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!

Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)

TSchekler said:
Yeah, but most Pac 12 stadiums just aren't that big. Even if every program sold out every game, most wouldn't crack the top 30 on this list
Click to expand...

The 30th team on the list above is at 56,000 range. So Oregon and below meet the standard you suggest.

SchoolFootball stadiumCapacity
UCLARose Bowl91,936[40]
USCLos Angeles Memorial Coliseum77,500[44]
WashingtonHusky Stadium70,138[50]
CaliforniaCalifornia Memorial Stadium62,467[26]
Arizona StateSun Devil Stadium56,232[23]
ArizonaArizona Stadium56,037[20]
OregonAutzen Stadium54,000[31]
ColoradoFolsom Field53,613[29]
StanfordStanford Stadium50,424[37]
UtahRice-Eccles Stadium45,807[47]
Oregon StateReser Stadium43,363[34]
Washington StateMartin Stadium32,740[53]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The point about why the Pac 12 lacks behind in revenue has partly to do with attendance as a barometer of enthusiasm.
 
Last edited:
MiamiBuffs said:
The 30th team on the list above is at 56,000 range. So Oregon and below meet the standard you suggest.

SchoolFootball stadiumCapacity
UCLARose Bowl91,936[40]
USCLos Angeles Memorial Coliseum77,500[44]
WashingtonHusky Stadium70,138[50]
CaliforniaCalifornia Memorial Stadium62,467[26]
Arizona StateSun Devil Stadium56,232[23]
ArizonaArizona Stadium56,037[20]
OregonAutzen Stadium54,000[31]
ColoradoFolsom Field53,613[29]
StanfordStanford Stadium50,424[37]
UtahRice-Eccles Stadium45,807[47]
Oregon StateReser Stadium43,363[34]
Washington StateMartin Stadium32,740[53]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
The point about why the Pac 12 lacks behind in revenue has partly to do with attendance as a barometer of enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
I agree with the general point (I made the original argument for this), but I would say the attendance relative to BIG and SEC programs is just not a great barometer with the massive capacity differences
 
TSchekler said:
I agree with the general point (I made the original argument for this), but I would say the attendance relative to BIG and SEC programs is just not a great barometer with the massive capacity differences
Click to expand...

Agreed. The revenue disparity should also probably fall under the same reasoning. Some people just cant seem to figure that out though.
 
TSchekler said:
I agree with the general point (I made the original argument for this), but I would say the attendance relative to BIG and SEC programs is just not a great barometer with the massive capacity differences
Click to expand...

MiamiBuffs said:
Agreed. The revenue disparity should also probably fall under the same reasoning. Some people just cant seem to figure that out though.
Click to expand...

Capacity is also an extension of the same "demand". The Pac-12 is actually going backwards in that metric (USC reducing seats at the Coliseum; Cal having just done so). Even if Washington State expanded their stadium to 60,000 I seriously doubt that they would ever sell out unless the Huskies came to town. There just isn't enough fans, donors, etc to support it. Which is also why there isn't enough TV fans to support a higher payout.
 
Last edited:
ScottyBuff said:
Capacity is also an extension of the same "demand". The Pac-12 is actually going backwards in that metric (USC reducing seats at the Rose Bowl; Cal having just done so). Even if Washington State expanded their stadium to 60,000 I seriously doubt that they would ever sell out unless the Huskies came to town. Their just isn't enough fans, donors, etc to support it. Which is also why their isn't enough TV fans to support a higher payout.
Click to expand...
Utah needs to expand to about 60k. I think they are coming up to around Folsom’s capacity but those fans pack that place.
 
onealcd said:
Utah needs to expand to about 60k. I think they are coming up to around Folsom’s capacity but those fans pack that place.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I could see them doing that. The university has been a growth trajectory since the 2002 Olympic games built them a new football stadium and Urban Meyer showed up for the next 2 years and put them on the map as a national program. Oregon seems like the only other program in that position within the Pac-12.
Utah last expanded in 2014 to 45,807.
Oregon last expanded in 2002 to 54,000 (60,000 SRO).

But those are the exceptions...

ASU dropped from 74,865 to 53,599 in 2018
AZ dropped from 56,037 to 55,675 in 2014
Cal dropped from 85,000 to 75,000 to 67,537 and finally to 62,467 in 2013
CU dropped from 53,750 to 50,183 in 2014
Oregon State dropped from 45,675 to 43,363 in 2016
Stanford dropped from 89,000 to 50,424 in 2006
USC dropped from 93,607 to 77,500 in 2019
Washington dropped from 72,500 to 70,083 in 2014
Washington Stated dropped from 35,117 to 32,952 in 2014
 
Last edited:
ScottyBuff said:
Capacity is also an extension of the same "demand".
Click to expand...

I have a feeling a lot of people around here are going to be really upset when the 2022 deal comes along.

Side note, If I were Larry Scott I'd be making my departure right about now. I thank him for getting us out of that abysmal imploding conference. I dont blame him for having a good idea that just didnt quite work out. Add that "didnt quite work out" thing to a TV landscape changing and its probably time for new blood.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
I have a feeling a lot of people around here are going to be really upset when the 2022 deal comes along.

Side note, If I were Larry Scott I'd be making my departure right about now. I thank him for getting us out of that abysmal imploding conference. I dont blame him for having a good idea that just didnt quite work out. Add that "didnt quite work out" thing to a TV landscape changing and its probably time for new blood.
Click to expand...
I'm glad we're in the PAC, but it's hard to look at Big XII payouts and think of it as "abysmal."
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
I'm glad we're in the PAC, but it's hard to look at Big XII payouts and think of it as "abysmal."
Click to expand...

Then, add a contract too long to the reasons to hate Larry Scott.

At the time in 2011 it was the largest deal in all of college football.
4dc2d2accadcbb7e7a120000-160-134.jpg

To get that $3 billion dollar deal I'll assume they either failed to recognize it was too long or caved to the length to get the money. The Pac-10s previous deal paid only $60million dollars split 10 ways after conference expenses.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
I'm glad we're in the PAC, but it's hard to look at Big XII payouts and think of it as "abysmal."
Click to expand...
Those Big 12 payouts would be abysmal if they were splitting 12 ways instead of 10. Further, it’s not equal sharing of revenue.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Then, add a contract too long to the reasons to hate Larry Scott.

At the time in 2011 it was the largest deal in all of college football.
View attachment 29591

To get that $3 billion dollar deal I'll assume they either failed to recognize it was too long or caved to the length to get the money. The Pac-10s previous deal paid only $60million dollars split 10 ways after conference expenses.
Click to expand...
I remember the deal well. The luster wore off fast - the PAC is historically behind the other conferences, and it was only right then as we jumped into the next stage that it looked so comfy. As soon as the other contracts came up we were more or less back to where we've always been.
 
Buffnik said:
Those Big 12 payouts would be abysmal if they were splitting 12 ways instead of 10. Further, it’s not equal sharing of revenue.
Click to expand...
Sure, the revenue is unequal - mostly due to the T3 rights - but the revenue sharing model has changed since we left. The poorest of the Big XII are generating more TV income than the richest of the PAC. I'm skeptical on this investment strategy currently being pursued by the PAC. But then again, it may just be that I've become skeptical/ pessimistic on all things PAC finances. I know we'll never catch the B1G, SEC, or likely even the Big XII, but we need to be within a reasonable range. And who knows, the ACCN might just get the ACC up substantially past us as well.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
Sure, the revenue is unequal - mostly due to the T3 rights - but the revenue sharing model has changed since we left. The poorest of the Big XII are generating more TV income than the richest of the PAC. I'm skeptical on this investment strategy currently being pursued by the PAC. But then again, it may just be that I've become skeptical/ pessimistic on all things PAC finances. I know we'll never catch the B1G, SEC, or likely even the Big XII, but we need to be within a reasonable range. And who knows, the ACCN might just get the ACC up substantially past us as well.
Click to expand...
It's as simple as this: DirecTV would lose its business in Texas if they didn't offer broadcast of all televised UT, TTU, TCU and BU games. DirecTV does not face the same issue in California on USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford.

I'm not sure there's a solution to that for the Pac-12 other than being smart about how it runs its business with operational efficiencies and being a quick adopter & responder to emerging distribution technologies/ market trends. Larry Scott has been horrible on those two things.
 
TSchekler said:
Right, but the question is how beneficial is being in the Pac 12 to these things? What is the tangible benefit that CU has seen since joining the Pac 12?
Click to expand...

This question is 100% valid and the lazy and short-sighted answer is to attribute it to the move to the Pac12. Sure we were able to build the IPF and Champions Center but who's to say that couldn't have been done had we remained in the Big XII? This whole project took off when RG took over as AD and that simply coincided with the move to the Pac12, but the reality is the fundraising for these projects is more attributed to RG coming in as AD instead of the move to the P12, especially when you take into account the ineptitude of this conference. Which can't be ignored.
 
The tangible benefit of making the move to the Pac-12 was stability. Period. That was not present in the Big 12 when CU jumped and any narrative to the contrary is with the benefit of hindsight.

The Pac-12 presidents screwed up royally by rejecting the Oklahoma schools. That move haunts the conference today.
 
Duff Man said:
The tangible benefit of making the move to the Pac-12 was stability. Period. That was not present in the Big 12 when CU jumped and any narrative to the contrary is with the benefit of hindsight.

The Pac-12 presidents screwed up royally by rejecting the Oklahoma schools. That move haunts the conference today.
Click to expand...

The first point is fair even though we were one of the first to leave. The Big 12 would have without question become a G5 conference had Texas and the Oklahoma schools left at the same time as us.

And I couldn't agree with the 2nd point more. I didn't realize that the presidents rejected the Oklahoma schools and if that's the case then that was flat-out dumb. This just shows that the Pac12 schools are too high on themselves and it is costing them. Oddly enough they don't seem too concerned.

I thought it was the OK schools that decided against going to the Pac12 when Texas/TTech dropped out of the running or couldn't come to terms with the conference.
 
The Pac-12 presidents rejected the Oklahoma schools because OU was using the Pac-12 as leverage to get a better deal with the Big 12.
 
Duff Man said:
No. The OU president at the time wanted to be in a more prestigious conference academically.
Click to expand...

This.
Oklahoma has a president and some important people behind him that want to significantly change the academic level of the university. Their goal is to become an AAU member institution.

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-pres...cle_7a352d7e-a948-11e8-a298-1f098c7336d6.html

The same people behind this push would like to see OU in the PAC because it is seen as a much more prestigious group of schools.
 
As I recall the OU + OSU deal fell through because the PAC didn’t wasn’t OSU. Bored (OU prez at the time) seemed to really want the PAC, but he wasn’t constantly yapping about realignment matters.
 
The only other major issue as it relates to TV Network distributions to conferences is the non-football interest:

Basketball is the #2 revenue generating sport. The ACC (5), Big Ten (10), and SEC (6) all having the most teams in the top 30 of attendance. The Big 12 has three, and the Pac-12 has one; while there are 5 teams outside the P5. As a conference, the Pac-12 barely ranks ahead of the MWC and significantly behind the other four P5 conferences and the Big East.

Hockey, in some schools, is a revenue sport; especially up north. The Big Ten claims 6 of the Top 10 spots in attendance there (they also have #12 on the list: Notre Dame as an affiliate member) with the other 4 going to the NCHC (the SEC of hockey). Wisconsin regularly draws over 10k per game; despite not being competitive lately. With a 6,523 average attendance at home hockey games, the Big Ten hockey conference rivals the Pac Ten in BASKETBALL attendance. The Pac-12 only has one team fielding this sport, and that is a new program in Arizona State that ranks 50th (last) in the nation in attendance. DU averages over 5,000 per game.

Baseball is a revenue sport at some schools; especially down south. The SEC claims all spots in the top 5 of attendance and 11 of the Top 30 positions. The Big Ten has 4 spots in top 30, ACC (5), Big 12 (4), and the Pac-12 has 3. LSU draws over 10k per home game; and the SEC conference averages over 5,000 per game.

Wrestling is a very popular sport in certain regions of the country, particularly the Midwest. The Big Ten absolutely dominates here. With Iowa (9,000 avg) being #1, Penn State #2 (7,700), and Ohio State #3 (6,600) and the conference holding 7 of the top 10 spots. The Big 12 has 2 entrants (Okie State and Iowa State) with Fresno State and Lehigh also being ranked. All of the top 10 are over 2,000 per dual.

Lacrosse is a revenue sport in the Northeast/Great Lakes region. Exact attendance figures across the NCAA are hard to compile, however The ACC and Big Ten certainly have the largest fanbases. With Syrace, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame in the top 10 the ACC leads the way; Syracuse is usually #1 or #2 with over 4,000 per game. Maryland is their main challenger for attendance with one season over 5,000 per game and 3,000 the next. Michigan and Johns Hopkins (affiliate Big Ten member) round out the top ten entrants for the Big Ten. Army, Navy, Albany, and DU regularly exceed 2,000 per game.

In women's sports, the most popular are:
Basketball: South Carolina leads the way with over 13,000 fans per game and the SEC claims 3 of the top 10 and 7 of the Top 30 spots; while the Big Ten has 8 of the top 30. The Big 12 claims 5 of the top 30, ACC has 4 of the Top 30, while the Pac-12 only has 2 of the top 30; with the highest ranked team at #16 (Oregon State). Note: Gonzaga ranks #11 and New Mexico #18.
Gymnastics: Utah leads the way here! woohoo. With over 15k fans in attendance on average they are the #1 women's sport in the country. UCLA (5,400) and Oregon State (3,500) both rank in the top 12. The SEC dominates the rest of the Top 12 with spots 2 thru 6 and 11, 12. Alabama is the only other program with over 10,000 fans per meet (13,500). Georgia and LSU are just short of that milestone with over 9,000. The Big Ten and Big 12 have 1 entrant in the top 12 each and no ACC program.
Volleyball: Only 5 teams averaged 3,000 fans or above and 4 came from the Big Ten; led by Nebraska (8,210). Hawaii was #2 at 6,759. Big Ten also ranked #6, 7, and 9. The SEC had the 8th ranked team and Big 12 #10. The top ranked Pac-12 team was Washington at #13 with just over 2,000. Note: CSU ranked #14.
Softball: 5 programs average above 2,000 fans per game, but none over 3,000. The SEC claims #1 (Bama) and #4 (Auburn) while the Pac-12 has #2 (Zona) and #3 (Oregon). Louisiana (not LSU) ranks 5th.
Hockey: Only 1 team comes close to 3,000 fans and that is Wisconsin. Minnesota ranks #2 at just around 2,000 per game.

The point of this is that in addition to fall football, the Big Ten (Basketball, Hockey, Wrestling, Lacrosse, Volleyball, and Baseball) and SEC (Basketball, Baseball, and Gymnastics) field many other sports that have significant interest and fan following. The ACC and Big 12 rank ahead of the Pac-12 as well across the board. Their networks have content that are in demand all season long from their fanbases; even across gender lines. The Pac-12 is lacking in this full complement of popular programming.

With many of the most popular participation sports in the west being skiing/snowboarding; surfing; motocross, rodeo, eSports, and MMA not being fully-fledge NCAA sports or are not a part of the traditional "conference" model (only CU and Utah field teams from the Pac-12, but compete in RMISKA) the Pac-12 could lead the way in bringing those sports into the "conference umbrella" and on their TV network.
 
Last edited:
ScottyBuff said:
The only other major issue as it relates to TV Network distributions to conferences is the non-football interest:

Basketball is the #2 revenue generating sport. The ACC (5), Big Ten (10), and SEC (6) all having the most teams in the top 30 of attendance. The Big 12 has three, and the Pac-12 has one; while there are 5 teams outside the P5. As a conference, the Pac-12 barely ranks ahead of the MWC and significantly behind the other four P5 conferences and the Big East.

Hockey, in some schools, is a revenue sport; especially up north. The Big Ten claims 6 of the Top 10 spots in attendance there, with the other 4 going to the NCHC (the SEC of hockey); they also have #12 on the list (Notre Dame). Wisconsin regularly draws over 10k per game; despite not being competitive lately. With a 6,523 average attendance at home hockey games, the Big Ten hockey conference rivals the Pac Ten in BASKETBALL attendance. The Pac-12 only has one team fielding this sport, and that is a new program in Arizona State that ranks 50th (last) in the nation in attendance. DU averages over 5,000 per game.

Baseball is a revenue sport at some schools; especially down south. The SEC claims all spots in the top 5 of attendance and 11 of the Top 30 positions. The Big Ten has 4 spots in top 30, ACC (5), Big 12 (4), and the Pac-12 has 3. LSU draws over 10k per home game; and the SEC conference averages over 5,000 per game.

Wrestling is a very popular sport in certain regions of the country as well. The Big Ten absolutely dominates here. With Iowa (9,000 avg) being #1, Penn State #2 (7,700), and Ohio State #3 (6,600) and the conference holding 7 of the top 10 spots. The Big 12 has 1 entrant with Fresno State and Lehigh also being ranked. All of the top 10 are over 2,000 per contest.

Lacrosse is a revenue sport in the Northeast/Great Lakes region. Exact attendance figures across the NCAA are hard to compile, however The ACC and Big Ten certainly have the largest fanbases. With Syrace, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame in the top 10 the ACC leads the way; Syracuse is usually #1 or #2 with over 4,000 per game. Maryland is their main challenger for attendance with one season over 5,000 per game and 3,000 the next. Michigan and Johns Hopkins (affiliate Big Ten member) round out the top ten entrants for the Big Ten. Army, Navy, Albany, and DU regularly exceed 2,000 per game.

In women's sports, the most popular are:
Basketball: South Carolina leads the way with over 13,000 fans per game and the SEC claims 3 of the top 10 and 7 of the Top 30 spots; while the Big Ten has 8 of the top 30. The Big 12 claims 5 of the top 30, ACC has 4 of the Top 30, while the Pac-12 only has 2 of the top 30; with the highest ranked team at #16 (Oregon State). Note: Gonzaga ranks #11 and New Mexico #18.
Gymnastics: Utah leads the way here! woohoo. With over 15k fans in attendance on average they are the #1 women's sport in the country. UCLA (5,400) and Oregon State (3,500) both rank in the top 12. The SEC dominates the rest of the Top 12 with spots 2 thru 6 and 11, 12. Alabama is the only other program with over 10,000 fans per meet (13,500). Georgia and LSU are just short of that milestone with over 9,000. The Big Ten and Big 12 have 1 entrant in the top 12 each and no ACC program.
Volleyball: Only 5 teams averaged 3,000 fans or above and 4 came from the Big Ten; led by Nebraska (8,210). Hawaii was #2 at 6,759. Big Ten also ranked #6, 7, and 9. The SEC had the 8th ranked team and Big 12 #10. The top ranked Pac-12 team was Washington at #13 with just over 2,000. Note: CSU ranked #14.
Hockey: Only 1 team comes close to 3,000 fans and that is Wisconsin. Minnesota ranks #2 at just around 2,000 per game.

The point of this is that in addition to fall football, the Big Ten (Basketball, Hockey, Wrestling, Lacrosse, Volleyball, and Baseball) and SEC (Basketball, Baseball, and Gymnastics) field many other sports that have significant interest and fan following. The ACC and Big 12 rank ahead of the Pac-12 as well across the board. Their networks have content that are in demand all season long from their fanbases; even across gender lines. The Pac-12 is lacking in this full complement of popular programming.

With many of the most popular participation sports in the west being skiing/snowboarding; surfing; motocross, rodeo, eSports, and MMA not being fully-fledge NCAA sports or are not a part of the traditional "conference" model (only CU and Utah field teams from the Pac-12, but compete in RMISKA) the Pac-12 could lead the way in bringing those sports into the "conference umbrella" and on their TV network.
Click to expand...
Overall, great perspective.

I think Iowa State needs to he included in the wrestling conversation.
 
Stuart quoting Stewart on Pac-12 and Larry Scott

For all the bellyaching, Pac-12 schools are still expected to receive $31.7 million from the conference this year, the majority of it from TV deals. Do you know that in 2010-11, a year before the league’s current deal kicked in, the conference’s entire TV deal was worth $60 million a year? By comparison, the Big Ten’s at the time was worth $220 million. And yet somehow, that same year, Oregon managed to make the national title game, and Stanford finished No. 4 in the country.
Click to expand...
 
Oh for ****s sake. He’s failing as commissioner right now and we’re lagging behind the other conferences and he gets a raise. The sad thing is this happens all the time, corporations love to pay the CEO’s while everyone else suffers. I really hope this turns around because this sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top