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!

if the dominoes start to fall in the big game of conf. musical chairs...

Liver said:
and why is everyone so sure that the b10 wants mizzery so badly? what if they could get the fuskers instead? wouldn't that be better for them as a conference? hell, the fuskers have to be thinking they need to look around if ut and CU and mizzery are all thinking of bolting.

i hope the b10 "superconference" rumors aren't going to come to pass... if they go to 14 or 16 teams, then the whole world of college football is going to be completely remodeled. you'd have to think the p10 would want to go to 16 in that case too. i think the b12 would cease to exist, basically, replaced by some strange middle-american 16 team superconference.
Click to expand...

Here's my outside-the-box take: After everything I've read today, I think the Big 12 will either cease to exist or be VERY different (with a lower profile) within five years.

In my "end of the Big 12" scenario, here's what I see:

-- Big 10, for various reasons, steals FOUR Big 12 teams to go to 15: Texas (huge name, power, TVs), A&M (has to take, but makes life easier for UT and they wouldn't be an island in the Big 10), Mizzou (expand geographic footprint, add TVs/markets, already quasi Big-10 mindset) and KU (partner for Mizzou, amazing hoops legacy). Those four would go into an eight-team division with Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern and Wisconsin. Ultimately, the other three would come along to keep Texas from being so remote in the league. Taking three more teams is worth it for the Big 10 if they get UT. Realizing they need one more for an even 16, they add Pitt, as that's an easy choice and rounds things out. The Big 10 does this because they need a huge shakeup and want to be seen as a power player again. Mission accomplished.

-- The Pac 10adds CU and Utah to get to 12. They make plans for two-four more west teams down the line, but have enough for 12 and a title game, so it's all good.

-- The SEC, not wanting to be outdone, takes Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair. This helps tie Arkansas in more and delivers a huge program in the Sooners and a decent program in the Pokes. (They could also take FSU/Clemson/Ga. Tech to make a 16-team, 8-division SEC. That would add schools on both sides and create a quasi confederate situation.)

That brings the Big 12 down to five teams: Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and Baylor. Of those, NU is the only team of any consequence or stature. With its automatic bid on the line, the Big 12 scrambles and invites Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, BYU, Wyoming, TCU and Houston. That gives them four Texas schools again and back to 12, though it will be lumped in with the Big East as a "weak sister" BCS conference. (Divisions of: NU, ISU, KSU, CSU, BYU, Wyoming and Tech, Baylor, UNM, TCU, Air Force and Houston.)

OR...

Those five remaining teams scatter somehow and the Big 12 dies. I could see Tech and Baylor in CUSA, as many old SWC teams are there, as is Tulsa, La. Tech and UTEP. K-State could go to what's left of the MWC, though I think both they and ISU would be doomed to being left out in the cold entirely. As for Nebraska, maybe the MAC? Or they get desperate and try to be a member of the Pac.

Anyway, for more than half of the teams in the current Big 12, I can see them heading to a conference just as powerful and safe. If UT and CU go, I think the Big 12 is doomed. Those are two anchor conferences you couldn't replace well.
 
Razorbuff said:
I don't think the SEC would take Texas, Oklahoma, and OK State... the member schools would never go for it. It's already the tough enough to get through a single season, having to get up for 7 or 8 games... adding Texas and OU to the equation would be too much. Plus, I don't think they would enjoy playing second fiddle to Bama and Florida
Click to expand...

Would the SEC rather have the Big Ten step in and possibly take Texas? Or would they rather lock down the entire football-crazy south and the two prime recruiting hotbeds in the nation?
 
Skidmark said:
With KC straddling a state line, do the kids on the MO side of KC pay OOS tuition to KU?
Click to expand...

Maybe they have that.... whatever it's called. Like Colorado and Hawaii. Where CO kids pay in state tuition rates to HI and vice versa. I know NoDak is like that with MT and maybe SD.
 
SkiTownUSA said:
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming)
Click to expand...

Quite possibly the single biggest reason why the # of CU alums is much higher in Pac-10 country than in Big 12 country.

The Big 12 is really three different regions. Colorado is West. Nebraska, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, and Kansas State are the Mid-west. Oklahoma, Okie-State, Texas, A&M, Baylor, and Tech are Southwest (emphasis on South).
 
Learn something new every day. All this time I though I'd need to move to CO for instate tuition.
This opens up options! Whoo-hoo!
 
Skidmark said:
Learn something new every day. All this time I though I'd need to move to CO for instate tuition.
This opens up options! Whoo-hoo!
Click to expand...


Well after looking at it, you may not get in state tuition rates, but discounted for sure.

I also read that if you graduated HS from a state leave and return you may not have to regain residency to pay in state costs. Depends on the school though.
 
ScotchBuff said:
Thanks. Was drawing a blank.
Click to expand...

Then you had her pictured pefectly... :lol:

RE: Kansas/Missouri. I'm pretty sure the KC market is tied to KU quite a bit more closely than Mizzou. The Lawrence campus is only 30 miles or so outside KC, I believe. Far closer than it is to Columbia...
 
I might be the only CU fan that doesn't care if CU plays the fuskers again. Really have grown tired of that game.[/QUOTE]

Considering the ususal outcome, i can see why.
 
I believe the Big 10 has a requirement that you must border an existing State already in the Conference to be considered. That rules out Texas. Mizz would probably not go without Kansas so they would have to take both of those I would assume.

If Texas did leave, TCU and Houston would be more than adequate replacements in the B12. Not everyone tunes in to watch the Horns exclusively.

Also, I think wherever Texas goes, A & M has to go as well according to a State law or something.

Stuff isn't as simple as picking up and leaving.

If push came to shove, NU would be more than willing to go Independent and keep all income to themselves.
 
TheEvilBeak said:
I believe the Big 10 has a requirement that you must border an existing State already in the Conference to be considered. That rules out Texas. Mizz would probably not go without Kansas so they would have to take both of those I would assume.

If Texas did leave, TCU and Houston would be more than adequate replacements in the B12. Not everyone tunes in to watch the Horns exclusively.

Also, I think wherever Texas goes, A & M has to go as well according to a State law or something.

Stuff isn't as simple as picking up and leaving.

If push came to shove, NU would be more than willing to go Independent and keep all income to themselves.
Click to expand...

this is a breathtakingly stupid post, even from you.

let's go point by point.

1. altho i am unaware of the rule of which you claim to know, keep in mind that the b10 can change its bylaws however it wishes to do so with the consent of its member schools. texas is a big prize and they may be willing to do whatever it takes to get them. further, you are dead wrong about mizzery leaving ku--- they've been agitating for just that result for several years.

2. tcu and houston are not the same as having ut--- they aren't the same academically, financially, culturally, competitively, or in terms of interest from fans. your assertion to the contrary is just plain dumb, son.

3. no, there is no state law. there are political pressures that may keep ut and atm joined at the hip. but, ut has tried to break those ties in the past and now that their budget is so damned huge, they are in a better position to tell the pols to eff off than they have ever been. i do think they won't end up leaving atm, but there is no law.

4. no one said it was simple. but money talks, son.

5. the fuskers? independent? oh, please, please let them be so ****ing stupid. here's a newsflash: fuskers are not notre dame. you can't pull it off. period. end of story.

carry on with the delusional posts, however. you amuse us.
 
I just don't see how a 16 team conference would work for football, it sounds like a complete clusterf**k. Even with a division format you're going to go multiple years between road trips to each school - hard to build or maintain rivalries or a conference identity that way. You'd have to go to a 10 game conference schedule which puts every team at a huge disadvantage over other conferences who get to load up on OOC cupcakes (incidentally, a Pac 10 expansion would probably allow them to go back to an 8 game conference schedule - they currently play 9 which many schools gripe about).

I just don't see a 16 team conference working.
 
SINKRATZ said:
I just don't see how a 16 team conference would work for football, it sounds like a complete clusterf**k. Even with a division format you're going to go multiple years between road trips to each school - hard to build or maintain rivalries or a conference identity that way. You'd have to go to a 10 game conference schedule which puts every team at a huge disadvantage over other conferences who get to load up on OOC cupcakes (incidentally, a Pac 10 expansion would probably allow them to go back to an 8 game conference schedule - they currently play 9 which many schools gripe about).

I just don't see a 16 team conference working.
Click to expand...

It works for the Big East in basketball, and in football your rivalries would be concentrated within your division. the "other" division would create championship games that were not repeat matchups, as well as most likely having two teams that had comparable records. The odds of an 8-4 team playing a 12-0 team for a conference championship would be reduced slightly with the reduction of cross-divisional games. A 16 team conference would mean that each team would get 7 games within division, and 1 game (preferably a "rival" game) as an intra-divisional game. That would be 1/3 less intra-divisional games than is currently played in the Big 12 or SEC. Such a format would make winning your division as an even stronger motivation and those divisional games into extreme rivalries.
 
Buffnik said:
Missouri delivers more of Kansas City than Kansas does. Pretty much everything in that city is on the Missouri side.
Click to expand...

That is not true at all. Most people in Kansas City are KU fans. Lawrence is 35 minutes from Downtown KC while Columbia is 125 miles away.
 
ScottyBuff said:
It works for the Big East in basketball, and in football your rivalries would be concentrated within your division. the "other" division would create championship games that were not repeat matchups, as well as most likely having two teams that had comparable records. The odds of an 8-4 team playing a 12-0 team for a conference championship would be reduced slightly with the reduction of cross-divisional games. A 16 team conference would mean that each team would get 7 games within division, and 1 game (preferably a "rival" game) as an intra-divisional game. That would be 1/3 less intra-divisional games than is currently played in the Big 12 or SEC. Such a format would make winning your division as an even stronger motivation and those divisional games into extreme rivalries.
Click to expand...

That is a terrible idea. First of all, basketball plays a 30 game season, so you can't compare it to football and the Big East IS a complete clusterf**k for hoops. This defeats the whole idea of a conference. Under your scenario, it would take 16 years to play each conference team home and home.

I guess money could conceivably lead to something like this happening, but I think it's a bad idea.
 
Buff21 said:
That is not true at all. Most people in Kansas City are KU fans. Lawrence is 35 minutes from Downtown KC while Columbia is 125 miles away.
Click to expand...

i used to read MU and KU boards pretty regular and that seems about right to me. MU peeps complain endlessly about the KU bias in the KC papers and radio. seems like KC is about a 45/35/20 KU/MU/KSU mix.....
 
SINKRATZ said:
That is a terrible idea. First of all, basketball plays a 30 game season, so you can't compare it to football and the Big East IS a complete clusterf**k for hoops. This defeats the whole idea of a conference. Under your scenario, it would take 16 years to play each conference team home and home.

I guess money could conceivably lead to something like this happening, but I think it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...

i tend to agree with you SR. the current MWC is a reaction to the failed 16 team WAC, if you recall.
 
SINKRATZ said:
That is a terrible idea. First of all, basketball plays a 30 game season, so you can't compare it to football and the Big East IS a complete clusterf**k for hoops. This defeats the whole idea of a conference. Under your scenario, it would take 16 years to play each conference team home and home.

I guess money could conceivably lead to something like this happening, but I think it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...

That is really the only point I was driving at. I'm not in favor of "mega conferences" either, but the trend of major conferences could go that way. The Mega-WAC failed because they did not deliver a TV brand and did not have "elite" programs, in addition to travel constraints.

Personally, I would prefer every conference to be like the MWC with 9 teams and every team plays each other to determine a champion without a conference "championship" game.
 
Last edited:
Well, if we're going the way of 16 team conferences (which I absolutely hate), you might as well have six of them, relegate everyone else to D-1AA and have four independents (Notre Dame, Air Force, Navy and Army) for a 100 team Division-1A. Perhaps a backwards way to a playoff, with the twelve division champs (or six conference champs), plus four "at-large" bids (or ten) and a sixteen team playoff. I hate the idea of a 16 team conference (especially in football) but if it lead to a playoff, I'd be 51% for it and 49% against.
 
azbuff said:
Well, if we're going the way of 16 team conferences (which I absolutely hate), you might as well have six of them, relegate everyone else to D-1AA and have four independents (Notre Dame, Air Force, Navy and Army) for a 100 team Division-1A. Perhaps a backwards way to a playoff, with the twelve division champs (or six conference champs), plus four "at-large" bids (or ten) and a sixteen team playoff. I hate the idea of a 16 team conference (especially in football) but if it lead to a playoff, I'd be 51% for it and 49% against.
Click to expand...

that's kind of the devil's bargain, isn't it? i'd be in favor of just flat limiting conferences at 8 members, everybody plays everybody. the NEbraska's of the world get their cupcake home games against the Leathernecks of Western Illinois. you have how ever many conferences you need geographically to make sense and you make some kind of playoff system out of it. and CU is in some version of my mountain time zone conference with the arizona schools and boise if that's the new fashion. it's overly scientific and too easily undermined by the outright lies of university admins who will say "it destroys tradition and the pagaentry of college ball". but, that's just smoke for defending a system that benefits the NCAA good old boy network.

something has to happen. this whole computer thing is bulls$hit.

you have the greatest game in the world and don't have a way to declare a real champion?
 
How in the world is the conference going to replace the powerhouse that is cu football? Guess they could bring in csu. Seems like an even trade, no? Maybe even gain some considering the direction of the cu football program lol. j/k kinda. Keep your heads up lads, this too shall pass!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top