More Thoughts On Why Adding Utah Doesn't Do Much For The Pac-10
by Nestor on Jun 16, 2010 8:21 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintFrom Greg Hansen of the Arizona Daily Star (emphasis added throughout)
Colorado brings little to the Pac-10. No baseball, no softball, no swimming, a basketball team that averaged 6,267 fans and almost no new money.
Utah would bring even less. The Utes wouldn't help to solve the raging financial crisis at Oregon State, Wazzu and ASU.
We take it on good faith that Scott has more to his expansion tour/marketing outreach than Colorado and Utah. We take it that the presidents and chancellors of the Pac-10 didn't give Scott all of that power merely to add teams with less presence than Oregon State.
The Pac-10 can use a bump in glamour, and especially one at the bank, but I don't see how Colorado or Utah can help either. I'm aware of the negative variables and politics about adding BYU, but the Cougars have a history, a brand and a presence that neither Utah nor Colorado can touch.
I guess Hansen gives us hints on which schools must be really getting antsy for expansion dollars. As for BYU, adding them has always been a nonstarter which we have discussed ad nausea here on BN.
Going back to the idea of Pac-10 must add Utah immediately, Greg expands on how adding Utah will not do much in terms of the leverage Pac-10 is going to have while negotiating a new TV K:
If Colorado is vanilla ice cream, Utah is snow melting on the sidewalk.
Adding Colorado, and possibly Utah, puts the Pac-10 in a neutral negotiating position with more partners in the split. When Scott goes to market next year, the TV people at ABC, ESPN and Fox Sports Net next year will see what they've always seen. Colorado and maybe Utah won't generate more money.
So that goes back to the central question again: why the freaking rush to get in this shot gun marriage?
I appreciate the "partial" argument DC Bruins and are advancing on behalf of the Utes but I still don't find them persuasive. Right now the linchpin behind adding Utah is the rush to get a conference championship game. It is not clear at all whether a conference championship game will be viable for our conference given the track record the teams in this conference have with traveling fans.
Bruce Jenkins from the San Francisco Chronicle also echoed Greg Hansen's concerns about the current state of "expansion":
What essentially happened, with Texas' decision to stay in the Big 12, was the dissolution (however temporary) of the super-conference plan that would have forever altered the collegiate landscape. The Pac-10 would have expanded to 16 teams, adding Texas and Oklahoma and assorted other buckin' broncos, creating a preposterous landscape about as regional as the Western Hemisphere.
Make no mistake, that was Scott's plan. A number of Pac-10 schools were all for the big push, for it meant untold riches distributed from a brand-new conference television network. Well, tough break on that one, everybody. Live with it. Remember how you would have felt when those Great Plains schools started racking up all the conference titles. Take heart in the fact that Cal and Stanford won't be forever looking up at the Longhorns and Sooners - in a number of sports.
The worst of it, for Scott, is that the Pac-10 still made a ridiculous move. Adding Colorado was the initial piece of the puzzle, with the bigger boys soon to follow, except ... no. Now the Pac-10 is stuck with Colorado, and maybe Utah down the road, to make it an even 12 teams. Ludicrous. Nothing but a lot of extra travel, for no reason, in tough economic times. It was enough of a stretch to give the Arizona schools a "Pacific" label, and what happens in football now - you play all 11 teams, with no room for nonconference action?
Again there is not a lot of convincing arguments out there right now that Pac-10 immediately has to get into a shot-gun marriage with the Utah. If Larry Scott rushes into this only to come up with mixed results or inconclusive results in terms of betterment of the conference, while compromising long standing traditions and matchups, he will turn out to be as big of a failure as his predecessor who left us in the current stale state.
GO BRUINS.
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
OMG - Nestor
We ABSOLUTELY HAVE to get Utah in the conference. If we don’t do it IMMEDIATELY someone else will get them, and THEN WHAT WILL WE DO? I texted my bff Brittney, and she was like, OMG Utah, and I’m like, well, duh, and she’s like, well, ok, and I’m like ….
Or not.
Maybe we should go to plan B – offer a spot to the highest bidder.
One thing that makes this tough ...
is not knowing the numbers involved.
Hansen states that Colorado and Utah won’t add more money. I’d like to know exactly how he knows this. I’m not trying to trip up his argument on a technicality. But whether or not it makes economic sense is the key.
I’ve been assuming all along that Larry Scott has crunched the numbers a thousand times and already talked to the TV networks and already has an idea that this is a money maker, if nothing else. Throw out the symmetry and the tradition discussions, this only works if it’s profitable. If it isn’t profitable, then it makes no sense at all.
I’ve been taking it on faith that no matter what happens it’s a money maker for UCLA. It’s not conceivable that the Pac 10 could add Colorado and maybe Utah and not benefit financially … I mean, it’s conceivable, but it would be just stupid.
So, I’d like to know how and where Hansen is getting his financial numbers — because stating that the expansion into Colorado and Utah brings in no money is a huge statement that needs a little back up IMO.
It cuts both ways
I think the greater burden is on Larry Scott to show how he is reaching and calculating his numbers. In terms of Utah if you look it straight up their stadium doesn’t hold more than 45,000 folks. More than reasonable to assume they don’t have the majority share in Utah market given long standing tradition of BYU football. Their basketball program was built by Majerus and has been a mess since its departure.
As for CU, football numbers may be there but they have ways to go in terms of hoops. I also don’t think Pac-10 fans are not going to be traveling to SLC to support their teams. The TV numbers right now are completely speculative (in terms of what has been shared in press). So the burden is really on Pac-10 officials to show this move makes sense financially and also on the UCLA officials why they are going along with it.
The burden is not on the reporters and fans.
Question
I don’t have an answer, but N raises an interesting point: Utah is definitely not up to par with most of the Pac-10 schools in terms of athletic tradition and facilities.
What I’d like to know (if anyone out there has the information) is how Arizona and Arizona State stacked up before they joined the conference (which happened before I was born). If they were strong programs with good tradition and a solid fan base and they stayed even after joining the conference, to me, that would seem to indicate Utah would be a non-starter.
However, if ASU and UA were more MWC-esque (in other words, with okay facilities and tradition like Utah) before joining the conference, but the prestige and increased revenue that came from joining the Pac-10 caused ASU and UA to step up their game, so to speak, with better fan turn-out, improved facilities, etc., then to me, that would seem to think that Utah could achieve the level we want them to be at once we bring them in and they get the benefits of BCS conference prestige and revenue.
I don’t have an answer, but I’d be interested to hear what folks think.
Both were pretty strong
In addition to multiple national championships in baseball (4 for ASU and 1 for U of A), the two pretty much dominated the WAC, ASU especially in football and U of A, not surprisingly, in basketball.
U of A’s best hoops season was probably 1976, when they made the elite eight—and lost to UCLA.
Some Numbers...
- Arizona basketball won 1 WAC championship and made the Elite Eight once (out of 2 NCAA Tournament appearances). Since joining the Pac-10, they’ve won 11 conference titles and 1 National Championship (with 4 Final Fours).
- Arizona State basketball won 4 WAC championships. They have won 0 Pac-10 championships.
- In those 16 years, Utah won 2 WAC championships and made the Final Four once. Since then they’ve won 15 conference championships. Utah also has won 1 National Championship with 4 Final Fours (and a NIT Championship from the 40’s).
- Utah’s 19 appearances in the final AP top 25 would be 3rd in the Pac-10 (behind UCLA and Arizona)
- Arizona won 2 WAC football championships and has won 1 Pac-10 championship.
- Arizona State won 7 WAC football championships and has won 3 Pac-10 championships (2 split)
- Utah won 1 WAC championship in those 16 years and has won 5 conference championships since.
All from Wikipedia, so there may be some kinks.
by SuperBruinMan on Jun 16, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
good numbers to look at
It’s kind of a chicken and egg question. Does entering a BCS conference help breed prestige and revenue, or do you have to have it first to get it?
Speaking of which, what were the Arizona demographics back then? Not saying that people are going to flock to Utah like they are Arizona (probably ever), but it’s interesting to see what kind of potential is out there
Facilities Numbers
Here’s a chart looking at the capacities for the current and prospective Pac-10 schools in football and basketball, now and at the time of the last expansion in 1978.
To summarize:
Utah’s football capacity is much smaller than the Pac-10 average, albeit in a subjectively nice stadium, recently redone. It wouldn’t be the smallest, and would be close to a couple other members, but it would be towards the bottom. It is also similar to Arizona in the Pac-8 expansion, with a capacity below the conference average. Both Arizonas (and Washington State) added seats to their stadium around the time of the previous expansion to reach the ~40,000 level.
Basketball-wise, Utah would appear to have facilities near the top of the league. They have the largest capacity and regularly host the NCAA tournament on campus. From personal experience, it remains a fairly nice arena (probably between Pauley and Galen in terms of plush-ness), despite no major renovations since opening in 1969. The Arizonas were both in similar position back in 1978, with new arenas near the top of the league – the Pac-10 has had no effect on their basketball facilities.
Very nice chart
But a note to others: capacity can be a very misleading number. For example, look at Stanford. They had a lot more capacity in 1978, but their new stadium, with fewer seats, is way better than the POS they finally killed off.
That's fair ...
and I acknowledged that I was taking it on faith that Scott had crunched the numbers.
If he hasn’t — he should be fired and then arrested. I’m not sure how this shakes out, but I would be shocked if Scott hasn’t had to run the numbers past the school presidents/chancellors and maybe even regents involved. He probably should share the information with the public, but if he hasn’t shared it with the schools involved he is negligent. Just so we’re clear, I’m not defending or even supporting Scott — I just can’t wrap my head around the notion that he’s moving forward without knowing what the revenues will look like.
But if Hansen is going to say definitively that these schools don’t bring in any money and he can’t back it up than the comment is meaningless. For all I know, the creation of a Pac 12 Championship game makes it all worthwhile. So, I guess I would say the burden cuts both ways.
ACC examples below
Gives us hard numbers to consider why championship game is not the sure fire revenue generator many are making it out to be.
I see the ACC attendance numbers ...
what I don’t know are the television ratings or more importantly the television contract.
Attendance revenue is nothing compared to television contract money. Now, it’s possible that the television contract money is not there for the ACC either, but that would tell us much more than the attendance numbers, which could be impacted by who is playing, where the game is held and other factors, such as the economic recession which impacts the ability to travel and buy game tickets. Also, television money likely comes with some guarantees so the conference gets paid even if ratings aren’t high. I presume there is some recourse for the network if ratings tank horribly, but I really don’t know the details of how that would work. Maybe there is a reader here who can detail how these contracts get put together.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not necessarily defending Scott. I guess what I am saying is that there is a lack of hard info on the finances of the ramifications of expansion.
(BTW — I’m admittedly notorious for not catching everything that has been posted, so if the ACC TV revenues and ratings were posted, I missed them and offer a “my bad” in advance.)
Okay … so before i hit post I looked up the ACC championship game on Wikipedia (insert caveat about Wikipedia here) and found some ratings, for example the inaugural ACC championship game drew a higher rating than the SEC or Big 12 game that year. Later games didn’t do as well. There aren’t enough ratings there to provide a complete picture. It’s interesting to note that they’ve have problems with attendance and tried to solve them by changing venues. Also, it appears that the network dictates the kick off time and if I read the article right that kick off time is impacted by the kick off times of the other games on the network that day and that in turn impacts the ratings as prime time games will do better than afternoon kick offs. So, unfortunately, my cursory research didn’t really tell me enough.
I posted ACC revenue totals in the post below
Not sure of the most recent figures, but the ACC reported the following championship game revenue to the IRS: 2005: $5.7 million; 2006: $4.9 million; 2007: $4.1 million. Don’t know if that is all-encompassing of championship game revenue, but the same source notes SEC and Big XII championship game revenue that falls in line with the media estimates ($12/15/20 million/year).
formerly bruinhoo
These administratiors
Have not given us a lot of reason to trust them. So far Scott’s move have been busts. So I am not inclined to just trust in authority mode without seeing any kind of hard numbers. The track record when it comes to expansion for the sake of a championship has been mixed if not discouraging as evidenced by ACC. It will be really pathetic if the Pac-10 teams let Scott move without showing hard numbers and making a convincing case to the fanbases.
To date they haven’t done much to convince at least many of us here why adding Utah is a good move.
Not to mention ...
Greg Hansen clearly has a BYU agenda.
Between Scott, Hansen, and Jenkins, if I had to bet which has actually crunched the numbers, formulated a financial projection, and engaged in discussion with network power brokers, my money would be on Scott. As A. says, if he has not done all of the above then he has been grossly negligent and should be fired (disagree on the arrested part, however, don’t see the criminality), but it is inconceivable to me that he has not.
As for adding Utah, I am not totally opposed. In fact, between Colorado and Utah, I see a lot of parallels — both are state land-grant universities, both are well regarded academically, both have strong athletic programs, and both have a large, loyal fan base. For all the arguments I’ve seen against Utah, I don’t see any that wouldn’t also apply to Colorado — Logan is 1000’ lower altitude than Boulder, SLC is closer than Denver (and just as easy to get to), and there’s tons of stuff to do in and around SLC, especially if you’re into outdoor activities.
If the bottom line is a net positive for the PAC-1x, and admittedly that may be a big ‘if’, I fail to see why, if Colorado is such a positive move, Utah would be such a negative one.
by snorkeldorf on Jun 16, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
so where is the data?
That show addition of Utah will result in millions for UCLA? Link?
by Nestor on Jun 16, 2010 12:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I also notice that tiny little difference
In population is left out, where Denver and Colorado are about double their SLC and Utah counterparts. Not to mention CU’s stake in that market is likely to be a higher percentage than Utah’s stake in theirs with BYU in the same market. That tiny little difference might just matter to people working out a TV deal. A convenient omission indeed.
actually
CU has been not that big in Denver. Denver is big on their pro sports (hey, maybe SC can move over there)…
Now the potential for CU is bigger if they get their athletics back in shape (and its always easy to find bandwagoners anywhere it seems), but this entire comparison feels more like a small market- fanaticism vs. large market-apathy debate we’ve all seen
Just A Sincere Question...
What is the source for the ‘strong academics’ of Utah? I’m not trying to be a smartass, I just have never heard that before—nor have I looked for it—and now I’m curious.
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Jun 16, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Utah Academics
US News & Reports ranks Utah at 126th among national research universities.
The London Times Rankings have it at 259th in the world
Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s rankings have it at 80th in the world.
It pretty consistently ranks among the top 60 or so in the U.S. in terms of research dollars. And a number of its grad programs are ranked around 50th in the nation
Thank You!
Even though this is an “athletics” issue, I still think that is very important.
Love My Bruins
126 is low for a PAC 10 Team
Even ASU is ranked higher. CO by comparison is 77. This does trouble me and should be considered a factor. The Pac XX is an elite athletic and< academic conference.
So,
ASU is the lowest in the Pac 10?
And I wholeheratedly agree with you about academics being a cornerstone for us.
I think I’ll take a gander through the USN&R rankings—I assume they’re on line. I’ve been against adding Utah, and I have a feeling that might strengthen my initial, gut reaction “no.”
Love My Bruins
WSU and Oregon State
Many here seem prone to denigrating the academic qualifications of these two outstanding schools, but I wonder if they have any appreciation for their past and present contributions to the communties they serve locally, nationally, and even worldwide.
OSU in particular seems to get an especially bad rap.
Oregon State is one of 73 land-grant universities currently operating throughout the world. The school is also recognized as a sea-grant, space-grant and sun-grant institution, making it one of only two US institutions to retain all four designations and the only public university to do so (Cornell is the only other with similar designations). In addition to Oregon State’s many federally designated areas of research, the university receives more funding for research, annually, than all other public higher education institutions in Oregon combined.
And while WSU may not quite measure up to OSU’s standards, again per Wiki it is certainly no slouch:
Founded in 1890, WSU is the state’s original and largest land-grant university and confers bachelor’s, master’s, professional and doctoral degrees, and offers more than 200 fields of study. The university is well known for its programs in veterinary medicine, agriculture, animal science, food science, plant science, architecture, neuroscience, psychology, criminal justice and communications, as well as its atmospheric, biological chemistry, shock physics, sleep and wood materials research laboratories. It is one of 96 public and private universities in America with “very high research activity,” as determined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
If such are the makings of Tier 3 schools, more power to them!
I wonder how much USNWR matters though
It’s supposed to be an undergraduate ranking, and from what I’ve heard it’s research that really matters.
by SuperBruinMan on Jun 16, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Not for Student-Athletes
I think it is relevant for student athletes and that is what we are talking about here for an Athletic conference.
So why is it so important to be a research university
if the relevance is only in educating student athletes?
by SuperBruinMan on Jun 16, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
For an Athletic Conerence it is relevant
Sorry, I did not explain myself well. I meant that half the current PAC 10 has a great undergraduate and athletic tradition. Utah is not in that kind of group and I think it is something to consider. In other words, I think we should have more schools on the side of Stanford then on the side of Wazzu.
Agreed.
We’ve shopped and “bought” a school that does not enhance either the $/athletic facility/recruiting side, or the academics side.
Love My Bruins
USNWR
Has its own issues anyways. I mean, USC ranked that high if its an undergraduate ranking? I admit they have pretty good grad schools for SC standards, but let’s not pretend their undergraduate is as great as USNWR implies…
Good Point
I was surprised at that as well.
As best we can tell, there are no "hard numbers"
If there were, someone would know them and they would be trotted out to support the positions being taken by the “players”.
What we’ve heard is that there were “projections” and/or “assurances from consultants” based upon a hypothetical negotiation with competing networks — none of which is fact.
We’ve heard about hypothetical network competition, hypothetical “vanity networks”, and hypothetical monster payouts.
Larry Scott has never said that he has definite numbers and commitments from anyone.
The people who buy into the big profit rhetoric are the same people who invested in Enron or with Maddof. They are looking for a quick buck. They are not doing due diligence. They are exactly the people who fall prey to big promises that are never kept.
Finally, all along I’ve said this should not be about money and nothing but money. Now, in the aftermath, with the promises of big bucks floating away, we get to live with the marriage to CU, maybe an ok choice, and the shotgun to Utah which makes no sense at all.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Jun 16, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
No Relation To
TOM, I pray. While I always appreciate (read=depend on) the BN counterpoint, I did harbor hopes for a more objective argument for/against the UTES — if not at least as warm as was rolled out for Boulder.
Instead, Hansen brought ZERO data — which is what this expansion (and this blog for that matter) is supposedly all about. Pushing a downer opinion post on the UTAH gambit simply because it fits a the consensus actually surprised me.
And speaking of hard data, FORGET about Brigham Young . FORGET IT. Ya gotta love the school, the tradition (I guess) and the support, but when your kids (a) can’t play on Sundays, (b) can’t socialize with their piers and © leave the country for 2-years on mandatory missions (however laudable) - You bring Very Food for your Conference to Eat.
The Utah move makes LOTS of sense for the west’s Preeminent athletic conference.
GO BRUIN BLUE
You are more than welcome to write a pro Ute point
Remember you are not paying us and we are not obligated to serve you the sugar you want to taste.
no one's talking about BYU
That’s a red herring.
As far as Utah goes, they’re way below average in terms of TV market (50% or so of SLC <<<<<< 50% of LA, 50% of SF, 100% of PHX, 100% of SEA, 50%+ of DEN [since Colorado doesn’t exactly dominate that market]), they’re way below average in terms of academics (don’t hold a candle to the 4 CA schools + U-Dub), and other than the last six years, their football history is nothing special.
I thought the Denver market was supposed to be a huge boost..
What happened to all this talk about CU bringing the strong Denver market to the Pac-?. Also, consider this: even though BYU has more influence on the Salt Lake sports market, what’s going to happen when Utah joins our conference and BYU is still in the MWC? I’d be inclined to think that the landscape in the state of Utah will shift at least a little bit towards the Utes with their move to a bigger conference…combine that with the fact that their football program is stronger than ever, and there’s a decent chance we will see improvements to their football stadium eventually, which should further increase the support the Utah football program gets. If I were BYU right now, I’d honestly be concerned that my geographical rival just moved to a bigger conference.
I hate to go back on my word about religious schools
But what about Notre Dame? Rival in football and basketball in the Pac-10. They fly all around the country anyway. The Midwest would be wrapped up along with the East Coast, plus the West Coast with the Pac. Good research school but not secular. Would it be a long shot just to talk to them?
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
The thing is
These super conferences are going to change the landscape and determine who is taken seriously and who is not. Landing the biggest football plum in our conference (who plays Stanford and $UC* every year anyway) would give us the leverage to do whatever we wanted. Trust me, they are getting nervous about this super conference talk and might not be able to maintain independence.
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Jun 16, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Its not going to happen
Aside form Nestor’s point that they aren’t hurting for cash…
The Big 10, with more money and arguably more prestige (and from top to bottom, they are certainly academically better as a whole than the Pac-10, though not necessarily more elite) has been trying to woo them for 20 years now… and even with the Pac-16 talk, Notre Dame still didn’t blink..
ND to the Pac-10/12 is just a shade better than ND to the Big 12-2
Completely ridiculous move
This whole exercise was pointless. They have now added a less prestigious school that still has a dangerous football program, which means we get nothing out of beating them and are ridiculed for losing to them (even though they are good).
Not to mention, we now have two high altitude locales to go to for games, that’s tough on the players.
Send them all back!
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Jun 16, 2010 10:36 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Getting high
Your high altitude comment is gaining more traction in my mind as time goes by. Conceivably, it would only be a single football game per year (the second Utah/Colorado football game would be played in the Rose Bowl). But that means 2 altitude basketball games, water polo matches, et al. Other than our women’s gymnastics team, who can beat Russia, that’s a lot of high altitude competition.
Is that a deal breaker with Utah, I doubt it but it sure needs to be in the mix.
by peggysue69 on Jun 16, 2010 11:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
which both schools
will need if they hope to beat any one of their sister schools outside Corvalis, Tempe or Pullman in any other sport outside Football.
Not to worry. They’re gonna NEED the altitude.
GO BRUIN BLUE
How long will it be before the MWC qualifies for BCS status?
If the MWC were to acheive BCS status before the PAC-10 invited Utah, then the chances of Utah moving to the PAC-10 are greatly reduced as Utah would be more likely to win the MWC conference than the PAC-10. If the financial projections say including Utah will be a plus for the conference, then perhaps it is better to invite Utah sooner rather than later.
There is no link
Why do I need a link for my opinion? If adding Utah benefits the conference, then it might be better to invite them sooner rather than later for the reason I stated earlier. I am not privy to the actual financial projections so I have no idea if adding Utah is a benefit or not. MWS qualification for BCS status might still be a year or two away so there is no immediate rush to invite Utah, but there are time constraints in play.
hy do you need a link for your opinion?
Because this site has always been about offering opinion and insights based on analysis and citations. If you can’t do that go troll over at message board or call in and rant on a radio show. If you shoot back with another snarky comment without providing any support of your assertions, you will be gone.
??
Isn’t this person just saying, “If X actually is true, then I think Y, (but if not, then I don’t, necessarily”)?
Like, “If the experts really think that Kevin Costner’s invention will actually get more oil out of the Gulf, then I think we should use it”? (Not knowing yet what they say about it.)
Love My Bruins
That's my take on it
He’s not claiming Utah benefits the pac10 financially. Just pointing out that Utah’s desire to join our conference may expire with potential BCS changes.
Yes, that is what I was saying
I am unclear as to what part of my original post could have been construed as making “assertions” that warranted a citation. In any case I shall bow out of this discussion.
Revenue is still a key issue
As we have all learned over the past few weeks. Even if the MWC does gain BCS conference status, it does not follow that Utah (and the other MWC teams) would see a change in revenue – not to mention recruiting visibility – that would eliminate the desirability of a Pac invite. In a recent example of conference-switching, Virginia Tech saw its conference payout nearly double after it left the (BCS member) Big East to join the (BCS member) ACC. After Miami and BC left the Big East, Tech was left with an even easier path to a BCS game in the Big East than Utah would have in the MWC, but it preferred what then was expected to be a Florida-dominated (for football) ACC and $$ over the relative cakewalk in the Big East.
formerly bruinhoo
Can we give Colorado back?
I can’t blame Scott for trying to pull of a remarkable coup, the first superconference, with potential national champions in just about every sport. But Texas picked his pocket, snipped his suspenders, and left him standing in front of the parimutuel window with a ticket for the wrong race.
What we’re going to do with Colorado now is beyond me. I loved the idea of the Pac-16 so that the conference could get out of the Fox regional-Versus closet, but the Pac-11 or -12 with Colorado and/or Utah is, as Tasser puts it, pointless.
Like Beebe, Scott should have gotten the contracts first, before he got on the plane.
Like Beebe, Scott should have gotten the contracts first, before he got on the plane.
Beebe has contracts? He admitted yesterday that the only thing they had was “projections” based on the word of consultants. There is no guarantee at all they’ll get the SEC money everyone has been crowing about, and certainly nothing that says that conference won’t break up within the next five years.
No
I think he’s saying that, just like Beebe, he should have…
(that’s how I read it, anyway)
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Jun 16, 2010 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
stop it.
“Hi, William Powers, please…. Hey Bill, it’s Larry Scott. Yep that Larry. Good man how the hell are ya? Well see that’s why I called! Man do I have a deal for you guys. More exposure, better schools, bigger money. Listen, what’s your fax number, Bill? Got it. Just need you to sign off and fax it back. Once’s it’s done I’m there for dinner. Perry’s for four?”
CLICK.
GO BRUIN BLUE
I don't know if this has already been covered
but why didn’t Scott go after the Oklahoma schools a bit harder, I know he could have presented them a deal that would have locked them in to the PAC 10, and would be better than what they have now? Once you lock them in, you go after TX Tech and A&M. At that point were does UT go? That would have put us in a better situation.
Oklahoma needs Texas more than Texas needs them
And provides more benefit to OU/OSU than those two get from joining the Pac alone.
formerly bruinhoo
Financials note
The Big XII (Big X) has unequal revenue sharing of its revenues, unlike the Pac-10/Big 10/ACC, which provides Oklahoma (As well as UT/TAMU) an outsized share of TV/media $$. It would take a pretty big jump in revenue to make an equal share of Pac-1x $$ worthwhile for Oklahoma, assuming the Pac would not sell itself out just to bring in the Sooners.
formerly bruinhoo
Oklahoma said from the jump...
they were sticking with Texas, and OK State’s most influential booster, T. Boone Pickens, was against the move to the Pac-10. Additionally, OU and OK State are joined at the hip. You’re not getting one without the other. No way the Sooners make a move without Texas.
Oklahoma said from the jump...
they were sticking with Texas, and OK State’s most influential booster, T. Boone Pickens, was against the move to the Pac-10. Additionally, OU and OK State are joined at the hip. You’re not getting one without the other. No way the Sooners make a move without Texas.
Utah joining by Friday
so says reporting on ESPN. http://tinyurl.com/25ed558
Some absolute raw media #s
First off lets talk media markets, here are all current and future pac-10 schools and media markets (sorry if the formatting looks like crap):
School City Media Market Secondary Media Market
Arizona Tuscon 465,100
ASU Tempe 1,873,930
Cal Berkeley 2,503,400
Oregon Eugene 241,730 1,188,770 (Portland)
OSU Corvallis 66,980 1,188,770 (Portland??)
Stan Stanford 2,503,400
UCLA LA 5,659,170
U$C LA 5,659,170
Wash Seattle 1,833,990
WSU Pullman 419,350 (spokane?)
Colorado Denver 1,539,380
Utah SLC 910,000
Media Market size of the schools and conference sizes:
No. of Schools Total Media Market Avg Media Market Per School
Original 10 members 14,252,420 1,425,242
11 (10 + Colorado) 15,791,800 1,435,618
12 (10 + Col + Utah) 16,881,800 1,406,817
Note that media markets were not counted twice for schools that are in the same Media market (i didn’t add 5.6 million for UCLA and USC both being in LA, I just added 5.6 million once).
So Colorado slightly increases our average media market per school (by 10,000 TVs) and Utah slightly decreases our average media market per school (by 30,000 TVs).
I’m no expert in this, just looking at raw data available over the internet.
Now lets talk $$$
The current pac-10 contract pays $58 mil a year. If we have 14,252,420 TVs, that means we currently get paid about $4/TV. Based on a currrent and FUTURE $4 or $10TV contract, this is what it would look like. The reason I use $10 TV is that is what I heard the Big-10 is getting paid per TV and what we are shooting for:
$4/TV
10 schools – Total $58mil, Avg, 5.8 mil
11 schools – Total $64mil, Avg 5.83 mil
12 schools – Total $67.8mil, Avg 5.65 mil
$10/TV
10 schools – Total $142.5mil, Avg, 14.3mil
11 schools – Total $157.9mil, Avg 14.4 mil
12 schools – Total $167mil, Avg 13.9 mil
So, depending on the $/TV, Colorado added somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 per school per year. Utah would cost us somewhere between $170,000 and $500,000 per school per year.
However, and there are 2 big IFS.
A conference game is predicted to bring in about $10 mil. This would ADD $833k to each school.
The Pac-10 does NOT have pure revenue sharing, meaning the schools in the bigger media markets get a larger share of the revenue. So while on average adding Utah might hurt, Utah would bear a larger portion of the hit than the average school would.
good stuff
Can you please combine your research into a fanpost? Many thanks.
by Nestor on Jun 16, 2010 12:47 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
never done one before, i'll try when I get home from work this evening
You’re welcome to post it however you want though.
I’ll also go dig up my conference game revenue projections somewhere.
Adding in the conference championship at different values
If we change the conference championship game to $4 mil, in line with the worst of the data from the ACC, that adds about $333k to each school for a 12 team split, assuming an equal share. So we have 4 more categories:
$4/TV, $4 mil championship game
10 schools – Total $62mil, Avg, 6.2 mil
11 schools – Total $68mil, Avg 6.18 mil
12 schools – Total $71.8mil, Avg 5.98 mil
$4/TV, $10 mil championship
10 schools – Total $68mil, Avg, 6.8 mil
11 schools – Total $74mil, Avg 6.72 mil
12 schools – Total $77.8mil, Avg 6.48 mil
$10/TV, $4 mil championship
10 schools – Total $146.5mil, Avg, 14.65mil
11 schools – Total $161.9mil, Avg 14.72 mil
12 schools – Total $171mil, Avg 14.25 mil
$10/TV, $10 mil championship
10 schools – Total $152.5mil, Avg, 15.25 mil
11 schools – Total $167.9mil, Avg 16.79 mil
12 schools – Total $177mil, Avg 14.75 mil
So if we can only have a conference championship game with 12 teams, Utah pushes us from 5.83 to 5.98 mil ($150k) in the “worst case” scenario of the ACC championship game and our current TV contract. If we get lucky and have a great game and great contract, we go from 14.4 to 14.75 mil ($350k).
Last, my opinion
If this is all about money then –
You add Utah, either way you look at it there’s more money to go around BECAUSE of the conference game.
If this is all about conference history then -
You don’t add Utah, and you never should have added Colorado.
I don’t get people who argue, lets add Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Ok State, because it’s all about money. Then once they say no, and Utah gets put into play, they argue lets not add Utah because they don’t fit with our conference history.
It’s one argument or the other, you can’t cherrypick it to fit how you what, IMHO.
Personally, no offense to Colorado (and I like Colorado), I would have preferred keeping the conference history.
Caveat
This is in no way a true analysis, only based off of data I could find on the internet. I’m sure there’s a lot more detailed analysis and i’s that need to be dotted and T’s that need to be crossed when the pac-10 does it’s analysis.
We still appreciate the effort
And you set an example of how one can offer up disagreements by offering data.
At the end
what if Utah keeps playing the way they have been playing for the last few years. What if they jumped to the PAC 10 where competition is brutal, and still manage to get into a BCS bowl game? Despite viewers or revenues, are we still going to look at them as a burden?
You guys are killing me.
Scott’s a hero when he goes after the Pac 16, but he’s a loser if he adds Utah and Colorado. Huh?
IMO standing pat, especially with SUC knocked down is not a reasonable option.
Colorado is a major league school. Utah cleaned our clock not to long ago in football. These are not weak sisters by any means. And no doubt they will get better competing for a fricking Rose Bowl every year.
The championship game will be big for TV in football. Surely the Pac 12 is a much better one than the Texas Bitch 9 which is supposed to get millions more for each of their schools.
Yes. There are no guarantees when making a business decision, but this seems the most likely to move us forward and get us more TV money per school.
Plus it sets us up to add more schools, like Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas when the Bitch 9 falls apart.
IIRC it was only a few months ago that people on this board were dreaming of adding Colorado for sure and Utah way over BYU. Now Colorado and Utah are no good. Really?
I look forward to trips to both new schools.
GO BRUINS!
Where did we call Scott a "hero"?
For going after the Pac-16. He should be recommended for going after it but we didn’t make a hero out of him. Don’t attribute comments to us that we haven’t made. In other words don’t make stuff up and BS. Thanks.
Whoa, hold on, Hy. There are some non sequitur's in your argument.
“IMO standing pat, especially with SUC knocked down is not a reasonable option.” Why? What are the reasons for your opinion?
“Colorado is a major league school. Utah cleaned our clock not to long ago in football. These are not weak sisters by any means. And no doubt they will get better competing for a fricking Rose Bowl every year.” What does this have to do with adding them to the Pac 10? How do you get better competing for the Rose bowl? Everyone in the league competes for the Rose Bowl, so everyone in the league gets better. Or to put it another way, we could add a truly elite academic institution to our league – Cal Tech. According to your thesis, they would get better because they’re competing for the Rose Bowl, and we can discount the fact that their defensive line averages about 155 a guy.
“The championship game will be big for TV in football. Surely the Pac 12 is a much better one than the Texas Bitch 9 which is supposed to get millions more for each of their schools.” Once again, that doesn’t necessarily follow. What makes you think that a championship game will necessarily be big for TV? The ACC championship game numbers (published elsewhere in the BN) demonstrate that just calling it a championship game doesn’t mean that anyone will care. Do you think a whole bunch of people in Texas are going to care about two Pac 10 or 12 teams playing a game in which they have zero interest?
“Yes. There are no guarantees when making a business decision, but this seems the most likely to move us forward and get us more TV money per school.” How much money? Has anyone guaranteed it? Right now, with Expansion Euphoria starting to wear off, I think the TV networks have the upper hand. They can be firm, saying that they will offer a little more money, but sorry, Pac 10, you’re not Texas. Not everyone in Pac 10 territory watches football all the time like they do down there. You tree-huggers? We TV guys need to make a profit ourselves, and we think we’ll have to make it here. We
re not giving you $20M a school. We’ll give you $200,000. Take it or leave it.
“Plus it sets us up to add more schools, like Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas when the Bitch 9 falls apart.” Why? How does adding Colorado and Utah set us up to do anything? Why do you assume that what happens in 5 or 10 years with those guys will change the status quo, with Texas dictating what they want and what everyone else will get?
“IIRC it was only a few months ago that people on this board were dreaming of adding Colorado for sure and Utah way over BYU. Now Colorado and Utah are no good. Really?” Sorry, Hy, but I don’t think you recall correctly. There was a staunch minority who didn’t want Colorado or Utah or anyone. I think the majority of people felt that if we had to expand, we should get those two (although lots of others were mentioned.) I also think that majority talked expansion only after assuming that the $20 million a year to the school was etched in stone. I know I asked countless times whether anyone thought we should expand even if the decision was revenue neutral. I don’t think anyone answered. What’s your take on that, Hy. Would you advocate expanding by adding Colorado and Utah (or some other bunch of teams) if the decision was revenue-neutral? Why? (These are real questions, by the way, not argumentative ones.)
So as not to be totally negative, there is one part of your post with which I totally agree: “GO BRUINS!”
Good points, well taken.
I’m speculating just like everyone else.
My basic point is I think we’re a stronger conference with Utah and Colorado in the Pac 12. it will make it harder to win the championship, thus making it more exciting and more likely to get more TV money, and more likely a PAC 12 team wins the NC.
I know your Cal Tech example was facetious, but, if you think about it, if Cal Tech actually were added, and it made a good faith effort to compete, it would eventually do so, not that I want to wait that long!
Trade secrets
First, some of the numbers in this thread have been very enlightening.
Second, I agree with Nestor’s earlier comment: “So far Scott’s move[s] have been busts. So I am not inclined to just trust in authority mode without seeing any kind of hard numbers.” Part of this is just plain secrecy. Scott and the ADs and school Presidents/Chancellors are not telling us if they have anything beyond goofy “projections” or have a lucrative TV deal in hand once we get to 12 or this of a carefully calibrated plan to get us to 16 with Texas, A&M, the Sooners and Oklahoma State (T. Boone Pickens runs the OSU world).
All of this is a secret other than say hello to the Buffs and the Utes. Secrecy is an anathema to decision making and evaluating decision making. The info in this thread about market, stadia and arena sizes and other contracts is really helpful but other stuff including sales of hats and other clothing (we play the Utes, the Bruins in Utah will buy more Bear Wear) and the size of an anticipated TV contract is a mystery. My point, not well said, is Nestor is right, based on the facts before us, it is difficult to give any expansion any kind of a thumbs up because most data is the equivalent of a closely held trade secret which nobody in the know is sharing with the fan base. This could be a great move—but it could be a repeat of the UCLA basketball tv agreement which was in bankruptcy in the 80’s as I recall—we do not know.
it is likely
that one of the big things Larry Scott will focus on tomorrow is why he believes (and why the league has bought) that adding Utah is a good idea. I don’t know what those reasons are; hopefully they’ll be convincing ones.
Improving Utah and Colorado as recruiters
Has anyone mentioned that adding these two teams to the Pac-12 will improve Utah and Colorado as recruiters and hurt UCLA recruiting? Won’t they become better at recruiting in the Southern California arena as members of our conference?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
