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!

Apparently there is a new update from Chip Brown

Honestly, this could very well work out for the best. Here's how:

Gordon Gee is supposedly really interested in getting UT into the Big 10. Let him. The Big 10 can have them. Let them have Missouri, Rutgers, ND and Nebraska while they're at it.

The Pac needs 16 teams to make their deal work. They can take CU, UU, KU, OU, A&M and Tech. That gets the Pac new markets in Denver, SLC, KC, OKC, San Antonio and Dallas. CU gets to rid itself of the stink of UT and everybody is happy making gobs of money.
 
Skidmark said:
Texas has basically enslaved CU. Either fork over the penalty for bolting and pray for a Pac10 CU/UU offer, or suck it up and commit allegiance to a Texas led B12. Either way, CU is screwed.
Click to expand...
Why are so many CU fans so much into victimization? Woe is us.
 
sackman said:
Honestly, this could very well work out for the best. Here's how:

Gordon Gee is supposedly really interested in getting UT into the Big 10. Let him. The Big 10 can have them. Let them have Missouri, Rutgers, ND and Nebraska while they're at it.

The Pac needs 16 teams to make their deal work. They can take CU, UU, KU, OU, A&M and Tech. That gets the Pac new markets in Denver, SLC, KC, OKC, San Antonio and Dallas. CU gets to rid itself of the stink of UT and everybody is happy making gobs of money.
Click to expand...

but you are missing the point.. the pac 10 wants Texas more than just expanding to add anyone.. Texas is the big prize.. and UT doesn't want to go to the Big 10..
 
How many votes against expansion would it take by Pac 10 schools to derail expansion? Anyone know?
 
DBT said:
Why are so many CU fans so much into victimization? Woe is us.
Click to expand...

Because after November 2009, the voice of the CU fan isn't worth very much. And the trend over the past 9 years hasn't been good.
 
JimmyBuff said:
but you are missing the point.. the pac 10 wants Texas more than just expanding to add anyone.. Texas is the big prize.. and UT doesn't want to go to the Big 10..
Click to expand...

UT doesn't want to go anywhere, but if they keep trying to play three different groups against one another, eventually that will blow up in their face and all three will tell them to stick it. Or at least that's how it works in my dreams.
 
sackman said:
UT doesn't want to go anywhere, but if they keep trying to play three different groups against one another, eventually that will blow up in their face and all three will tell them to stick it. Or at least that's how it works in my dreams.
Click to expand...

Wet dream, or no?
 
Bah - this whole Baylor thing has to be a smokescreen. Baylor adds nothing. How many Baylor alumni are there on the West Coast? What kind of research dollars does Baylor bring? What major metropolitan area is Baylor in? This is just posturing.
 
sackman said:
Bah - this whole Baylor thing has to be a smokescreen. Baylor adds nothing. How many Baylor alumni are there on the West Coast? What kind of research dollars does Baylor bring? What major metropolitan area is Baylor in? This is just posturing.
Click to expand...

Agreed...and, they have moral issues with everything....
 
Suppose that the MWC-BSU deal goes down, this Pac-16 deal goes down, and MU/NU have second thoughts, we can have our own 16 team conference.

Mick Ronson, your wish might come true!
 
Adding the Big 12 South is a joke -- I thought they we're making enough concessions by allowing Tech and OSU. If third grade Texas politics will decide this than that is bull****. UT is big but they aren't that big. I would think that if the PAC-10 thinks they can make the deal with CU instead of Baylor they do it--Baylor adds nothing as far as TV footprint or academic standing. This Baylor and CU have had the same record over the past 5 years or whatever is short-sided, political rhetoric. I would like to think that the PAC-10 officials are forward-thinking enough that they can evaluate each school alone on it's merits and only allow for minor concessions for maximum gain.
 
sackman said:
Bah - this whole Baylor thing has to be a smokescreen. Baylor adds nothing. How many Baylor alumni are there on the West Coast? What kind of research dollars does Baylor bring? What major metropolitan area is Baylor in? This is just posturing.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Something has gone seriously wrong when state legislatures start getting involved in college football conference rejiggering. I'd like to think that the Pac 10, as a matter of principle, would tell those morons from Texas to f*** off. Unfortunately, I fear that the ruling "principle" may just turn out to be the almighty buck.

If the folks down in Texas pull this off, CU is completely f***ed. We'll be huddling with ISU and KU trying to find some second tier teams to fill out a second tier league. Wouldn't that suck?
 
Adding FOUR texasss schools spreads all that extra butter UT brings to the table way to thin. There is not just NO value in adding Baylor, there is NEGATIVE value. This sort of demand could make the Pac say **** you to UT.
 
dcbuffman said:
Something has gone seriously wrong when state legislatures start getting involved in college football conference rejiggering.
Click to expand...

What rock have you been living under?

College conference alignment has been as political as anything since conferences were first being formed. Universities are extremely political organizations, whether they are private or public, and most of the major realignment dramas in the past 20-30 years have been politically motivated. Virginia Tech getting into the ACC ahead of Syracuse, Baylor/Texas Tech tagging along into the Big 12, and even the continued membership of Washington State in the Pac-10 is a political factor.

It is a fact of life and the biggest reason why we don't have conferences that make sense, but rather have made many compromises along the way.

Without politics then the "Western Superconference" could look like:

Washington
Oregon
Stanford
California
Southern Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Utah
New Mexico
Colorado
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
Missouri

That would be a tremendously powerful athletic and academic coalition that would raise the bar for all members, and compete as one of the top 2 conferences regardless of the arena.

But it would never happen because nearly every "flagship" school would have to support "lil brother" tagging along.
 
Seriously. Find one report about Texas state legislators who are brokering the Baylor in/Colorado out deal that does NOT involved Chip Brown and his mysterious source.

Every news agency is referencing Orangeblood.com (Texas based Rivals recruiting site, for anyone living under a rock.) I do not see why anyone would leak juicy news, such as this would be, to a recruiting site, and not a legitimate news agency. Add in the ridiculous factors such as the Texas state legislators are not in session. That 15 state legislators is not a quorum in Texas (you'd need 2/3rds of the 32 total votes to take an action, IF a special session was called), and if any group of elected state legislators discussed this in person, by email or by phone without noticing a public meeting, they'd be in violation of TOMA (Texas Open Meetings Act.)

The story may end up being true, but I find it really hard to believe that it's going down the way reported and that Chip Brown's source is really a Texas politician. For all we know it's some kid in his pajamas in his mom's basement, making stuff up. It's got legs, but every single news story is based on the Orangebloods.com story. Why wouldn't the source leak this to a daily Texas paper if he/she wants the word out there, or to start a discussion of Baylor's options and UT's power?

HighlyIllogical.jpg
 
It's always been about politics in Texas. That's why Arkansas got the hell out of the old SWC, because Texas politics dominated everything and we just got screwed all the time. Baylor doesn't bring any real value to the PAC. It is value for UT because if they can get a large pro-Texas voting bloc into the league, then they are that much closer to dominating the PAC right from the get go if they accept the invite. If UT joins and brings all the Big 12 South teams along, it will be just like the Big 12 in 5 years, UT will dominate the whole thing, and eventually schools will get fed up and leave and another conference will die.
 
I'n sure there's truth to this, but it is what it is. It's a last ditch attempt by Texas to keep the status quo. The Pac-10 is going to invite who they'll invite, and Baylor isn't going to be on that list. There are a few schools out there that are going to do whatever they can to try to save their ass in the next few days, but IMO minds have been made up. There's not this much smoke without fire, the Pac-10 knows which schools they can get their membership to approve inviting, that ain't gonna change in a couple of days, there's a lot of work that's gone into getting to this point. I would be willing to bet that the Pac-10 also knows who will accept invites already too, and that the formal invitation is a formality. I'm also pretty sure that there's also already a framework of a TV contract for the new Pac 16 giving people more of a 'thumb in the air' SWAG at how much money is on the table of each school. THings this big aren't just proposed and hoped for, there's a lot of behind the scenes work that's already gone into this.

UT and OU are going to fight to keep the status quo, where they're big dogs on top of a conference where they can easily outcash the rest of the membership. There are two outcomes for CU here. UT wins and keeps the Big 12 together, or the Big 12 dissolves and CU ends up in the Pac 10, with or without UT.
 
SnowBuff said:
Adding FOUR texasss schools spreads all that extra butter UT brings to the table way to thin. There is not just NO value in adding Baylor, there is NEGATIVE value. This sort of demand could make the Pac say **** you to UT.
Click to expand...

That's exactly UT's plan. They WANT what they have.
 
It seems that most of you did not read the entire article from OrangeBloods. If you scroll down to "The Pac-10 Proposals", it states that one of the possible expansion scenarios composed by the Pac-10 commish himself, includes Baylor instead of Colorado in the expansion. This may not necessarily be all due to political pressure from Texas, the Pac-10 just wants UT that bad. However, who is to say that this source is reliable or accurate?

Multiple sources said the plan Scott favors is adding six teams from the Big 12 (as long as it includes Texas) and creating two, eight-team divisions. The Big 12 schools would compete in a division with Arizona and Arizona State, while the remaining Pac-10 schools - USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State - would compete in the other division.

Scott also apparently laid out two plans that would involve the six-team invitation to schools in the Big 12. One that included Colorado and one that replaced Colorado with Baylor along with the other members of the Big 12 South.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Another angle. Texas wants the PAC 10 money but they want the Texas advantage. If they can bring their friends along that means that they continue to play the majority of their games within a one day drive of home, they get "Texas" officials, Texas starting times, etc. To them it works out either way, a Big XII south division in the PAC or staying in the Big XII. What they don't want is to either have to actually be a member of the PAC and have to play U$C and the rest of the west coast boys in their stadiums. They also don't want to have to rebuild the Big XII with kNU, Mizzou, Colorado, potentially aTm leaving.

This smells of another Texas power play and I hope that the admins in the PAC and in the B12 schools with better offers tell them to stick it.
 
You know the casino is rigged when Orangebloods is the primary source of information.
 
MtnBuff said:
Another angle. Texas wants the PAC 10 money but they want the Texas advantage. If they can bring their friends along that means that they continue to play the majority of their games within a one day drive of home, they get "Texas" officials, Texas starting times, etc. To them it works out either way, a Big XII south division in the PAC or staying in the Big XII. What they don't want is to either have to actually be a member of the PAC and have to play U$C and the rest of the west coast boys in their stadiums. They also don't want to have to rebuild the Big XII with kNU, Mizzou, Colorado, potentially aTm leaving.

This smells of another Texas power play and I hope that the admins in the PAC and in the B12 schools with better offers tell them to stick it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is, the Pac 10 and everyone else involved know who is getting the invites. Baylor's not, and wont be, on the list, so UT is doing what it can to force through something the Pac 10 wont want... Baylor, and hence keep the Big 12 together, which is the primary outcome that UT wants. Last ditch effort that may or may not work. I think CU, NEB and Mizzou are gone anyway, taking any hand UT has in this away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top