. Having spent an entire career negotiating commercial agreements, I think leverage comes down to two things:

1) Desire - the party who wants/needs to get the deal done the most usually has the least leverage.
2) Options - any party who has the most viable alternative options (including waiting/time) usually has the most leverage

I literally spend most of my time coaching my internal stakeholders to avoid telling the counterparty that they are our preferred/only option, or that we need/want to get a deal done quickly, even when it is true. Either comment will prolong every negotiation, and usually results in a ****tier deal.

Loose lips, sink ships. That's why I'm guessing every party to the conference media rights deal (or realignment discussions) is keeping things super quiet.
Click to expand...
it's amazing how often I hear some form of that statement in my business from customers.

I was fortunate enough to take the Karrass negotiation class. Avoiding those "self limiting" comments was one of the most strongly emphasized points.

to be clear, I wasn't trying to say the money gave the XII the most leverage, but it does give them leverage.

tangent: I was a bit of a dick during one of the group exercises at the Karrass training, but I still smile when I think about it.

two groups, mine was buying raw plastic resin, the other was selling resin. Both were given a sheet of common baseline information, as well as points specific for our side that the other didn't have.

one piece of common information was "the deal must be for 200,000lbs of resin. you get no credit if the negotiated agreement is for less than that"

we had 15 minutes to negotiate a deal. I was lead negotiator for my group, and my opening statement was "I'm very interested in purchasing 100,000lbs of resin"

the faces of the other side were aghast. the sheet clearly said the deal must be for 200k lbs. they knew (or least really thought they knew) that my sheet said the same thing.

I made them spend over 10 minutes negotiating me up to a purchase of the full 200k lbs. "what?!?!? you want me to sole source my resin? there's no way we can take that business risk!" By the time I finally agreed to purchase the full amount, they had spent all their leverage and had no ammo left to move me on price.

my team had the lowest purchasing price of any group in the class, the next lowest price paid was 3x ours.

When the instructor dug into how we got there, she initially was less then impressed and gave me a damning look, but told me afterwards that I was the first participant to ever think of that strategy and that she had to admit it was a really good one.
 
jaybird said:
What I don't get is, if the big12 media deal has a clause in it that any P5 school coming into the league would get the same amount per school like is being reported, than whats to stop the big12 and pac12 from merging under the big12 media deal? And if that is the case, how can fox and ESPN afford to do that, but not give the same amount to the PAC per school in the PAC?

Something seems fishy.
Click to expand...
Have you seen how the PAC has been managed? No one wants to deal with the PAC.
 
jaybird said:
What I don't get is, if the big12 media deal has a clause in it that any P5 school coming into the league would get the same amount per school like is being reported, than whats to stop the big12 and pac12 from merging under the big12 media deal? And if that is the case, how can fox and ESPN afford to do that, but not give the same amount to the PAC per school in the PAC?

Something seems fishy.
Click to expand...
The agreement is for a maximum of four P5 teams.
 
hokiehead said:
it's amazing how often I hear some form of that statement in my business from customers.

I was fortunate enough to take the Karrass negotiation class. Avoiding those "self limiting" comments was one of the most strongly emphasized points.

to be clear, I wasn't trying to say the money gave the XII the most leverage, but it does give them leverage.

tangent: I was a bit of a dick during one of the group exercises at the Karrass training, but I still smile when I think about it.

two groups, mine was buying raw plastic resin, the other was selling resin. Both were given a sheet of common baseline information, as well as points specific for our side that the other didn't have.

one piece of common information was "the deal must be for 200,000lbs of resin. you get no credit if the negotiated agreement is for less than that"

we had 15 minutes to negotiate a deal. I was lead negotiator for my group, and my opening statement was "I'm very interested in purchasing 100,000lbs of resin"

the faces of the other side were aghast. the sheet clearly said the deal must be for 200k lbs. they knew (or least really thought they knew) that my sheet said the same thing.

I made them spend over 10 minutes negotiating me up to a purchase of the full 200k lbs. "what?!?!? you want me to sole source my resin? there's no way we can take that business risk!" By the time I finally agreed to purchase the full amount, they had spent all their leverage and had no ammo left to move me on price.

my team had the lowest purchasing price of any group in the class, the next lowest price paid was 3x ours.

When the instructor dug into how we got there, she initially was less then impressed and gave me a damning look, but told me afterwards that I was the first participant to ever think of that strategy and that she had to admit it was a really good one.
Click to expand...
So did you pay the dealer handling fee and buy the undercoating?
 
leftybuff said:
So did you pay the dealer handling fee and buy the undercoating?
Click to expand...
on my last vehicle? yes, no

I had no leverage buying a car early in 2022. I felt so incredibly helpless in that 'negotiation'.

"you'll pay MSRP + dealer fees. you'll wait four months for your car, and it may not be the color you asked for"
"could you at least use some Vaseline?"
 
Creebuzz said:
Like I said, Kliavkoff’s strategy is to run out the clock. At some point, the Big 12 option was going to close. If the “reporting” is true, and I obviously use that word lightly with these bloggers and podcasters, and a reply must be made by July 1st, then you simply don’t present a bad deal. You make schools choose based on incomplete info.
Click to expand...
If you don't have a decent enough deal you force them to make a blind move- that seems to be his play.

Maybe they get one but the actions right now appear to be what someone would do if they don't have one.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Needs to happen. Klatt has laid out a great framework for how this should work in his opinion and it’s just so much better than what is currently going on
Click to expand...

That is something that appears to have worked at the FCS level. Missouri Valley Football Conference has schools from like three different conferences under one conference roof for football and that is easily the best FCS football conference. The WAC and ASUN is doing something similar but they are on different ends of the country. They are aiming to move up to FBS together despite Sam Houston State and Jacksonville State jumping to C-USA.

National football conferences and regional conferences for other sports...I'm good with that.
 
BuffsRising said:
Um, no. The original plan was for utah and cu to go to the pac 10, and then the texas schools tried to horn in, and baylor tried to squeeze us out altogether.
Click to expand...
In early June 2010, there were reports that the Pac-10 was considering adding up to six teams to the conference: the University of Texas, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the University of Colorado.[107]

On June 10, 2010, the University of Colorado Boulder accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10 Conference, effective starting with the 2012–2013 academic year.[108][109] The school later announced it would join the conference a year earlier than previously announced, in the 2011–2012 academic year.

On June 15, 2010, a deal was reached between Texas and the Big 12 Conference to keep Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State in the Big 12. Following Texas' decision, the other Big 12 schools that had been rumored candidates to join the Pac-10 announced they would remain in the Big 12. This deal effectively ended the Pac-10's ambition to potentially become a sixteen-team conference.[110]

On June 17, 2010, the University of Utah accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10 Conference, effective starting July 2011.[108] Utah was a member of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) with Arizona and Arizona State before those two left for the Pac-10 in 1978. The Utes left an expanded WAC with seven other schools in 1999 to form the new Mountain West Conference. Utah became the first "BCS Buster" to join a BCS conference, having played in (and won) two BCS games beforehand.
 
66BUFF said:
In early June 2010, there were reports that the Pac-10 was considering adding up to six teams to the conference: the University of Texas, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the University of Colorado.[107]

On June 10, 2010, the University of Colorado Boulder accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10 Conference, effective starting with the 2012–2013 academic year.[108][109] The school later announced it would join the conference a year earlier than previously announced, in the 2011–2012 academic year.

On June 15, 2010, a deal was reached between Texas and the Big 12 Conference to keep Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State in the Big 12. Following Texas' decision, the other Big 12 schools that had been rumored candidates to join the Pac-10 announced they would remain in the Big 12. This deal effectively ended the Pac-10's ambition to potentially become a sixteen-team conference.[110]

On June 17, 2010, the University of Utah accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10 Conference, effective starting July 2011.[108] Utah was a member of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) with Arizona and Arizona State before those two left for the Pac-10 in 1978. The Utes left an expanded WAC with seven other schools in 1999 to form the new Mountain West Conference. Utah became the first "BCS Buster" to join a BCS conference, having played in (and won) two BCS games beforehand.
Click to expand...
Should be the 2nd BCS buster we add. Someone give me a reason why we shouldn’t add the blue man group up north? They’re actually good at football (crazy concept).

Colorado
Utah
Oregon
Washington
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona St
Washington St
Oregon St
Boise St
San Diego St
 
Victory said:
Should be the 2nd BCS buster we add. Someone give me a reason why we shouldn’t add the blue man group up north? They’re actually good at football (crazy concept).

Colorado
Utah
Oregon
Washington
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona St
Washington St
Oregon St
Boise St
San Diego St
Click to expand...
I’ve long argued that if TV sets and population aren’t the driving factor, but rather brands and matchups, then BSU should be considered far before SMU. However, I think their brand has taken a hit in recent years since they just aren’t quite as dominant as they were once upon a time
 
BuffsRising said:
Um, no. The original plan was for utah and cu to go to the pac 10, and then the texas schools tried to horn in, and baylor tried to squeeze us out altogether.
Click to expand...
Um, no. The original plan was UT, TT, A&M, OU, CU, and OSU. Obviously UT (and OU to a lesser degree) were the big prizes, and that's what Scott wanted. You are correct in that Texas politicians tried to get Baylor to swap in for CU. But the goal was ALWAYS UT, OU, and some company. CU + Utah was the backup option when UT decided to stay put.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’ve long argued that if TV sets and population aren’t the driving factor, but rather brands and matchups, then BSU should be considered far before SMU. However, I think their brand has taken a hit in recent years since they just aren’t quite as dominant as they were once upon a time
Click to expand...
In a dream world where I could make conferences solely based on fan experience (which to me means regionality), then BSU would be in the PAC. Alas, they don't bring the money.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’ve long argued that if TV sets and population aren’t the driving factor, but rather brands and matchups, then BSU should be considered far before SMU. However, I think their brand has taken a hit in recent years since they just aren’t quite as dominant as they were once upon a time
Click to expand...
I’d take the smurfs any day over what’s out there. People like watching them and they have credibility. Avg 800K viewers last season.
 
PAC MAN said:
wgn-tv chicago GIF by WGN Morning News


Looks like a clown show and not a good look for all involved.
Click to expand...
party clowns GIF

A not good look indeed......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top