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!
Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)
- Thread starter Manti's woman
- Start date
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
So the plan is to just advertise us as better than we are to make us look better? Hmm, okay. Thankfully that’s not a waste of money at all. The 12 schools need to win, that’s the biggest problem. Although ESPN and others belittling the PAC12 certainly doesn’t help public opinion. Winning cures all, time to start winning.
I’m not sure I like the idea of selling out 10%. But I suppose if they pay that out schools can claim they’re getting roughly 10 million a year more a year right up until we can sign a new deal.
The Pac 12 doesn’t have a PR problem, it has a competitiveness problem on the field, stemming from a leadership problem off the field.
But, sounds good to hire a spin machine to make the conference look better
But, sounds good to hire a spin machine to make the conference look better
Last edited:
Winning will fix it, and the more money the schools have to compete, the better.
Look for some fine print somewhere that says Larry Scott gets a commission on the 10% equity sale!!!
If they could raise the $500 million, I would add $13 mil per year per school for the next 3 years to make up the TV revenue, and then put the rest to use at the PAC12 Network to make it the best shiny object possible (After firing Larry Scott) This would take it up to the next contract period where you can max out the new deal.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
Ha! True. He gets something I’m sure.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Seems weird to me. They are going to use the private equity to pay out to the schools because they are behind the curve in P5 revenue. That is not how private equity usually works. You have to show how the PE gets paid back with a nice return - usually looking for a big payday. Which means when the conference renews their contract in a few years a big chunk of money will be paid out to the PE. Just does not seem the right application. By the way - giving to $13 million to each school for 3 years - there would be nothing left to do anything significant.
The PAC 12 is falling behind the other conferences in prestige in the major sports. There were only 7 teams in bowl games this year vs 9 last year and only the Rose Bowl was a major bowl. It appears the lack of exposure is starting to impact recruiting. When the PAC12 goes to renegotiate its contracts its brand may be significantly devalued.
The PAC 12 is falling behind the other conferences in prestige in the major sports. There were only 7 teams in bowl games this year vs 9 last year and only the Rose Bowl was a major bowl. It appears the lack of exposure is starting to impact recruiting. When the PAC12 goes to renegotiate its contracts its brand may be significantly devalued.
I was thinking they were going to use it try and go for early termination fees and use it cover those. Then pay back PE with the money from a new, hopefully more lucrative TV deal that starts sooner.
What about buy outs in other partnerships that we dont know about? The Tournament of Roses, from my understanding is jointly owned by the Pac12, B1G, and Rose Bowl committee. What if the B1G wants out? Or something like it in another sport?
So since we kept tier 3 in house we're hurting ourselves in multiple ways; underperforming in revenue due to low carriage AND low exposure because of low carriage is starting to translate into poor recruiting?
Regular Season Football Games (pg 4)
- ESPN and FOX - 44 total games, 22 each. (back of the envelope, 6 home games X 12 teams = 72 games for TV?)
- Pac-12 Networks – Pac-12 Networks will televise all remaining football games where Pac-12 controls media rights, as well as all spring football games. (about 32 games after 44?)
Last edited:
I found this vis a vis why our rights were so high when we started...
We might need an Amazon or someone to step in for us again.
By splitting our games as Wilner suggests maybe thats why were not getting the attention we should; Were not the main event at either network. Instead were night time filler for the SEC and B1G day games.
Do we even want ESPN to have any part of this given their plan to add the ACC Network? Its hard to imagine NOT selling the Pac12 Nets to the next bidder so they can package and promote the conference as a centerpiece.
Remember what pushed the Pac-12’s Tier One deal into the $3 billion range?
It wasn’t ESPN or Fox. No, no, no.
It was Comcast, which [...] made an offer that prompted the ESPN-Fox collaboration at a steeper valuation than either entity was willing to pay alone.
Four years from now, the Pac-12 will need another Comcast. -Jon Wilner
It wasn’t ESPN or Fox. No, no, no.
It was Comcast, which [...] made an offer that prompted the ESPN-Fox collaboration at a steeper valuation than either entity was willing to pay alone.
Four years from now, the Pac-12 will need another Comcast. -Jon Wilner
We might need an Amazon or someone to step in for us again.
By splitting our games as Wilner suggests maybe thats why were not getting the attention we should; Were not the main event at either network. Instead were night time filler for the SEC and B1G day games.
Do we even want ESPN to have any part of this given their plan to add the ACC Network? Its hard to imagine NOT selling the Pac12 Nets to the next bidder so they can package and promote the conference as a centerpiece.
The Tournament of Roses is a non-profit and is not owned by anyone. The Rose Bowl game is owned by the Tournament of Roses and was initially created to help fund the parade. The Tournament of Roses is basically a local Pasadena organization.
Allbuffs is always a reliable source of reliable information, FACT!I thought I had read an article that said that. It was instead from a thread here at Allbuffs.
The Pac 12 truly is a punchline at this point.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I just don't get the "revenues = quality of competition" BS. Just because the conference doesn't dole out as much as the SEC or Big Ten; USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington all still collect loads of cash at the gate, through merchandise, royalties, donations, etc on their own enough to compete on a national scale. Stanford has so much endowment money earmarked for the AD that they are nearly self-funded and don't need to rely as much on annual income to pay for their budget (and UCLA is nearly complete with their endowment raising with the same goal: $260 million just for the AD; and for comparisons sake Georgia is only at $30 million with a similar stated goal of $250 million). The conference revenues are a big piece of the pie that goes to each athletic department, BUT IT IS NOT THE WHOLE PIE. Somehow that has been forgotten in the constant narrative in the media lately.
There are at least six AD's that have over a $100 million budget (CU is close to being the 7th). So that means the conference distribution is about 30% of the total. If it is about money, then why isn't the other 70% being discussed also?
The Pac-10 never received remotely close to what the other conferences received when USC was running through their dynasty at the start of this millenia. So why do we need it now to compete?
Notre Dame only brings in about $26 million in annual distributions from TV and their conference affiliation with the ACC ($15 million from NBC and $6 million from the ACC). So, how can they compete with even lower revenues than the Pac-12 distribution? Oh yeah, they make tons of money besides that from ticket sales, merchandise, etc.
The fact is that the Pac-10 and now the Pac-12 has never, and will never get the same per-school distribution for TV and Bowl games as the Big Ten, SEC, and Big XII get because college sports are not the end-all-be-all for the fanbases (at least not until another sport becomes a major revenue sport in college like X-Games, Rugby Sevens, or soccer). It is still a big deal, just not THE DEAL that it is in those areas/cultures. Average attendance in football is less than 50k, just ahead of the ACC for 4th among conferences; but way behind the Big Ten, SEC, and Big XII. Average attendance in basketball is just above 8k, which puts them well behind the other P5 conference (who all average above 10k) and also behind the Big East which also averages above 10k.
There is only one football program in the top 20 in average attendance and only one basketball program in the top 20. None in the top 10 in either sport. Money always follows interest, not the other way around.
But that does NOT mean they can't compete on the football field or court with the other conferences. That comes from the coaches, not the conference office. Larry Scott has his own fight to prove himself in his position, but that Oregonian article basically took Rick Neuheisel as the lone expert in bashing the conference and essentially saying that if the Pac-12 got more money to the schools then somehow we could recruit bigger/faster players away from the SEC and Big Ten. BS. The Pac-12 still puts more than it's fair share of talent into the NFL so it is not the talent on the field that is the issue. If the coaches were better then we would play better. period.
Texas has a bigger budget than anyone else, has their own ESPN network, and they have not gone to the CFP yet or been in the Sweet 16 in nearly a decade. How come nobody is talking about that?
Yes, the bowl showing last year was horrendous and the NCAA tourney, and this basketball season sucks. The timing couldn't be worse. But I don't buy-in to the theory that it is all connected to the distributions coming from the conference.
"Pay me more money and I'll work harder" is never a recipe for success in any field.
Is it a crisis of competitiveness? crisis of compensation? Or is it just a crisis of confidence?
I think it is just attitude and coaching. Fire Larry Scott. Sure. But the new person will have to address the melancholy nature of the conference and get the confidence back; because the talent is there to compete. Guess I never thought we needed the commissioner to do that for the schools. Prime opportunity for Rick George and Mel Tucker to step in, kick some a$$, and take that brass ring baby!
There are at least six AD's that have over a $100 million budget (CU is close to being the 7th). So that means the conference distribution is about 30% of the total. If it is about money, then why isn't the other 70% being discussed also?
The Pac-10 never received remotely close to what the other conferences received when USC was running through their dynasty at the start of this millenia. So why do we need it now to compete?
Notre Dame only brings in about $26 million in annual distributions from TV and their conference affiliation with the ACC ($15 million from NBC and $6 million from the ACC). So, how can they compete with even lower revenues than the Pac-12 distribution? Oh yeah, they make tons of money besides that from ticket sales, merchandise, etc.
The fact is that the Pac-10 and now the Pac-12 has never, and will never get the same per-school distribution for TV and Bowl games as the Big Ten, SEC, and Big XII get because college sports are not the end-all-be-all for the fanbases (at least not until another sport becomes a major revenue sport in college like X-Games, Rugby Sevens, or soccer). It is still a big deal, just not THE DEAL that it is in those areas/cultures. Average attendance in football is less than 50k, just ahead of the ACC for 4th among conferences; but way behind the Big Ten, SEC, and Big XII. Average attendance in basketball is just above 8k, which puts them well behind the other P5 conference (who all average above 10k) and also behind the Big East which also averages above 10k.
There is only one football program in the top 20 in average attendance and only one basketball program in the top 20. None in the top 10 in either sport. Money always follows interest, not the other way around.
But that does NOT mean they can't compete on the football field or court with the other conferences. That comes from the coaches, not the conference office. Larry Scott has his own fight to prove himself in his position, but that Oregonian article basically took Rick Neuheisel as the lone expert in bashing the conference and essentially saying that if the Pac-12 got more money to the schools then somehow we could recruit bigger/faster players away from the SEC and Big Ten. BS. The Pac-12 still puts more than it's fair share of talent into the NFL so it is not the talent on the field that is the issue. If the coaches were better then we would play better. period.
Texas has a bigger budget than anyone else, has their own ESPN network, and they have not gone to the CFP yet or been in the Sweet 16 in nearly a decade. How come nobody is talking about that?
Yes, the bowl showing last year was horrendous and the NCAA tourney, and this basketball season sucks. The timing couldn't be worse. But I don't buy-in to the theory that it is all connected to the distributions coming from the conference.
"Pay me more money and I'll work harder" is never a recipe for success in any field.
Is it a crisis of competitiveness? crisis of compensation? Or is it just a crisis of confidence?
I think it is just attitude and coaching. Fire Larry Scott. Sure. But the new person will have to address the melancholy nature of the conference and get the confidence back; because the talent is there to compete. Guess I never thought we needed the commissioner to do that for the schools. Prime opportunity for Rick George and Mel Tucker to step in, kick some a$$, and take that brass ring baby!
Last edited:
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
And FYI, between the TV network distributions (access, not money) issues, the officiating issues, the conference office expenditures, and now the private-equity/PR consultant move I am NOT in favor of retaining Larry Scott any longer.
He did some great things for the conference during his time; things that CU as a newcomer will never understand; but just like Mike MacIntyre hit his ceiling and it was time to move on; so to is that true for the commish, IMO.
He did some great things for the conference during his time; things that CU as a newcomer will never understand; but just like Mike MacIntyre hit his ceiling and it was time to move on; so to is that true for the commish, IMO.
I didn't know Larry's agent had a profile.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Based on a detailed breakdown of revenues by program conducted by Forbes for 2016-17, there were only two programs in the P5 that did not have $80 million or more in total revenues and only one G5 program that exceeded that.
The two schools below that threshold: Washington State and Oregon State with $64 million and $78 million. The only G5 program above that was UConn at $83 million. The next highest G5 program was Cincinnati with $60 million.
Drop the two dead-weight programs that cannot produce revenue outside of the conference distribution (which for them makes up 40-50% of their budget) and the per school distribution to everyone else would increase 20%.
Every conference has their programs that don't pull their weight in some aspect, but at least programs like Rutgers add TV markets to the footprint of the conference or provide enough in ticket sales, etc so that they can support their AD aside from just the conference money (Mississippi State, Kansas State, Purdue) if they don't add new markets. We are the only conference that truly has dead-weight programs like this.
Without the conference money, Washington State's athletic department would not look any different than Boise State, CSU, New Mexico, Fresno State, or UNLV and we aren't clamoring to add any of them to the conference. Oregon State's would compare to Cincinnati, San Diego State, East Carolina, Memphis, Houston, UCF, and USF.
Neither of those programs would lose any market presence for the conference and they only dilute the talent pool in the region.
Football would then have a full round-robin of games and still be able to host a CCG with the top two teams.
Add Gonzaga as basketball only member (even the Big Ten has associate members in hockey, Notre Dame, and lacrosse, Johns Hopkins). Maybe keep Oregon State as a baseball-only member too.
The two schools below that threshold: Washington State and Oregon State with $64 million and $78 million. The only G5 program above that was UConn at $83 million. The next highest G5 program was Cincinnati with $60 million.
Drop the two dead-weight programs that cannot produce revenue outside of the conference distribution (which for them makes up 40-50% of their budget) and the per school distribution to everyone else would increase 20%.
Every conference has their programs that don't pull their weight in some aspect, but at least programs like Rutgers add TV markets to the footprint of the conference or provide enough in ticket sales, etc so that they can support their AD aside from just the conference money (Mississippi State, Kansas State, Purdue) if they don't add new markets. We are the only conference that truly has dead-weight programs like this.
Without the conference money, Washington State's athletic department would not look any different than Boise State, CSU, New Mexico, Fresno State, or UNLV and we aren't clamoring to add any of them to the conference. Oregon State's would compare to Cincinnati, San Diego State, East Carolina, Memphis, Houston, UCF, and USF.
Neither of those programs would lose any market presence for the conference and they only dilute the talent pool in the region.
Football would then have a full round-robin of games and still be able to host a CCG with the top two teams.
Add Gonzaga as basketball only member (even the Big Ten has associate members in hockey, Notre Dame, and lacrosse, Johns Hopkins). Maybe keep Oregon State as a baseball-only member too.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
hmm. pretty sure I just posted that he should be fired.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
LOL no. The PAC is never, ever going to kick out members, and shouldn't.
I do not know how many times this can be repeated over and over in this argument, but NO ONE EXPECTS TO GET THE SAME EXACT REVENUE DISTRIBUTION AS THE BIG TEN OR SEC. What people expect is to be somewhat in the same ballpark, which is currently not at all possible.
And when you talk about "if the coaches were better then we would play better. period"... where do you think the money comes from for many middling to good SEC and Big Ten programs? How do you think Purdue afforded to keep Brohm this offseason? It is a major problem for hiring head coaches, but more importantly, it becomes a bigger issue in regards to assistants and support staff.
It is not a narrative when some conferences are making $15-$20 million more a year per team. It places a big strain on budgets (look at CU's issues with buying out MM at the moment).
How can anyone argue the financial inequality isn't impacting the quality of competition when CU can't afford to bring highly sought after assistant coaches to Boulder because they are paying $3m/year to their former HC?
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Except that the Pac-12 is not "in the ballpark" compared to the SEC, Big Ten, or Big XII in regards to fan interest/attendance/TV ratings in either football or basketball. So why should they be "in the ballpark" in TV revenues?
On a "per-fan" basis however, the Pac-12 gets paid more than the other conferences. So the distribution money is actually skewed HIGH for the Pac-12 compared to the other conferences. Using the most recent available complete set of data (2016-17 fiscal year):
| Conference | # | Football Att. | Basketball Att. | Distributions | $/Fan |
| SEC | 14 | 7,518,208 | 2,625,929 | $573,849,632 | $56.57 |
| Big Ten | 14 | 6,482,761 | 3,119,823 | $483,400,000 | $50.34 |
| Big XII | 10 | 3,797,046 | 1,856,017 | $342,775,341 | $60.64 |
| Pac-12 | 12 | 3,855,634 | 1,691,216 | $343,944,833 | $62.01 |
| ACC | 14/15 | 4,525,797 | 3,005,685 | $377,771,057 | $50.16 |
The other conferences are seeing their rights increase due to timing of their contracts, but also as "catch-up" to the deal the Pac-12 struck which leapfrogged them.
The only way to get total $ in the ballpark with the SEC, Big Ten, and Big XII on a per-school basis is to get fans in the same ballpark.
The only way to get back in the CFP and NCAA tournament discussion is to perform better on the field/court. That was my point since the media right now has been linking the money to performance.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Which coaches did we seek that we couldn't afford to hire or lure from their current jobs?
Sure, attendance matters. I mean in the same ballpark as maybe closing the gap from $15-20 million to $7-10 million. What is happening now is a disaster for the Pac-12 and you are shrugging your shoulders. I think mostly just to make yourself feel better than anything.
Also, your point mentioned better coaching. Again, the coaching hires are an issue when certain conferences (more importantly certain teams) are getting dramatically bigger payouts than USC, let alone programs like CU. That money would be huge for CU right now.
We will probably never know specific names (other than Lanning and the TE coach at Tennessee), but you are being a little naive if you look at the coaching hires thus far and thinking there are no budget issues.
Not sure, but I imagine if money wasn't a big issue our OC, DC and CB hires wouldn't have been Quality Control/GA guys the last couple years.
I think there are 25 or so athletic departments that bring in over $100M a year. CU needs to be among that group if it is going to become the athletic department we want. We need to find a path to another $20M in revenue (currently at $85M) and the conference should be good for half that number if it starts being managed properly. I don't understand why people try to convince themselves that it doesn't matter if you're competing with others who have less basic overhead than you do (CU's got more expensive scholarships, larger travel budgets & higher support staff salaries due to Boulder, CO market & geographic dynamics) but those competitors have 20% more in resources. This matters. A lot.
Last edited:
Attendance is declining though. At home games and at Bowl games. This makes the importance of TV contracts larger because, theoretically, were getting less dollars on game day.
Last edited:
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I probably didn't do a good enough job in explaining my position.
In my opinion, the game-day interest (fan support, ticket and related revenues, donor support) are true measures of a programs value. The TV revenues represent the collective interest for the conference (which is an aggregate of all the programs within said conference). The collective game-day interest of all programs within the conference is highly correlated to the TV ratings/value; which also has the variable of the market at the time the deal is renewed.
So, a conference like the SEC/Big Ten which has tremendous fan support (and those related measures) will have correlated TV revenues.
What I don't understand is how the Pac-12 media and many on this site feel that somehow we are supposed to get more money from TV when all the proof is that there is much lower interest, attendance, TV ratings, etc for the Pac-12 football and basketball brands (and this is even before the slump in both sports of the past 3 years).
My point is that there is enough revenues going into Pac-12 programs to produce better on-field/court performance that would then generate more fan interest. More fan interest = more money long term.
How do you propose to create more money without improving the product on the field?
-go hat-in-hand to ABC/ESPN or CBS and say "we promise that we'll be better if you just give us more money?"
It is a little bit of a chicken-egg scenario and it is certainly has been complicated by the missteps at the conference office.
All of those issues aside, just looking at the numbers and valuations the Pac-12 actually yields great numbers of $/fan; we just need more fans.
We are arguing the same point - we all want more resources/revenue for the Pac-12 (CU in particular). My point is that it just isn't going to happen out of thin air; the best thing the Pac-12 can do is to focus on improving during the game to get fans coming back to games and watching on TV.
CU is also competing against the other Pac-12 schools by and large; so whatever the conference gets is evenly distributed; we need to focus on improving ourselves to compete and dominate the Pac-12 and create our own resources.
Some of the Pac-12 programs have financial advantages that even SEC and Big Ten schools don't. But nobody in the media is talking about that.
Stanford and UCLA have built their athletic endowment to over $200 million each. They are well on their way to having nearly every student-athlete scholarship endowed and most of the coaching positions as well. Not even Georga in the SEC has anywhere near that level of funding; they are much more comparable to CU with $25 million give or take.
Some will say, well CU doesn't have that type of booster base. OK well that is my point. How do you get those types of boosters (hint: make them fans first!). If we solely rely on the conference TV money we are doomed to just being a "hanger-on" and will never be in a position of power. If we can build the infrastructure to be independently wealthy as an AD and then also have rich distributions from the conference then we can return to glory and stay there. Otherwise we will merely be a middle-tier P5 program that will have ebbs and flows of success and not be able to sustain it or retain great coaches (if we are fortunate enough to hire one in the first place).
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Then we have to be OK with the 20% reduced distributions because that is what it costs to have two more mouths to feed that aren't bringing value.