http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/c.../84549970/

(05-19-2016 10:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/c.../84549970/

It's pretty interesting how they stick to categories that I believe our pitch would fall into. No talk of on the field performance since they are talking to the presidents. I'm guessing our brochure would look better to presidents if we followed this model in every category except number of alums and current enrollment. I'm not sure about our donation levels but we could tout the centennial campaign of a billion dollars as "recently completed".

If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

Agreed. The optics are bad. A similar reasoning applies to UCF and USF. The Big 12 doesn't want to be the "third best" conference in Florida.

(05-19-2016 04:27 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Agreed. The optics are bad. A similar reasoning applies to UCF and USF. The Big 12 doesn't want to be the "third best" conference in Florida.

A recruiting foothold in Florida would be a plus.

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

Really? They both currently have about 32,000 students enrolled each. (I was surprised when I looked up CSU.) I'm not sure there's been that much of a diversion of headcount between the two over the years. The potential eyeballs are seemingly comparable.

That said, home attendance averages about 50% more at UC-Boulder than it does at CSU. Colorado definitely engages more strongly.

I should add that when UC and CSU used to play their grudge match, the stadiums would appear to be close to 50/50 for each side, particularly when played at a neutral site.

(05-19-2016 08:46 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I should add that when UC and CSU used to play their grudge match, the stadiums would appear to be close to 50/50 for each side, particularly when played at a neutral site.

Colorado and Colorado State play each year (beginning in 1995) and 15 of the last 18 (including the last 6) have been in Denver. As well, all future games in the series are in Denver.

(05-19-2016 09:15 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:46 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I should add that when UC and CSU used to play their grudge match, the stadiums would appear to be close to 50/50 for each side, particularly when played at a neutral site.

Colorado and Colorado State play each year (beginning in 1995) and 15 of the last 18 (including the last 6) have been in Denver. As well, all future games in the series are in Denver.

Thanks. I knew it was a regular thing (one of my recent coworkers was a CSU grad, so we talked about the games), but I had thought that the games had stopped recently (shortly after Colorado's move to the Pac-12). They're definitely a big game, particularly to CSU (as the perceived lesser program).

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market. At least in our case, Houston is one of the Top 5 recruiting markets in the country, where Big 12 teams would very much want increased exposure. It's not just perception-- CSU is clearly second tier in athletics vis-a-vis U. of C..

(05-20-2016 07:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market.

But I think OO is correct that it's the market definition that matters, not the actual following. As I understand, the key determinant of conference TV revenue is the number of cable subscribers that are defined as in-market, not how many people actually watch your teams. That's why the Big 10 was so eager to get Rutgers: not because of the eyeballs Rutgers brings, but because of the huge number of cable subscribers in their defined market. By that measure, I suspect that Rice would add zero subscribers to the Big 12.

(05-20-2016 08:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 07:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If I understood JK correctly at the Coaches Caravan, the main thing they bring that we don't is...Colorado. By adding all the TV sets in that area to the expected viewing area for Big12 Football, it would allow the league to negotiate better TV contracts.

But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market.

But I think OO is correct that it's the market definition that matters, not the actual following. As I understand, the key determinant of conference TV revenue is the number of cable subscribers that are defined as in-market, not how many people actually watch your teams. That's why the Big 10 was so eager to get Rutgers: not because of the eyeballs Rutgers brings, but because of the huge number of cable subscribers in their defined market. By that measure, I suspect that Rice would add zero subscribers to the Big 12.

Bingo.

But otherwise, we compare favorably to CSU.

(05-20-2016 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 07:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market.

But I think OO is correct that it's the market definition that matters, not the actual following. As I understand, the key determinant of conference TV revenue is the number of cable subscribers that are defined as in-market, not how many people actually watch your teams. That's why the Big 10 was so eager to get Rutgers: not because of the eyeballs Rutgers brings, but because of the huge number of cable subscribers in their defined market. By that measure, I suspect that Rice would add zero subscribers to the Big 12.

Bingo.

But otherwise, we compare favorably to CSU.

If that is the logic, then Rice, UH, and SMU would all be good additions for the PAC-12. Houston and Dallas would seemingly be huge adds for their network (although I already get it and the B10 network with my sports package so maybe not- are they trying to get it added on basic cable?)

CSU to the Big 12. Joking right? Weed for everyone :)

(05-20-2016 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 07:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market.

But I think OO is correct that it's the market definition that matters, not the actual following. As I understand, the key determinant of conference TV revenue is the number of cable subscribers that are defined as in-market, not how many people actually watch your teams. That's why the Big 10 was so eager to get Rutgers: not because of the eyeballs Rutgers brings, but because of the huge number of cable subscribers in their defined market. By that measure, I suspect that Rice would add zero subscribers to the Big 12.

Bingo.

But otherwise, we compare favorably to CSU.

(05-20-2016 10:23 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 07:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market.

But I think OO is correct that it's the market definition that matters, not the actual following. As I understand, the key determinant of conference TV revenue is the number of cable subscribers that are defined as in-market, not how many people actually watch your teams. That's why the Big 10 was so eager to get Rutgers: not because of the eyeballs Rutgers brings, but because of the huge number of cable subscribers in their defined market. By that measure, I suspect that Rice would add zero subscribers to the Big 12.

Bingo.

But otherwise, we compare favorably to CSU.

If that is the logic, then Rice, UH, and SMU would all be good additions for the PAC-12. Houston and Dallas would seemingly be huge adds for their network (although I already get it and the B10 network with my sports package so maybe not- are they trying to get it added on basic cable?)

More so the Pac-12, Big10, and MWC than the AAC, Big12, or SEC, which already have a Texas presence.

I am just going off a comment by JK that the main thing Colorado brought to the Pac-12 was Colorado. maybe I misunderstood.

(05-20-2016 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 07:13 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:47 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  But Colorado State does not have the fan base of University of Colorado. I just cannot see the Big 12 accepting the distant #2 school in the state after losing the #1 school several years ago.

I don't think the market added is the CSU fanbase, but the entire state of Colorado.

So when they go to negotiate the TV contract, they can say the market we bring is: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, COLORADO, and areas close by, like portions of Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico.

And it would fool no one at the networks. Saying CSU brings you the Colorado market is akin to saying Rice brings you the Houston market.

But I think OO is correct that it's the market definition that matters, not the actual following. As I understand, the key determinant of conference TV revenue is the number of cable subscribers that are defined as in-market, not how many people actually watch your teams. That's why the Big 10 was so eager to get Rutgers: not because of the eyeballs Rutgers brings, but because of the huge number of cable subscribers in their defined market. By that measure, I suspect that Rice would add zero subscribers to the Big 12.

Bingo.

But otherwise, we compare favorably to CSU.

Yeah the big key to today's realignment is if the Big 12 is going to have its own network. The way these networks work is they charge cable companies (and thus cable subscribers) a certain fee for having the channel, and then they choose In Market subscribers a (higher) fee. It's not about the teams at all, it's about the In Market footprint v. Out of Market states and the difference in cost.

Thus, the SEC wanted A&M and Missouri because they added two large states to the SEC footprint, and all of the millions of cable subscribers in Texas and Missouri, which did not previously have SEC teams, are charged the (higher) In Market rate instead of the out of market rate. Thus more $$$ to the SEC.

The big question in this Big 12 realignment is whether a Big 12 network is an end goal. The SEC and Big 10 Networks have been a success, but in these times of "cord cutting" and internet broadcasts, its harder to see a Big 12 network succeeding. You can look to the Longhorn Network and CSN Houston as examples of failed networks (and the Pac 12 Network is having its own struggles). But, if a network is the goal, they probably do need to add two teams from two additional states (i.e. Colorado and Florida) to add to the footprint of the conference, and thus add more In Market revenue.

(05-20-2016 11:27 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  The big question in this Big 12 realignment is whether a Big 12 network is an end goal. The SEC and Big 10 Networks have been a success, but in these times of "cord cutting" and internet broadcasts, its harder to see a Big 12 network succeeding. But, if a network is the goal, they probably do need to add two teams from two additional states (i.e. Colorado and Florida) to add to the footprint of the conference, and thus add more In Market revenue.

Apologies if I missed this in a previous post, but a major hurdle in a potential Big 12 Network remains the Longhorn Network. As much as it's been an unmitigated fiasco from a consumer/ESPN perspective, UT has still received (and presumably budgeted for) its promised revenue from ESPN and from many accounts "considers it a source of pride".

So ... somehow a Big 12 Network would need to either a) make UT whole for their loss of revenue, or b) come to some other source of compromise. Good luck with that.

I read something the other day where OU was "within 30 minutes" of jumping to the Pac-12 when that scenario unfolded a few years ago. I still wonder if they have regrets. And, to that point, when the current Big 12 grant-of-rights expires ... I still have a feeling that's where this thing might be headed.

with a tv contract as small as ours is, I wonder if we aren't better off copying LHN (but being smarter about it). It wouldn't generate much revenue, but we aren't getting much anyway so nothing is lost... plus we could broadcast ALL of our sports and even academic competitions or seminars and the arts giving far more exposure to those than we get, and in this day and age of social media and networks becoming aggregators of 'free' content, we're just as likely to get picked up by chron.com or yahoo news or whatever without having to 'give in' to 2pm games in September or Thursday nights, moving our expected attendance down from 15k to about 5 and then putting it on display for dozens of TV sets to see.

Subscriber based perhaps for certain content like Owlvision is, but more complete... and NOTHING like the fee charged for LHN.


I'd probably go with 'on demand'/internet fee based as well as local 'free' tv. AT least that way you have a chance of getting someone to buy a subscription so that they can watch Shep school performances or a lecture on buckyballs or beer-bike who ends up watching a sorting event

(05-20-2016 11:36 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  with a tv contract as small as ours is, I wonder if we aren't better off copying LHN (but being smarter about it). It wouldn't generate much revenue, but we aren't getting much anyway so nothing is lost... plus we could broadcast ALL of our sports and even academic competitions or seminars and the arts giving far more exposure to those than we get, and in this day and age of social media and networks becoming aggregators of 'free' content, we're just as likely to get picked up by chron.com or yahoo news or whatever without having to 'give in' to 2pm games in September or Thursday nights, moving our expected attendance down from 15k to about 5 and then putting it on display for dozens of TV sets to see.

Subscriber based perhaps for certain content like Owlvision is, but more complete... and NOTHING like the fee charged for LHN.

Buy a few HD cameras and I agree that it would be worth it. Goes back to if we don't need this conference for TV revenue then why in the world are we in it?