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!

Why Colorado first??

Lt.Col.FrankSlade

Well-Known Member
Is there some hidden message behind the fact that it appears that Colorado will be the first school from the Big 12 to be invited to the PAC X?

For the past week - 10 days, the rumor has been that Nebraska was going to leave to go to the Big 10, with Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU and either Colorado or Baylor subsequently being invited to join the PAC X. Rumors abound that before this week is out, Nebraska will officially, publicly announce that they have accepted an invitation to join the Big 10 conference, and Colorado will officially, publicly announce that they have accepted an invitation to join the PAC 10 conference.


Is it possible that the six Big 12 teams have already been invited - and Colorado will just be the first team to publicly announce that they have accepted?

Is it also possible that Colorado is the only team that the PAC 10 has invited to join the conference, so far?


I am wondering if Colorado has been invited, alone, as a way for the PAC 10 to show Texas (and it's legislature) that the PAC 10 is running the show, not Texas.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Is there some hidden message behind the fact that it appears that Colorado will be the first school from the Big 12 to be invited to the PAC X?

For the past week - 10 days, the rumor has been that Nebraska was going to leave to go to the Big 10, with Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU and either Colorado or Baylor subsequently being invited to join the PAC X. Rumors abound that before this week is out, Nebraska will officially, publicly announce that they have accepted an invitation to join the Big 10 conference, and Colorado will officially, publicly announce that they have accepted an invitation to join the PAC 10 conference.


Is it possible that the six Big 12 teams have already been invited - and Colorado will just be the first team to publicly announce that they have accepted?

Is it also possible that Colorado is the only team that the PAC 10 has invited to join the conference, so far?


I am wondering if Colorado has been invited, alone, as a way for the PAC 10 to show Texas (and it's legislature) that the PAC 10 is running the show, not Texas.
Click to expand...

Remember only one douche bag really said Baylor instead of Colorado. The Pac wanted us in 93 and they want us now.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
I am wondering if Colorado has been invited, alone, as a way for the PAC 10 to show Texas (and it's legislature) that the PAC 10 is running the show, not Texas.
Click to expand...

looks that way to me, especially after the events of the last week and BU smelling its own farts. now, we just need UT to take their ball and go home with designs on a newish SWC type thing with the Okla teams.
 
I think it is somewhat a way to force the Texas Legislature out of it and provide cover for UT by saying, hey we tried to save you Baylor.




Seems like there's a reluctance of aggy going to Pac 10 too.
 
I still think UT was bluffing and playing the Pac. They used the B12S to the Pac as leverage to try and keep the B12 alive. Even if CU and NU leave, I think UT will try to keep their sandbox intact. Pac always wanted CU and if they could get UT, even if that meant the rest of the B12 S less BU, they would do it. The $$$ would be huge and they'd be foolish to say no. But in the end, UT wants it to be them and OU, not them, OU, USC and Oregon. JMO. I think the B12 survives and picks upa MWC team or two...
 
I would love it if UT tried to hold all things texass together and form some new version of the big12. NU to big10, CU to pac10 with Utah. Big10 gets better, pac10 gets better, and you know it would only be a matter of time before the texass-centric new big12 ended up the same way as the old SWC.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
I am wondering if Colorado has been invited, alone, as a way for the PAC 10 to show Texas (and it's legislature) that the PAC 10 is running the show, not Texas.
Click to expand...

I think that is it if they have, indeed, sent the invite to CU and nobody else. Let Texas know the terms on the front end that their days of running the conference are over.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
I would love it if UT tried to hold all things texass together and form some new version of the big12. NU to big10, CU to pac10 with Utah. Big10 gets better, pac10 gets better, and you know it would only be a matter of time before the texass-centric new big12 ended up the same way as the old SWC.
Click to expand...


Big 12 with no Nebraska is not nearly as good. If Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska all leave - the Big 12 conference is considerably weakened.
 
Buffarino said:
I imagine there's some reluctance on the P10's side as well. Aggy in Berkley? I want video of that ****.
Click to expand...

texags.com is convinced (some of them) that being in a conference with Oregon, Cal, and such will turn all their children into chronic masturbaters, drug addicts, and swishy skirt-wearing commies.

because that's just how things are. it's a fascinating world-view.
 
****, texags is convinced that the world is flat and that the earth is the center of the solar system and universe.
 
Why? Wilner laid it out perfectly. 1)It helps chop off Baylor's nuts. 2) If the Big 6 sticks together, Pac-10 is just 1 team away from pac-12.
 
B1Buff said:
they (texags.com) are also referencing an official invite to the SEC...

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1635175&forum_id=5
Click to expand...

interesting, the OKC paper also says the SEC has demonstrated interest in OU. This thing, minus CU's role in it, may be far from over. My read on the OU boards is they aren't too thrilled with the Pac idea. additionally, they've played @ UW, @ UO, and @ UCLA in the last 5-6 years...so, maybe they've had their fill of the coast.
 
Mick Ronson said:
texags.com is convinced (some of them) that being in a conference with Oregon, Cal, and such will turn all their children into chronic masturbaters, drug addicts, and swishy skirt-wearing commies.

because that's just how things are. it's a fascinating world-view.
Click to expand...

I have news for them. Their kids are already chronic masturbaters. :lol:
 
Mick Ronson said:
interesting, the OKC paper also says the SEC has demonstrated interest in OU. This thing, minus CU's role in it, may be far from over. My read on the OU boards is they aren't too thrilled with the Pac idea. additionally, they've played @ UW, @ UO, and @ UCLA in the last 5-6 years...so, maybe they've had their fill of the coast.
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of CU accepting early. I don't really care what happens from here on out so long as CU makes the P10 move official. I admit I would be a bit sad if the Buffs lose all their old Big 8 rivals, though. At this point, we're down to 2 maybes.
 
I'm really gettig a sneaking suspicion that the meeting down here this afternoon between UT, aTm, and TT officials will be the true last ditch effort to save the B12. (And I'd love to see it happen)

I'd think if they stroke Mizzou a little bit to make them think it's not so bad to come back and then add say BYU and TCU, UT still gets what it wants - keep OU and aTm with them, dominate the conference, and keep working toward the UT network.

SEC (and OU/OSU) has been WAAAAAAYYYYYYY too quiet through all this, I'm thinking there's some moves to be made there yet before this all settles down.

I also find it interesting that despite al lof his "updates" (which have been about 50-67% right) Chip Brown has yet to say that UT has an invite in hand.

I'm just absolutely loving that we are the first ones officially GONE and we can just sit back and watch the "Big 12 Missile Crisis" unfold.
 
The Axis of Arrogance just got served a big bucket of come-uppance by Larry Scott.

I love it! Now let's see the Aggies give Austin the middle finger and bolt to the SEC with Oklahoma.
 
Skidmark said:
The Axis of Arrogance just got served a big bucket of come-uppance by Larry Scott.

I love it! Now let's see the Aggies give Austin the middle finger and bolt to the SEC with Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

If that happens, who does UT bring to the P10? OSU would be out. UT and Tech, along with Utah for a 14 team conference? Is there any reason it has to be 16?
 
In answer to the question posed in the title:

The first invite to Colorado makes a ton of sense. But first, I still believe that Texas and OU are the real prizes for the PAC 10. That's not to say that the Pac doesn't want CU, but we don't bring the same athletic product to their conference.

So, if Texas and OU are the prizes, why Colorado first?

1. Because The Pac 10 had Plan A (six teams from the Big XII) and Plan B (CU and UU). What do both of those plans have in common? The University of Colorado. So once The Pac committed itself to expansion, they would invite CU in any scenario. The invite showed their committment to expansion. But it did something else too.

2. Why didn't The Pac just sit on its hands and wait? They could have, but the early invite to CU was the second domino to fall in the destruction of the Big XII. Texas (and probably OU) obviously wanted the Big XII to stay together. Why not? The Big XII was an ideal situation for them. So if the Pac wants Texas, they need the Big XII to fail. With nebraska gone, they invited CU to take the next step to facilitate that failure. So for two reasons, and invite to CU assisted the Pac XX's end state nicely.

CU first. It just makes sense, but I think as fans we should be realistic about what we bring to this conference...and what we don't.

Boulder is a perfect match for the Pac 10. It's a beautiful, quirky town that will provide a great road trip opportunity to the Pac teams. The academic standing of our school--especially the research attributes--fit nicely with the Pac conference as well. Our football team is obviously down, but still brings a proud tradition, and is a pretty safe bet to return to relevance in the future (hopefully somewhat near future).
We are nationally competitive (and even dominant) in other programs like skiing and cross country, and relevant in soccer. We have a strong history in women's basketball and have demonstrated a few moments in volleyball as well. There is some excitement surrounding the mens' basketball program. Oh, also we're situated in the Denver TV market, which is obviously a driver here.

However, the Pac can't be happy that we're sitting at rock bottom requirements for DI sports teams. Fifteen right? Ouch. So we can only hope the revenue generated by the new deal can facilitate some growth in the sports we're able to support.

Texas of course brings a huge TV market, possibly the finest athletic department in the US and a fun quirky town too. We're annoyed with the fans right now, but you've got to understand why they're the prize here.

OU doesn't seem like a great fit for the Pac...BUT...those guys bring a level of football credibility (and basketball too) which really enhances the product the Pac can provide on the number one revenue generating sport. OU is a prize.

So there you go...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top