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!

ESPN gives Colorado an "F" on move to Pac-12

Sounds about right. As mentioned above, this is football-only, and takes into consideration performance on the field and future outlook. So, yeah, F-.
 
How could he judge these moves after only a few years? I think it is way to early to judge how a team did in its move after only a few years. Hell the Pac-12's new TV deal only kicked in a little over a year ago.
 
If we actually get some facilities built we gotta bump up that score to at least a B.
 
Agreed with most responses. The article doesn't even address finances, simply uses W/L record.

Considering the instability of the big XII the move deserves an A, while the football team did not prosper.

Incidentally, though, the remarks about MO and KNu seem fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's all about wins and losses in the end. Colorado has a lot more of the latter, so for lazy people, the perception is that CU made a bad move to leave.

Personally, will probably always miss the Big 8 days, but the Big XII can **** themselves
 
I could give 2 sh*ts about what eee s pea in has to say about CU football. It was obvious that it was a very slow CFB reporting day since they only took football into account with that article. These clowns are usually looking for every possible angle to make up some story that they feel has some journalistic value.
 
In addition to the $$ difference that exist think about the alternative scenario. The PAC wanted to expand. They made clear their first choice by going into the Rocky Mountain region with CU and Utah.

Had Colorado said no would the PAC have been happy to stay where they were? Maybe yes, likely no. The next alternative would have been to do what they explored and almost did by cherrypicking Texas schools. Had for example they made the right offer an taken UT, Oklahoma, Okie Lite, and say Tech do you think that the UT bunch would have cared in the least what happened to CU.

The most likely result in that situation would have been for CU, Iowa State, and the Kansas schools to become part of the MWC eastern division. Not only would we have not had PAC money we would have ended up getting a lot less than the B12 money we are comparing now.
 
CanadianDuck said:
How could he judge these moves after only a few years? I think it is way to early to judge how a team did in its move after only a few years. Hell the Pac-12's new TV deal only kicked in a little over a year ago.
Click to expand...
You do draft grades before a player has played a single game, people like to evaluate this "horse race" stuff.
 
goalline said:
Agreed with most responses. The article doesn't even address finances, simply uses W/L record.

Considering the instability of the big XII the move deserves an A, while the football team did not prosper.

Incidentally, though, the remarks about MO and KNu seem fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If they considered non-football things we score much higher, just have to take it for what it is.
 
MtnBuff said:
In addition to the $$ difference that exist think about the alternative scenario. The PAC wanted to expand. They made clear their first choice by going into the Rocky Mountain region with CU and Utah.

Had Colorado said no would the PAC have been happy to stay where they were? Maybe yes, likely no. The next alternative would have been to do what they explored and almost did by cherrypicking Texas schools. Had for example they made the right offer an taken UT, Oklahoma, Okie Lite, and say Tech do you think that the UT bunch would have cared in the least what happened to CU.

The most likely result in that situation would have been for CU, Iowa State, and the Kansas schools to become part of the MWC eastern division. Not only would we have not had PAC money we would have ended up getting a lot less than the B12 money we are comparing now.
Click to expand...
We become UConn West?
 
MtnBuff said:
In addition to the $$ difference that exist think about the alternative scenario. The PAC wanted to expand. They made clear their first choice by going into the Rocky Mountain region with CU and Utah.

Had Colorado said no would the PAC have been happy to stay where they were? Maybe yes, likely no. The next alternative would have been to do what they explored and almost did by cherrypicking Texas schools. Had for example they made the right offer an taken UT, Oklahoma, Okie Lite, and say Tech do you think that the UT bunch would have cared in the least what happened to CU.

The most likely result in that situation would have been for CU, Iowa State, and the Kansas schools to become part of the MWC eastern division. Not only would we have not had PAC money we would have ended up getting a lot less than the B12 money we are comparing now.
Click to expand...
Adding Utah wasn't their first option and CU was the only school in all three expansion plans.
 
I couldn't give af right now. Ya we suck but at least we're in a stable conference. Those couple days where we were unsure if we were a lock for the Pac-12 sucked. Plus the Big 12 will implode sooner or later. We're set long term which is what matters
 
'Tini said:
Adding Utah wasn't their first option and CU was the only school in all three expansion plans.
Click to expand...

Certainly, as stated CU was their first choice.

My point is that had CU decided to stay with the B12 it is not beyond reason to think that the PAC could have made other choices that would have resulted in that same B12 losing it's marque names and leaving CU out in the cold. Fact is that a conference built around the B12 schools minus UT, OU, and maybe OSU is not in line for a lot of TV dollars.
 
MtnBuff said:
Certainly, as stated CU was their first choice.

My point is that had CU decided to stay with the B12 it is not beyond reason to think that the PAC could have made other choices that would have resulted in that same B12 losing it's marque names and leaving CU out in the cold. Fact is that a conference built around the B12 schools minus UT, OU, and maybe OSU is not in line for a lot of TV dollars.
Click to expand...
I agreed with your post, I just wanted to point out that Utah was further down the list and I believe was the 3rd option for expansion. I don't really want to imagine the scenario where CU didn't end up in the PAC 12.
 
I assumed this was a repost of an article written in 2010. Sure, the football record sucks, but we would've had 1 or 2 conference wins in the Big 12 this year for football. Plenty of bad losses but probably a smaller scoring margin. All of our other sports seem to be thriving with the move. Very short-sighted to just concern themselves with football records in the 1-3 years since the teams in this article changed conferences. Must be the offseason.
 
aik said:
I assumed this was a repost of an article written in 2010. Sure, the football record sucks, but we would've had 1 or 2 conference wins in the Big 12 this year for football. Plenty of bad losses but probably a smaller scoring margin. All of our other sports seem to be thriving with the move. Very short-sighted to just concern themselves with football records in the 1-3 years since the teams in this article changed conferences. Must be the offseason.
Click to expand...
It's a football based article, wasn't meant to be for all sports. But to your point, we didn't have move because of basketball or any other sport. Football drives this stuff.
 
MtnBuff said:
Certainly, as stated CU was their first choice.

My point is that had CU decided to stay with the B12 it is not beyond reason to think that the PAC could have made other choices that would have resulted in that same B12 losing it's marque names and leaving CU out in the cold. Fact is that a conference built around the B12 schools minus UT, OU, and maybe OSU is not in line for a lot of TV dollars.
Click to expand...

What if the PAC took Utah and CSU instead of CU. There would have been a meltdown here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top