FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I prefer to look at this as proof that the rest of the P12 teams see what's coming, and are afraid of having to play the P12 CCG at Folsom every December. Glass three quarters full baby.
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!
P12 CG to Levi's?
- Thread starter cubuffs85
- Start date
I prefer to look at this as proof that the rest of the P12 teams see what's coming, and are afraid of having to play the P12 CCG at Folsom every December. Glass three quarters full baby.
Definitely not a good idea given how poorly most of the Pac-12 fanbases travel. Having it hosted by the school with the better record was a very good and unique plan and now LS wants to stop doing that? 
Between this and being stubborn with DTV the conference sure seems intent on getting in its own way.
Between this and being stubborn with DTV the conference sure seems intent on getting in its own way.
Definitely not a good idea given how poorly most of the Pac-12 fanbases travel. Having it hosted by the school with the better record was a very good and unique plan and now LS wants to stop doing that?
I can totally see this game being on the Pac-12 Network and 28% of the country seeing it. Great freaking plan there.
Seriously... this is so dumb for the Pac-12. This fan base does not travel. Period. They want to have a packed house and a big game atmosphere, the only way to do so is to have the team with the best record host it.
I also love the idea on it's base. I would much rather see the other confrences do the same. Heck, the kids earned it. And with the playoff system, it makes the regular season matter even a bit more. I am all for that.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The Bay Area is full of itself. Dumb idea.
Half of that is Liver so....
I posted before that I thought the Pac had it right with having the CCG on campus. In light of today's news, I've given it more thought and I'm doubling-down on my position:
1. none of the 3 BCS conferences with real academic standards have good attendance at their (neutral site) CCGs.
2. travel distances in the Pac are huge. Pac fans don't do road trips even for games scheduled a year in advance and they're probably not going to make the trip for a game scheduled 6 days in advance.
3. giving the home field advantage to the top seeded team improves their chance of winning and representing the conference in the [STRIKE] BCS championship game [/STRIKE] playoffs.
doesn't matter if you rotate the neutral site or not, my points above are valid. but if you don't, CCG in SF will be a fucjking expensive road trip.
OTOH, (1) tradition could be established and built on, and having the game in the same place, especially if it's a sexy location, supports that. but realistically, this isn't about tradition. (2) there probably is some excitement for the players playing in an NFL stadium (but CU players already get that).
1. none of the 3 BCS conferences with real academic standards have good attendance at their (neutral site) CCGs.
2. travel distances in the Pac are huge. Pac fans don't do road trips even for games scheduled a year in advance and they're probably not going to make the trip for a game scheduled 6 days in advance.
3. giving the home field advantage to the top seeded team improves their chance of winning and representing the conference in the [STRIKE] BCS championship game [/STRIKE] playoffs.
doesn't matter if you rotate the neutral site or not, my points above are valid. but if you don't, CCG in SF will be a fucjking expensive road trip.
OTOH, (1) tradition could be established and built on, and having the game in the same place, especially if it's a sexy location, supports that. but realistically, this isn't about tradition. (2) there probably is some excitement for the players playing in an NFL stadium (but CU players already get that).
Levi's is a stupid idea. Fan $ should be spent at the school with the best record and benefit the local economy for that particular college town. Everyone in the conference has spent big money on stadium remodels and now they want to move marquee match-ups and random or "made for t.v. time slot" games to pro stadiums.
We're already playing whOregon at that venue this October which negates the only advantage we could possibly have for that game- home field advantage. Secondly, it's too close to furd- a school that sucks balls. Lastly, the 49ers suck.
That is all.
We're already playing whOregon at that venue this October which negates the only advantage we could possibly have for that game- home field advantage. Secondly, it's too close to furd- a school that sucks balls. Lastly, the 49ers suck.
That is all.
Last edited:
**** that idea
This would make sense if it were a conference tourn (ie- bball in vegas), but it is not. This is one game, and represents the spoils to be had by the team with the best record as a home game. C'mon now, spend time adding P12 revenue by finalizing a DTV deal not helping the Bay area economy.
Actually, I liked it when the Big 12 rotated the game between St. Louis, San Antonio, Dallas, KC, Houston, etc. Attendance never seemed to be a problem.
cubuffs85
Active Member
I believe the year we played OU in KC (the Stoops fake punt up by ~4 TDs), there was a substantial amount of empty seats.
It was never a problem because you had rabid fan bases.
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
Don't like it...and agree that Pac 12 should be more concerned about getting its TV product to more of the fan base with DirectTV, Charter, etc.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I saw it differently. The CU CCG in 2001 was at Texas stadium and was filled with around 70% UT fans.
The CU CCG in 2002 against OU was in Houston. Mostly Sooners.
The CU CCG in 2005 was in Houston Reliant and was filled with around 95% UT fans.
In each case, the location was never neutral, the location never favored CU fans, and never would there be a situation were the game played anywhere near the state of Colorado.
The 2001 game was an amazing experience, because CU won. It would have been even better if the fan CU/UT fan ratio was reversed.
I adore the fairness of having the best team host. This arrangement was a big selling point, envisioning even the possibility of experiencing Folsom at full-tilt.
I have been to out of state NFL stadiums to watch the Buffs play (Tempe, Houston, Dallas) and none of those experiences are as appealing as watching CU winning in front of a Colorado audience. That 2001 CU NU game was special in part because it was a huge and meaningful win on home turf. Those opportunities are few and far between.
There were also some empty seats when we played OU in Houston in 2002
ugh. stupid.
Hopefully the conference got a good deal on this and the networks are also happy.
It makes sense to be able to plan the event months in advance versus 2 weeks, but I did like the game being at home stadiums as a reward for a great season. Oh well. I'm sure it came down to 1) Money.............. 7) Logistics and 8) Desire to make it an "EVENT".
cubuffs85
Active Member
How many fans are going to go without a rooting interest? I'm guessing they're getting good corporate support.
December in San Francisco is not bad. Good tailgating weather, actually.
The game won't be in San Fran, it's in Santa Clara. That's actually better from a weather perspective, San Fran has some odd localized weather compared to the surrounding area. It's less appealing for every other consideration.
Stupid move by the conference, not that I'm surprised.
cubuffs85
Active Member
I don't like this as a fan, but isn't it better for the bottomline?
Only if it gets decent attendance. Yeah, you have the sponsorship $$$ from the neutral site game, but if there are no butts in the seats, the bottom line is in danger. Also, there is the perception issue -- would you rather have a casual fan tune into the CCG being played in a packed (or at least, close to full) stadium with a great atmosphere, or a game being played to 35% capacity with no buzz in the crowd at all?
I understand why they moved in this direction, and I've always expected that this would happen eventually. But, I really thought that they'd give the on-campus game a few more years before trying the neutral site thing. I will also predict that the game will be played in Glendale at some point.