Reply With QuoteI predict a familiar outcome.
my-movie(1).jpg
These guys know football as well as they know stadium building and public relations.
I predict a familiar outcome.
my-movie(1).jpg
Subject: If uc can overcome their lack of talent Posted by: BeerFight on Sun May 27 2012 11:43:28 PM Message:With their 'little engine that could" approach, they'll keep the game close
AllBuffs: Where the stereotype of 'Boulder Elitists' is met and then some
I'm amazed how their groupthink allows them to gloss over the decimation of their front seven. They lost talent and experience. There is no one on that d-line that will merit a double team block = open season on linebackers. That opens up a running game.
Even if they hadn't lost all the guys they did on the front lines they are still a team that has gone 3-9 each of the last 3 years in the MWC. Their last two recruiting classes were mostly FCS guys. Even their "strengths" are guys who have deficiencies that kept them out of getting the offers that would put them in major conferences like being slow or undersized.Originally Posted by FlaBuff
As long as the Buffs don't pull a Hawkins and overlook the game or try to get fancy and forget to run the Rams over this should be a game that gives us a chance to develop some depth.
I agree, we grinded them last year. It will be more of the same this year. It will be a good game for one of the young backs to really establish themselves as the man. Helluva opportunity.
Subject: My take on a "Pac 16" Posted by: Mountaindude on Mon May 28 2012 1:15:43 PM Message:
Luckily for CSU the Pac 12 holds itself to good academic standards and at least a elementary knowledge of geography. If that weren't the
case, CSU would not be in the conversation. My list consists of some teams that don't get much love from the board. One thing to note, I am
not taking the Big 12 into note here, in my personal opinion, I do not think CSU will go to the Big 12. Yes, it makes sense for them to want us
for Denver TV's, but it just doesn't feel like a good fit. With that being said, I think these same four teams could get looks for inclusion with
the swapping in of SMU and Houston for two of the four, but that is a whole 'nother debate to argue. So here is what I think makes sense for
the Pac 16 to open the 2015 season.
CSU - 35% chance of invite
Good academics, Top-25 vball program**, hopefully the start of a good bball program, poor football program***, denver market, add the State
school the Pac likes to do
** Pac has 6 Top 25 teams right now including National champs
*** obviously lots of drama here, but doesn't matter until we win.
UNM - 20%
decent academics, consistently good bball, tap into the NM TV market (maybe El Paso?) Not so good at football, but new coach.
Air Force - 50%
I am not so high on them because of what they dont bring to the table (lack of other sport programs, lack of grad school) But, the Air Force
has fans EVERYWHERE. Makes up for poor market in C Springs
Rice - 5%
Extremely good academics, Houston TV market, Texas recruiting Would round out an "Eastern Division" As with AF, not so good at sports
other than FB (and not consistent at that)
OBVIOUSLY CSU, UNM, and Rice would have to get better pretty damn quick, but CSU and UNM will at least have bball to keep them
afloat while that happens. This allows for a nice and pretty East/West split between the leagues. This is not ideal because you leave Oregon,
USC, and Stanford together, but a North/South split would look nasty. The leagues would be consisted as so:
East: CSU, AF, CU, UNM, Rice, Utah, Arizona, ASU
West: USC, UCLA, UC Berkley, Stanford, UO, OSU, Wash, Wazzu
With all of this being said, there are some things to consider. Do we really think the Pac 12 is going to invest so heavily to bring THREE
schools from Colorado into the league? If they want TV's in Denver, it is pretty reasonable to just have CU. C Springs is not THAT impressive
of a market (91st) so they don't miss much there. In light of that, if they don't take both AF and CSU, they become hard pressed to find a
school that suits the Pac academically.
Also, when the next big storm of realignment begins, who knows what schools might get pissed off and leave their conferences. I think
the Pac is safe from defections, but it may be reasonable for them to pick up a school or two from the Big 12 which severely lowers CSU's
chances.
Other possibilities:
Hawaii - eh iffy academics, okay market, good travel destination
SMU - doubtful pretty good academics, Dallas market, they are Big 12 headed
Tulsa - more doubtful good academics, Tulsa (61) and OKC (45) markets, poor athletics outside football
I don't see much outside of those. Maybe a case for BYU, Wyo, UN Reno, and maybe some others? The only one there that makes any kind
of sense is BYU, but we know how they are.
Hope you made it all the way through. Obviously I am no conference realignment wizard, but I just had to get some thoughts out there and
hope I brought something interesting to the table.
Subject: Pac is about rivalries. Utah will lobby hard for BYU Posted by: BeerFight on Tue May 29 2012 11:43:43 AM Message:and they'll find a way around the religious restrictions. Then they'll go
after CSU... It's a natural fit ASU/UofA, OSU, UO, Wash, Wash State,
etc... IF BYU doesn't happen then Air Force or Neww Mexico.
ANYONE who's been staying on top of the movement of all of these
conferences will realize the actions to get to the 16 power conferences.
Boise, San Diego State and UNLV just don't have the research or
academics to be a fit for the Pac. If Texas isn't going Pac, then neither is
Tech, etc... The addition of SMU, and or Houston is not only a stretch but
a perceived failure. Those schools just don't have 'It'
BF is hilarious.
No citing of his knowledge of "conference circles."
Subject: The addition of Utah and Colorado were perceived as weak moves for the Pac Posted by: BeerFight on Tue May 29 2012 12:30:00 PM Message:among conference circles. They're going to need to add more natural
rivalries and dominate markets, not just dip their feet in.
No commentary on why adding CU was just "dipping their feet in" but adding CSU means that the PAC now "dominates" the Denver market.
As much as the obvious delusion amuses me, it doesn't surprise me in the least. I have to expect that if we were in their shoes, we'd be desperately searching for any justification for inclusion in an expanded Pac that we could find. They're grasping at straws, there's no doubt about it. I also can't blame them for doing so.
I can blame some of them for being obviously delusional/stupid. A few of the less retarded members of that board shot this nonsense down with no response from the stupids. There is a line, and these guys LIVE on the wrong side of it.
I saw this post yesterday looking on there and wanted to either post it here or respond there. Was laughing to hard to do either.
BF is hilarious.
No citing of his knowledge of "conference circles."
No commentary on why adding CU was just "dipping their feet in" but adding CSU means that the PAC now "dominates" the Denver market.
I still am trying to figure out why the PAC would want to give a full conference share in excess of $30 million a year to a school that has a hard time drawing 20k fans at home (and about 4,500 for BB when they are winning,) has no appeal to TV audiences, doesn't draw flies when they travel, has no tradition (other than losing in epic numbers,) and that most of the country doesn't know exist.
Pure, complete delusion. It would be like arguing with a group of madmen.
The simple fact is that if the system goes to superconferences they are out, pure and simple.
It's true that these kinds of expectations are not healthy to their program. But it's not just them that are spewing this stuff. Didn't McElwain say something to the effect that pairing CU and UU didn't make sense, and that CSU would be a natural companion for CU in an expanded Pac? I could swear that I saw a quote from him along those lines, probably in this thread somewhere. He's setting the expectations unreasonably high without any means to accomplish those goals. It's hard to blame the fans for feeding off what he's saying.
The system has already gone to superconferences. They ARE out. They just don't realize it yet.
After their RMS schenanigans, I would laugh hard if CU blocked any vote to include CSU in the Pac
"Right now Alec Burks is using and abusing this Texas defense"
The problem over there is they are convinced that not only will the PAC-12 take on four teams in the current footprint of the conference, but that the PAC-12 will be forced to take on four teams in the current footprint because there are no other options. The truth is, no one has a freaking clue as to what Larry Scott is thinking and just as importantly, the guy is very unlikely to be forced into anything. Expect the unexpected.
What makes BeerFight the funniest poster on that site is he honestly thinks CSU offers a compelling case while constantly trying to tear CU down. The most inconsistent logic you will ever see. Plus he still wants to go to with the ASU analogy. It simply does not fit.
Everybody hates you, Everybody wishes that you were dead
Cuz Peter you suck, Peter you suck
Peter your music is ****ing terrible
Peter you suck, Peter you suck
Peter you don't do anything of value, Peter you suck
Write some music but instead you sit and write these bulls**t songs
It's so self loathing go see a psychiatrist
I hate the psychiatrist
Well go see one anyway
I don't like the psychiatrist
You need to go see one
See a psychiatrist
I'm not going
To the bolded: absolutely. I wonder if anybody has pointed out that there isn't much reason for the Pac 12 to expand beyond 12 teams.
Posting Permissions
