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 Network

AllBuffs bros, I finally switched from Directv to Comcast. I see I have the Pac12 Network, channel 431 but I don't have the Pac12 Mountain. Will that be an issue? Can I still watch our Buffs?
 
TDforTD said:
AllBuffs bros, I finally switched from Directv to Comcast. I see I have the Pac12 Network, channel 431 but I don't have the Pac12 Mountain. Will that be an issue? Can I still watch our Buffs?
Click to expand...
For basketball season it will be an issue. I think you are good for football though.
 
TDforTD said:
AllBuffs bros, I finally switched from Directv to Comcast. I see I have the Pac12 Network, channel 431 but I don't have the Pac12 Mountain. Will that be an issue? Can I still watch our Buffs?
Click to expand...

onealcd said:
For basketball season it will be an issue. I think you are good for football though.
Click to expand...

You should be able to stream Pac12 Mountain from the Pac12 website/app.
 
TDforTD said:
AllBuffs bros, I finally switched from Directv to Comcast. I see I have the Pac12 Network, channel 431 but I don't have the Pac12 Mountain. Will that be an issue? Can I still watch our Buffs?
Click to expand...
I'm right with ya, I just gotta decide what I'm going to do. My son is with me all the time now and directv isn't gonna work. The questions, Idk. Just know I'm tired of ****ing Jaws on tv every damn day.
 
TDforTD said:
AllBuffs bros, I finally switched from Directv to Comcast. I see I have the Pac12 Network, channel 431 but I don't have the Pac12 Mountain. Will that be an issue? Can I still watch our Buffs?
Click to expand...
I think it's up to the provider as to which regions, if any, they show. Dish only shows the national (main) network. I'm not sure about Comcast. So it's pretty frustrating. Like @BuffsNYC said, you can get the Pac 12 app and get Mountain Region games. The National Network does a pretty good job showing all the football games, but, as mentioned, not so much with basketball.
 
Darth Snow said:
https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/pac-12-media-strategy/?utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/pac-12-media-strategy/&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-pac-12-hotline-nl

H/T Jon Wilner. Interesting takes on how the P12 is structured for 2024 (which doesn't change the fact Scott ****ed up the P12 network prior to that)
Click to expand...

Good read. The industry experts and insiders have confirmed some of what I suspected (cord cutting) and seemed to have some good insights (we can do things others cant in the next round because we own our rights). And they remind everyone that when we did this deal way back when there were no conference networks outside the Big10 and we hit it out of the park in terms of largest deal ever.

Maestas says we should have a dose or reality...

[AJ Maestas – Founder & CEO, Navigate Research:] The reality is that the Pac-12 doesn’t have the affinity, ratings, attendance and other key variables to justify Big Ten or SEC money. Don’t get me wrong there are extremely attractive things about the Pac-12 footprint. In short ... to expect the Pac-12 to earn SEC or Big Ten revenue is naive.

I’ve read a number of critiques about revenue holding back performance, but athletic department revenue is not a driver of on field performance as much as one would think and the revenue is a result of the audience and fan affinity. West coast fan affinity is just not the same as in the Midwest or southeast for college football. The Pacific time zone and Pac-12 footprint vs. the rest of the U.S. population is a curse,​

Given the above and the abysmal attendance of our CCG I think some serious consideration should be given to the CCG being played on one of the campuses of the two teams involved. At least the stands would be full.

By this argument conference expansion *could* be a key to higher revenues...

Tom Stultz – President, JMI Sports, LLC: the additions of Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten had a major impact on Big Ten Network revenues because it allowed the Big Ten Network to charge “in-market” rates instead of “out-of-market” distribution rates for the New York, Washington DC and Baltimore MD metro areas. The same thing happened with the SEC’s addition of Texas A&M and Missouri.​

In order of population the following cities are in or adjacent to the current footprint but dont have a Pac 12 team; San Diego[8†], Las Vegas[28], Portland[26†], Albuquerque[32], Colorado Springs[40†], Boise[~100]. Some of these cities might already count as Pac 12 cities[†] like Portland and Colorado Springs probably do due to proximity. San Diego is clearly the biggest fish without a team. Then Albuquerque and Las Vegas which are about the same size.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Good read. The industry experts and insiders have confirmed some of what I suspected (cord cutting) and seemed to have some good insights (we can do things others cant in the next round because we own our rights). And they remind everyone that when we did this deal way back when there were no conference networks outside the Big10 and we hit it out of the park in terms of largest deal ever.

Maestas says we should have a dose or reality...

[AJ Maestas – Founder & CEO, Navigate Research:] The reality is that the Pac-12 doesn’t have the affinity, ratings, attendance and other key variables to justify Big Ten or SEC money. Don’t get me wrong there are extremely attractive things about the Pac-12 footprint. In short ... to expect the Pac-12 to earn SEC or Big Ten revenue is naive.

I’ve read a number of critiques about revenue holding back performance, but athletic department revenue is not a driver of on field performance as much as one would think and the revenue is a result of the audience and fan affinity. West coast fan affinity is just not the same as in the Midwest or southeast for college football. The Pacific time zone and Pac-12 footprint vs. the rest of the U.S. population is a curse,​

Given the above and the abysmal attendance of our CCG I think some serious consideration should be given to the CCG being played on one of the campuses of the two teams involved. At least the stands would be full.

By this argument conference expansion *could* be a key to higher revenues...

Tom Stultz – President, JMI Sports, LLC: the additions of Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten had a major impact on Big Ten Network revenues because it allowed the Big Ten Network to charge “in-market” rates instead of “out-of-market” distribution rates for the New York, Washington DC and Baltimore MD metro areas. The same thing happened with the SEC’s addition of Texas A&M and Missouri.​

In order of population the following cities are in or adjacent to the current footprint but dont have a Pac 12 team; San Diego[8†], Las Vegas[28], Portland[26†], Albuquerque[32], Colorado Springs[40†], Boise[~100]. Some of these cities might already count as Pac 12 cities[†] like Portland and Colorado Springs probably do due to proximity. San Diego is clearly the biggest fish without a team. Then Albuquerque and Las Vegas which are about the same size.
Click to expand...
The SEC and B1G expansions brought money because they brought in entirely new markets for their networks (new states). None you list are going to do that (maybe New Mexico or Boise increases the network value a bit, but not enough that it’s going to cover the costs of two schools’ admission to the PAC plus create a raise for the existing 12 schools). The other way to drive up value is via expansion with quality matchups. None of those schools are going to do that. The only way for the PAC to make more money viable expansion is to bring in Texas, Oklahoma, and perhaps a buddy for each of them. And I really, really hope we never do that.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
The SEC and B1G expansions brought money because they brought in entirely new markets for their networks (new states). None you list are going to do that (maybe New Mexico or Boise increases the network value a bit, but not enough that it’s going to cover the costs of two schools’ admission to the PAC plus create a raise for the existing 12 schools). The other way to drive up value is via expansion with quality matchups. None of those schools are going to do that. The only way for the PAC to make more money viable expansion is to bring in Texas, Oklahoma, and perhaps a buddy for each of them. And I really, really hope we never do that.
Click to expand...

SDSU would cement the 8th largest city in the US as firmly a Pac12 rights market. From there Las Vegas (UNLV) and Albuquerque (UNM) are around 30th largest. None of the three would move the needle like the Rutgers Maryland did. And the Presidents would have to engage in a massive amount of nose holding to accept any of those schools.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
The SEC and B1G expansions brought money because they brought in entirely new markets for their networks (new states). None you list are going to do that (maybe New Mexico or Boise increases the network value a bit, but not enough that it’s going to cover the costs of two schools’ admission to the PAC plus create a raise for the existing 12 schools). The other way to drive up value is via expansion with quality matchups. None of those schools are going to do that. The only way for the PAC to make more money viable expansion is to bring in Texas, Oklahoma, and perhaps a buddy for each of them. And I really, really hope we never do that.
Click to expand...
Good points but the PAC12 has to do something proactive, like adding Texas and Oklahoma, regardless of the disruption and distaste they might bring.

The PAC12 has quickly become an outlier in the P5 and I don’t think it can survive in its current trajectory. Something will be done, either by its own action or by the action of others. I’d rather they be on the inside looking out, than on the outside looking in.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
SDSU would cement the 8th largest city in the US as firmly a Pac12 rights market. From there Las Vegas (UNLV) and Albuquerque (UNM) are around 30th largest. None of the three would move the needle like the Rutgers Maryland did. And the Presidents would have to engage in a massive amount of nose holding to accept any of those schools.
Click to expand...
Our network doesn’t work like the B1G’s or SEC’s did. People in Dan Diego already get the PACN as much as they want. Sure, a few more would tune in, but it’s not Neary the same situation/ business model/ profit increase.
 
I hope we stay at 12 personally. And yes’m I hope our overhead costs and whatnot get ironed out so that we’re more profitable. But there’s no worthwhile addition out there.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
Good points but the PAC12 has to do something proactive, like adding Texas and Oklahoma, regardless of the disruption and distaste they might bring.

The PAC12 has quickly become an outlier in the P5 and I don’t think it can survive in its current trajectory. Something will be done, either by its own action or by the action of others. I’d rather they be on the inside looking out, than on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...
Yeah I see a lot of people bitching about the Pac 12 falling behind everybody else, while in the same breath saying they never want to see Texas or OU in the conference. Can’t have it both ways and the Pac 12 is unlikely to catch up without adding premier programs, which the only options for that are OU/UT.
 
TSchekler said:
Yeah I see a lot of people bitching about the Pac 12 falling behind everybody else, while in the same breath saying they never want to see Texas or OU in the conference. Can’t have it both ways and the Pac 12 is unlikely to catch up without adding premier programs, which the only options for that are OU/UT.
Click to expand...

Agree here.

I dislike UT as much as anyone and yes given the opportunity they will try to dominate the conference both on the field and in the board room. I also don't like the idea of being in a division with them giving up some west coast games in the process.

Fact is though that the current PAC footprint does not allow the conference to stay competitive in terms of revenue market potential. Add Texas and Oklahoma and suddenly we are right in the contest.

What simply has to happen is for the rest of the schools to determine that they will not let Texas be more than an equal partner. I think that there are enough strong players in the PAC to do that. The current B12 has a number of schools that are P5 only because of their relationship to Texas and Oklahoma. What conferences would be interested in Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech should the B12 dissolve. Some others would be questionable. Those schools know that they have to give Texas what it wants to get what they need. Not a lot of PAC12 schools would be that desperate.

Also @MiamiBuffs listing of cities by size on the bottom of his post is almost worthless from a sense of judging markets. Most urban areas in the western US are made up of multiple incorporated cities and even some unincorporated areas. A much more realistic look would be at SMAs which include multiple municipalities in close proximity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Even those don't tell the full story since for instance the Colorado Springs SMA is a fairly complete measure while the Denver/Aurora/Lakewood SMA doesn't include a number of areas that are in fact a part of the functional urban area including Boulder and Weld Counties. These get included in the CSA.
 
Last edited:
TSchekler said:
Yeah I see a lot of people bitching about the Pac 12 falling behind everybody else, while in the same breath saying they never want to see Texas or OU in the conference. Can’t have it both ways and the Pac 12 is unlikely to catch up without adding premier programs, which the only options for that are OU/UT.
Click to expand...

Yup, the only schools in the Western part of the country that will move the needle enough to make a significant difference are OU and Texas. Deal with it. People need to get over thinking that the Pac is too good for Texas because the other option is to sit around idly and continue to be left further behind and quite possibly become a non-factor among the big boys down the road.

 
MtnBuff said:
Also @MiamiBuffs listing of cities by size on the bottom of his post is almost worthless from a sense of judging markets. Most urban areas in the western US are made up of multiple incorporated cities and even some unincorporated areas. A much more realistic look would be at SMAs which include multiple municipalities in close proximity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Even those don't tell the full story since for instance the Colorado Springs SMA is a fairly complete measure while the Denver/Aurora/Lakewood SMA doesn't include a number of areas that are in fact a part of the functional urban area including Boulder and Weld Counties. These get included in the CSA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely some faulty reasoning by Miami. I'd bet that there are more UCLA and USC fans in San Diego than SDSU fans just as there are more CU and CSU fans than DU fans in Denver and more Texas fans than TCU or SMU fans in DFW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top