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 Network is restructuring
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I look at the Pac-12 like I did the B1G at the time people were questioning whether it could compete in football going forward based on its poor showings and the fact that the US demographics were causing a shift away from B1G states. They got very aggressive. Expanded from 11 to 14 by pulling in Nebraska's national program along with home markets in New Jersey and Maryland. They went out and spent money to hire elite coaches in Urban, Harbaugh and Franklin.
Similarly, with the tradition and resources of the Pac-12 membership, I expect to see some aggressive moves very soon. Desperation leads to major change.
We will see serious restructuring of the Pac-12 Networks to reduce costs (exec salaries and Olympic broadcast production) and increase payouts, a restructuring of the profit shares to reward the programs like USC and our major bowl game & MBB tourney teams that bring in the dollars, and expansion into the Texas market. Possibly even enough desperation to add programs like BYU and Boise State that have a lot of value within our footprint but have been blocked by the university presidents because of academic peer requirements for conference membership. Major change is on the horizon because the current conditions cannot continue.
Similarly, with the tradition and resources of the Pac-12 membership, I expect to see some aggressive moves very soon. Desperation leads to major change.
We will see serious restructuring of the Pac-12 Networks to reduce costs (exec salaries and Olympic broadcast production) and increase payouts, a restructuring of the profit shares to reward the programs like USC and our major bowl game & MBB tourney teams that bring in the dollars, and expansion into the Texas market. Possibly even enough desperation to add programs like BYU and Boise State that have a lot of value within our footprint but have been blocked by the university presidents because of academic peer requirements for conference membership. Major change is on the horizon because the current conditions cannot continue.
it will be interesting to see it all play out. as far as i can tell, the university presidents are far less interested in tv revenue growth than some other conferences.
having been around p12 football for a very long time (and even before we joined), there really seems to be a sentiment of "we are all about us, and don't care what the others do." the rose bowl is a perfect example. many fans would rather see a p12 team play in and win the rose bowl than play in a playoff game somewhere else and lose. and many fans don't care that the late start times (on the east coast) may impact viewership-- they care about when folks in this footprint see the games, not the east coast. now, a lot of this is for sure anecdotal and it does seem to be more representative of the older p12 fans, but i do think big changes are going to be challenging for this conference.
the expansion issue will be a real touchstone for change--- the university presidents agreed to utah, almost as a toss-in to get to the even number of 12-- they wanted CU for all the obvious reasons. finding other schools that fit the profile that they want (not what the ADs want or TV guys want) is not simple. if the p12 were to add nevada, or boise state, or sdsu, i think it would represent a huge changing of the guard on how the conference thinks about sports and academics. ... not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be a historic shift. byu is never, ever, ever going to happen. never. ever. raiding the b12 in the context of a tv contract renegotiation might be an easier outcome (although all the texas haters will be truly disappointed). adding a couple of texas schools helps with time zone and doesn't upset the traditional thinking on academics and number of non-rev generating sports played.
having been around p12 football for a very long time (and even before we joined), there really seems to be a sentiment of "we are all about us, and don't care what the others do." the rose bowl is a perfect example. many fans would rather see a p12 team play in and win the rose bowl than play in a playoff game somewhere else and lose. and many fans don't care that the late start times (on the east coast) may impact viewership-- they care about when folks in this footprint see the games, not the east coast. now, a lot of this is for sure anecdotal and it does seem to be more representative of the older p12 fans, but i do think big changes are going to be challenging for this conference.
the expansion issue will be a real touchstone for change--- the university presidents agreed to utah, almost as a toss-in to get to the even number of 12-- they wanted CU for all the obvious reasons. finding other schools that fit the profile that they want (not what the ADs want or TV guys want) is not simple. if the p12 were to add nevada, or boise state, or sdsu, i think it would represent a huge changing of the guard on how the conference thinks about sports and academics. ... not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be a historic shift. byu is never, ever, ever going to happen. never. ever. raiding the b12 in the context of a tv contract renegotiation might be an easier outcome (although all the texas haters will be truly disappointed). adding a couple of texas schools helps with time zone and doesn't upset the traditional thinking on academics and number of non-rev generating sports played.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
I don't see a lot of change coming. I think the chancellors are happy with their increase in revenues and aren't that worried about the revenue gap. I bet they see value above and beyond their revenue in fully owning the PAC12 network because they can benefit from fully controlling the network's ability to shape their brand as universities. In their mind, this brand does NOT include yokel schools like BSU and OSU and the like. Thus, they feel like their share in the overall network is worth more than the 10 million dollar gap between conferences.
I think that the traditionalists will agree to about anything if it means that there is a Pac-16 structure that lays things out as a Pac West with the original Pac-8 schools playing one another every year along with a Pac East that has all the Mountain/Central Time Zone schools being the other 8. It's basically gives them everything they want: traditional matchups within their bubble, revenue from the "other 8", and a prestigious title game that pits the west coast champ against the Mountain/Southwest champ to be played ahead of the Rose Bowl.
The key here is Texas in order to balance the 2 divisions. Of course, the dream would be UT, TTU, OU and OSU. It would be very interesting to see what sort of deal would need to be struck in order to make that happen.
I'd think that the networks would pay a fortune for a Pac-16 laid out as:
West: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
East: Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
As I've posted before, I believe that the big money kicker in a setup like that would be if the NCAA enacted a rule change that allowed for a semi-final round when determining a conference champion. Having our Pac-16 Championship in Las Vegas would be huge. But being able to add a semi-final round that had the West pairing its 2 best in Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara with the East pairing its 2 best in AT&T Stadium in Dallas would bring in an additional $50-$100M per year on top of everything else that expansion would bring with increased revenues.
Last edited:
That is the impression I am getting about the Pac compared to the Big 12 when it comes to the presidents.
And speaking of the younger Pac fans, would their interest in football be nowhere near the older Pac fans? This might be why the Pac is getting less TV revenue than the Big 12 and the Pac fanbase really needs to step up.
Never blame the fan base. It's up to those packaging a product to reach the consumer. It's not the consumer's job to come to a product that isn't winning them on its own merit.
I agree on the Texas Market, but I don’t see BYU or Boise State at all. Houston is such a solid target and will have no strings attached.
I tend to agree. Too much compromise to bring either of those schools in and they just don't move the needle enough to overcome the issues. I think that of all the schools within the current geography that UNLV has the best shot considering the size and growth of the state, it being a flyover state right now, the new stadium and academic expansion, and that we could add them with 3 schools from OK & TX to make things even. Ideal scenario for us would be if we could get UNLV/UT/TTU/OU to go to 16.
Following up on my previous post, a 4 team expansion for me would be UNLV/Houston/OU/UT.
I think Houston would move the needle more than TTU and really maximize the potential viewers in Texas major cities.
That tweet alone shows why Texas probably isn't moving west at this point. Pac is going to have to come up with far more money to convince UT and OU to make the move west. Even when CU was in the Big 12, the Big 12 revenues still beat the Pac-10's revenues even when USC was winning big.
Houston has been working extremely hard ever since the last conference shuffle, trying to make itself attractive for a P5 offer. I would rather take UH then TTU but there is some longstanding ill will between UT and UH, so I don't imagine that UT would be ok with that package. If the Pac12 gets UH, it's probably going to have to be grouped with someone besides UT.
i think that conference would generate huge cash. arizona and the stripper U will be pissed to move into the east division but that may not matter. a semi-final is an interesting idea. chasing texas and oklahoma every year again would kinda suck. right now, i feel like if we make the right moves, we can contend for the south regularly. usc is going to be tough but the others scare me far less over the long run.
it would come together in connection with a new tv deal being negotiated. the 16 team conference that nik laid out above is far more valuable from a tv perspective than the b12 in its current incarnation. texassss won't make the move without the new deal structure.
Based on the NCAA ruling that the Big 12 could have a championship game with only 10 teams, it may be that this could become a move to a Pac-20. I only bring this up because the B1G actually brought up the idea of 20 team conferences.
UA and ASU stay in the West.
Big 12 gets absolutely raided for OU/OSU/UT/TTU/TCU/KU/KSU and then UNLV is the 8th team.
We'd basically be in the old Big 12 minus Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa State and Baylor, subbing TCU for aTm, and adding Utah and UNLV to our mix.
Major issue I'd have with that is that it would result in only playing 2 games against the West every year with only 1 true non-conference game.
Tribalism!
I agree with the opening graph. I dont think we see expansion because I dont think the Presidents care. And since they make up the board nothing else matters. The current configuration and revenue is satisfying their means to some end. NV, BYU, BSU are beneath them.
There is no question that many presidents and chancellors are upset with how things are going, it is just that there are some that don't care at all.Presidents of schools like Stanford, UCLA, USC, Cal, Washington and even Oregon (while Uncle Phil is still alive) are simply not worried about being $3, 55 and $10 million behind the Big-12, SEC and Big-10 respectively. The endowments are way too large and they have way more important things to worry about than that so it would actually be a waste of their time to get involved or try to change things.
Now, I am sure the other schools care, but at this point the increase Utah, CU, UA and ASU would get from leaving the conference probably wouldn't be worth the change of getting away form their traditional footprints.
I don't think so. USC will not accept being 2nd to anyone. Cal is in financial difficulties with its AD. Oregon and Washington are not in that mix on endowments. Really, your analysis only applies to Stanford and a big problem with the Pac-12 is that the conference has allowed Stanford too much of a leadership role. That school is a unicorn and should not be driving things for everyone else.
Better an unicorn than a longhorn?
I am talking about Presidents here, not athletic directors. If USC wouldn't accept being second to anyone they wouldn't be in the position they are in right now. Cal may have budget issues in the AD but in general we are talking about huge endowments and massive operating budgets that these people don't really care about in terms of sports. Oregon might not have a large endowment but Phil handles everything that AD needs, wouldn't bid above Oregon's contract for the UW apparel deal, and has given over a billion to the academic side of the school just to get the hipppies on campus to shut up. You may have a point with Washington but they handle their finances pretty well.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
**** expansion and anybody that wants it.
I'm not necessarily blaming the fanbase. Presidents deserve the blame for not thinking football was that important.
I blame everyone but myself.
Ugh. What a clusterF**k. I understand why you say that's what is needed and makes sense to 'survive' and thrive. But way too much about money and becomes unwieldy. I'm so glad that CU has gotten away from the Big-8 and that mentality/culture. Basically you're having the old Big-8 play their conference and then play the old Pac-8 in a title match. . . . . . NO!!! It takes away from all the fun from playing the coastal schools. Scheduling for Basketball might be manageable, but for football . . . .? This "they" you speak of . . . it's not the fans. "They" are the people I don't want to appeal to.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
I don't see PAC12 chancellors as folks who spend nearly as much time thinking about athletics because PAC12 alumni don't spend as much time thinking about athletics. I think the SEC alumni and fan base force SEC chancellors to think a lot about athletics.
I would bet that when most PAC12 chancellors do think about athletics they look at all the free advertising and branding that they get from the PAC12 network...free branding that they control, with lots of studious and diverse athletes highlighted...and they say, yep that is worth the ten million in revenue gap.
They notice when athletics helps or hurts their fundraising and applicants, there’s an athletics scandal they’re forced to address, or when the AD comes to them for a loan. That is their relation to athletics unless you get a president like Gee.
To most Pac 12 institutions a 10 million dollar gap in athletic revenue is a rounding error on the amount of money they have coming in through research grant money (and for some, endowment money).