Sackman loves you!
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
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Academia is so much about reputation and chancellors are risk adverse people in a risk adverse position. I think deep down chancellors think of athletics as a liability. They know they need athletics, but they worry about the perception of big money athletes and the scandal that seems to follow them.
The way ESPN and other sports networks build the persona of athletes (fiery, dominant, individualistic characters that are gonna be huge at the next level) to sell their coverage doesn't jive with the brand the universities want to sell. Chancellors probably get nervous every time they watch regular network coverage of their athletes portrayed like that. Conversely, CU admin types probably love the PAC12N short on Robyn Choi; a minority, female, intelligent young athlete that appears to them to be the very model of what they are trying to attract to campus. The PAC12N allows them to brand the way they want to brand.
Just trying to get in the head of the university admin types behind the structure of the network.
yeah, i think it really comes down to whether it is grow or die...
as long as the p12 can stay in range on tv revenue and exposure, i don't know that the university presidents will be really moved to embrace big expansion. that said, they do not wish to be left behind either.
if the super-conference strategy gets rolling along with the mega mega tv deal, full playoffs and all the rest, the p12 will want a seat at the table. they do not want to be the mountain west.
lastly, the cynical me would suggest you described a typical p12 administrator but not an sec one. and honestly, i can't say for sure the sec is wrong-- alabama is now a legitimate national school, drawing students from well beyond its traditional footprint. it has vastly improved its endowment and academic standings and its funding and support of non-rev generating sports. all of this delivered by saban and alabama football.
I think this is very telling from the Dodd article:
Alabama did not win its conference, played only eight Power Five opponents and enjoyed two byes. And yet, the Tide got to the playoff.
"That's absurd," Klatt said. "That's not even in the same hemisphere as the same difficulty."
Did you hear any of that from the Pac-12 itself?
----
I can't think of another conference whose commissioner wouldn't have been appearing on every show throwing a fit if something similar would have happened to a team in their conference.
This is also telling of some of the major issues with the structure of the Pac-12 Network:
Not included in the news of that revenue distribution was the Pac-12 handing out only 73 percent of its annual take to its members. The rest of the Power Five conferences typically distribute more than 90 percent.
Scott says that's an accounting issue. Since the Pac-12 doesn't have that partner to defer the cost of its network, it has to report the expenses all on its own.
"We've never had more revenue," Scott said.
And there's never been more ways to spend it. Except, as the highest-paid commissioner at $4.8 million annually, Scott makes more than three Division I athletic departments are worth.
-----
The Pac-12 Network reminds me of a medium sized food company that insists on doing everything in-house, but it would be way easier and cheaper (smarter) to use a co-packer. The big difference is that the 3rd tier stuff in the other conferences is handled by major networks, and the Pac insists on doing it themselves. Yes, that will be great in the future if there is still cable, or even a Pac (growing up in Big Ten country, I always admired the Pac, and hope that it strengthens itself but doesn't dilute itself by adding ****ty academic schools), but for the time being, it's just hurting the schools in the conference and Scott is taking a ginormous salary for doing a subpar job in keeping the Pac anywhere near the top of the Power 5.
Alabama did not win its conference, played only eight Power Five opponents and enjoyed two byes. And yet, the Tide got to the playoff.
"That's absurd," Klatt said. "That's not even in the same hemisphere as the same difficulty."
Did you hear any of that from the Pac-12 itself?
----
I can't think of another conference whose commissioner wouldn't have been appearing on every show throwing a fit if something similar would have happened to a team in their conference.
This is also telling of some of the major issues with the structure of the Pac-12 Network:
Not included in the news of that revenue distribution was the Pac-12 handing out only 73 percent of its annual take to its members. The rest of the Power Five conferences typically distribute more than 90 percent.
Scott says that's an accounting issue. Since the Pac-12 doesn't have that partner to defer the cost of its network, it has to report the expenses all on its own.
"We've never had more revenue," Scott said.
And there's never been more ways to spend it. Except, as the highest-paid commissioner at $4.8 million annually, Scott makes more than three Division I athletic departments are worth.
-----
The Pac-12 Network reminds me of a medium sized food company that insists on doing everything in-house, but it would be way easier and cheaper (smarter) to use a co-packer. The big difference is that the 3rd tier stuff in the other conferences is handled by major networks, and the Pac insists on doing it themselves. Yes, that will be great in the future if there is still cable, or even a Pac (growing up in Big Ten country, I always admired the Pac, and hope that it strengthens itself but doesn't dilute itself by adding ****ty academic schools), but for the time being, it's just hurting the schools in the conference and Scott is taking a ginormous salary for doing a subpar job in keeping the Pac anywhere near the top of the Power 5.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Totally. I think P12 Chancellors are worlds different from SEC Chancellors. SEC alumni and donors love football more than anyone else. Alabama is the world's best example of how to use football to grow academic reputation. ...but most of their academic gains are of the US news and world report rankings variety - which are heavily influenced by applications and student sentiment. They still don't have a lot of research institution rep to my knowledge. They could be one scandal away from falling back...but alumni would still love Alabama football. So not as much to lose.
Baylor was growing its reputation as well and was actually making gains as a research school. I think their rep took a big hit. So maybe there really is a liability there.
Cue the clown music.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
You know you've got problems when middle of the pack SEC programs are paying their defensive coordinators the same amount of money that your conference network is paying out its schools.
Or that the conference that CU left is making more money per school via tier 1 & 2 rights than what CU is making with all tiers.
My nephew was a professor at Alabama for one academic year. One of the first things he was told was that football players do not flunk.
He did not like the way Alabama treated the academic side of the university and was job hunting before the end of the first semester. He has been at his new university for three academic years now.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Agree. I think that if you want to do research and insist on living in Alabama you go UoA Huntsville.
Yeah, but I bet his new school's football team isn't any good.
Ha! You got that right! Iowa State
CULifer
Well-Known Member
Where the heck has Sackman been?
CULifer
Well-Known Member
1. 20 years is a long time. market drivers change, everything changes. learn from history, but question relevance in modern context
2. geographically too diverse probably still applies. bigger conference on the East coast is most feasible from that POV
3. "pie no longer big enough" is a very interesting comment. if @sackman still posted here, he would tell us we need to only add teams that are accretive
4. conference was too top heavy (Boise, BYU, New Mexico)
5. the top wasn't heavy enough to trickle down to the rest
it might work for the SEC, if they poached schools from the ACC (North Carolina, VT)
it might work for the ACC, if they flip Notre Dame and poach a B1G (Penn State) or an SEC school (can't imagine which one would leave)
I'm not sure there's a path for the B1G -- their recent expansion moves have to be giving them buyers remorse
Good, important article / report. Talk of the Pac-12 or any conference going to 16, or even 14, should take those lessons and run away from going down that path.
The first thought is that the geographic spread and risk to traditional rivalries is what hurt things the most. It's something to learn from with so much of the expansion push having been to add new markets. That shouldn't happen at the expense of natural rivalry games.
For the Pac-12, let's start with how it simply doesn't feel like a natural fit to have Colorado & Utah as travel partners and a paired rival. They're a border state and there's some history, but the western side of Utah is a long ass way from the eastern side of Colorado and that history was 50 years before the Pac-12.
Next, looking at the time zone considerations is a big deal. Everyone talks about the Pac-12 needing to get into the Central Time Zone in order to add time slots for network tv, add population and cable systems to the footprint, and enhance national appeal. But doesn't the lesson of the WAC point to that becoming a problem because of too much travel and because it dilutes your cultural identity to the point where you no longer have one?
Further on that cultural identity is academics and making sure that conference members are actually peer institutions - or at least close enough that basic values are shared. I'm not going to pretend that Stanford and Washington State are true academic peers, but they are both research intensive institutions and that means something. As pointed out in the WAC analysis, there is no way in hell that Rice and San Jose State had enough in common to belong in the same conference. Being located in major metros west of the Mississippi River is simply not enough to bind.
So, looking at all of that and thinking of the Pac-12 possibilities for expanding to 14 in the near term or 16 in the long term... I have to think that Larry Scott has been wrong to look to Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M and Houston with where he has focused. They violate many of the lessons of the WAC failure. The I-35 north-south corridor is very different than the I-25 north-south corridor. I-25 is the "Front Range" Super Region of the US while I-35 is part of the "Texas Triangle" Super Region (except for KU, which is actually part of the Great Lakes Super Region.
I think Super Regions is the right way to look at how to align conference.
Big Ten = Great Lakes + Northeast
SEC = Florida + Piedmont Atlantic + Gulf Coast
ACC = Florida + Piedmont Atlantic + Northeast (with a toe dipped into Great Lakes)
Big 12 = Texas Triangle + Gulf Coast + a little Great Lakes (with a toe dipped into Piedmont Atlantic)
I think this makes the ACC and Big 12 our most unstable conferences.
With the Pac-12: Cascadia + Northern California + Southern California + Arizona Sun Corridor + Front Range
Would expanding by moving into the Texas Triangle Super Region pull the Pac-12 too far apart?
If we tried to go to 16, might it make more sense to stay within our existing Super Regions and make the moves that solidify dominance within them while also maintaining natural rivalries?
For example, Boise State is in Cascadia. Nevada is in Northern California. UNLV and SDSU are in Southern California. BYU, Wyoming, CSU, Air Force and New Mexico are in Front Range.
Within that, the natural rivalries would be to add BYU for Utah and to add CSU for Colorado.
Then, look to the future with UNLV and Nevada (or maybe SDSU instead of Nevada) in the other high population growth areas within this footprint as the potential long-term expansion to 16.
That is workable for a larger conference. I'm not sure that expansion into Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas is workable with any sort of stability.
assuming this is the correct way to examine the issue, why do you think the ACC and XII are less stable than the Pac?The first thought is that the geographic spread and risk to traditional rivalries is what hurt things the most. It's something to learn from with so much of the expansion push having been to add new markets. That shouldn't happen at the expense of natural rivalry games.
For the Pac-12, let's start with how it simply doesn't feel like a natural fit to have Colorado & Utah as travel partners and a paired rival. They're a border state and there's some history, but the western side of Utah is a long ass way from the eastern side of Colorado and that history was 50 years before the Pac-12.
Next, looking at the time zone considerations is a big deal. Everyone talks about the Pac-12 needing to get into the Central Time Zone in order to add time slots for network tv, add population and cable systems to the footprint, and enhance national appeal. But doesn't the lesson of the WAC point to that becoming a problem because of too much travel and because it dilutes your cultural identity to the point where you no longer have one?
Further on that cultural identity is academics and making sure that conference members are actually peer institutions - or at least close enough that basic values are shared. I'm not going to pretend that Stanford and Washington State are true academic peers, but they are both research intensive institutions and that means something. As pointed out in the WAC analysis, there is no way in hell that Rice and San Jose State had enough in common to belong in the same conference. Being located in major metros west of the Mississippi River is simply not enough to bind.
So, looking at all of that and thinking of the Pac-12 possibilities for expanding to 14 in the near term or 16 in the long term... I have to think that Larry Scott has been wrong to look to Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M and Houston with where he has focused. They violate many of the lessons of the WAC failure. The I-35 north-south corridor is very different than the I-25 north-south corridor. I-25 is the "Front Range" Super Region of the US while I-35 is part of the "Texas Triangle" Super Region (except for KU, which is actually part of the Great Lakes Super Region.
I think Super Regions is the right way to look at how to align conference.
Big Ten = Great Lakes + Northeast
SEC = Florida + Piedmont Atlantic + Gulf Coast
ACC = Florida + Piedmont Atlantic + Northeast (with a toe dipped into Great Lakes)
Big 12 = Texas Triangle + Gulf Coast + a little Great Lakes (with a toe dipped into Piedmont Atlantic)
I think this makes the ACC and Big 12 our most unstable conferences.
With the Pac-12: Cascadia + Northern California + Southern California + Arizona Sun Corridor + Front Range
Would expanding by moving into the Texas Triangle Super Region pull the Pac-12 too far apart?
If we tried to go to 16, might it make more sense to stay within our existing Super Regions and make the moves that solidify dominance within them while also maintaining natural rivalries?
For example, Boise State is in Cascadia. Nevada is in Northern California. UNLV and SDSU are in Southern California. BYU, Wyoming, CSU, Air Force and New Mexico are in Front Range.
Within that, the natural rivalries would be to add BYU for Utah and to add CSU for Colorado.
Then, look to the future with UNLV and Nevada (or maybe SDSU instead of Nevada) in the other high population growth areas within this footprint as the potential long-term expansion to 16.
That is workable for a larger conference. I'm not sure that expansion into Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas is workable with any sort of stability.
Because of outlier members and because of not owning any of its Super Regions. Notre Dame is a wonky fit. So is Louisville.
Big Ten owns the Great Lakes Super Region. However, it did make a huge mistake with its last expansion by taking Rutgers and Maryland (Northeast) instead of Kansas and Missouri (Great Lakes). It's an uncomfortable fit and it's not a good one.
Things would make a lot more sense if the Big Ten took Kansas, Missouri, Notre Dame and Pitt to get to 16 with ownership of the Great Lakes with all AAU institutions (other than the weak ass research academics of Nebraska as an outlier, of course).
ACC could then take Maryland to replace what it lost with Pitt to be back to 14. West Virginia and Rutgers would make for a solid 16 then. That would be a good start, I think.
SEC is at 13 now, which probably means Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for them.
Here's an interesting bit of info as we look to the future.
USA Today ran a report this January on the 8 fastest growing states. LINK
8. Arizona
7. Colorado
6. Oregon
5. Washington
4. Florida
3. Idaho
2. Nevada
1. Utah
This is what I think about in terms of the future of the Pac and why we shouldn't be hitting the panic button right now. It is also more evidence for why the conference needs to have a member institution in Nevada. Maybe two. Las Vegas and Reno are both absolutely booming, as are the UNLV and Nevada campuses / infrastructure / student population / research investment numbers.
USA Today ran a report this January on the 8 fastest growing states. LINK
8. Arizona
7. Colorado
6. Oregon
5. Washington
4. Florida
3. Idaho
2. Nevada
1. Utah
This is what I think about in terms of the future of the Pac and why we shouldn't be hitting the panic button right now. It is also more evidence for why the conference needs to have a member institution in Nevada. Maybe two. Las Vegas and Reno are both absolutely booming, as are the UNLV and Nevada campuses / infrastructure / student population / research investment numbers.
On the thread about going to an eight game conference schedule vs. nine games, the major voting preference is for going down in conference play games. Then on this thread there's push for expanding the conference to 14, even 16. Contradictory arguments.
Yes, conference expansion success should take into regions and staying within a smaller footprint than e.g. the WAC. But as that article points out, there was more and significant reasons that expanding past 12 schools is dangerous.
Yes, conference expansion success should take into regions and staying within a smaller footprint than e.g. the WAC. But as that article points out, there was more and significant reasons that expanding past 12 schools is dangerous.
Why so? It's the 14 team conferences (ACC and SEC) that are at 8 instead of 9 with the other 14-member conference (Big Ten) also looking to go to 8.
It's the smaller conference (Pac-12 and Big 12) with 12 and 10 members, respectively, that are at 9 conference games.
I don't see how arguing to expand to 14, or even 16, while reducing the number of conference games to 8 is contradictory in consideration of what is the norm.
I know you're right and you've presented a lot of wonderful, researched discussion regarding expansion.
I don't have much to refute your arguments, but getting so bloated seems it would lessen the fan's experience and is only done for financial appeasement and gain. "We" can have success without having it meet the measurables you present.
Colorado has grown at a ridiculous pace over the last decade or two. Do you feel the support for the CU/CSU football/basketball programs are growing at a similar rate? I know that the program has been down for a long period of time, and winning will convert some fans, but the point being, more people doesn’t always mean more support/revenue for the local programs.
This obviously remains true for programs like UNLV. If you moved (back) to LV, are you going to be a UNLV fan and support them financially if they’re a member of the Pac? What about Boise?
My pessimism for this conference (short of big time programs being added) is rooted in the fact that the culture of the Pac 12 region is one of a transplant nature with outdoor recreation, not one that is football-crazed like the other 4 power conferences.
I agree with all this.
I also think that as the population shifts West, some of us will go to college games in our new home-states.
I'm with you. That's why I'm reluctant to spread into a 3rd time zone and add cultures from the Great Plains and Texlahoma that aren't the same as the western mountains, deserts and coast. It would just be about tv money and I suppose it would expand recruiting grounds. But I think having a unifying culture along with regional rivalry games that sell out our stadiums and arenas is better for fans and makes for a stronger conference in the long term.