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!

State of the Big 12 - feedback please...

Hugegroove said:
, OU & OSU at Oklahoma City, KU & KsJuco at KC, Big 12 Championship game in the house that Jerry built. You get the picture. [/FONT]
]
Click to expand...

OU and OSU at OKC won't happen because there is no place to play. and OU already loses home game revenue once every two years to play UT in Dallas. OSU can't afford to lose it's home revenue to play OU since that's it's one guaranteed sellout per year. that would be like CU agreeing to play KU in basketball at Pepsi Center. i get your point, but OSU-OU in OKC is never gonna happen.
 
Buffarino said:
This is my big concern. CU needs to make a move while there is a move to be made.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The worst case scenario is Mizzou gets in the Big 10 with TX and A&M or some other combo, the Pac 10 take BYU and Utah and CU ends up in a neutered Big 12 or worse yet, gets sucked into the sewer of CFB and ends up a WAC or MWC team...
 
Mick Ronson said:
OU and OSU at OKC won't happen because there is no place to play. and OU already loses home game revenue once every two years to play UT in Dallas. OSU can't afford to lose it's home revenue to play OU since that's it's one guaranteed sellout per year. that would be like CU agreeing to play KU in basketball at Pepsi Center. i get your point, but OSU-OU in OKC is never gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Oh that's not true... Taft Stadium is a perfectly fine place for Bedlam! lol jk... that's an OKC public schools high school stadium and a WPA project.
 
Now that Tom Osbourne has said today in a es-pee-in article, if the Big 10 comes calling, the Butthuskers will listen. That right there says alot about where the B12 is heading.

I might be forced to go to a huskerpedia board to see what kind of stir this is causing in Stinkoln
 
Last edited:
I am starting to become saddened (terrified?) by the fact that if CU doesn't leave for the Pac-10, we could be left to the MWC or worse. With all the chatter of other Big XII teams leaving, the move to the Pac-10 seems almost urgent. Not to mention, none of the Pac-10 teams will be threatening to defect anytime soon (nowhere to go).

If we ended up in the MWC, minus Utah and possibly BYU, I don't even think the conference gets a BCS bid. Conference revenues are weak and CU is stuck with a bunch of glorified community colleges. With the powers that be in Boulder, you have to wonder how much longer we would have an athletic department.

Of course, that is worse case scenario, but do we really want to be in a conference with TCU, Houston, UT, AM, Baylor, TT, OSU, OU, UNM, KU and KSU? Barf. No thanks.
 
@azbuff... i think you are right. the risks are great. CU needs to protect itself.
 
Even if nothing comes to pass on the expansion front for the other Big 12 teams, I still feel like it is the best decision to move to the Pac-10. I have much more faith in their leadership and the consensus voting of the conference members to create better value for all members going forward, than I do in the Big 12 and the super-majority voting block that prevents real positive change (like a Big 12 network and revenue sharing) from happening.
 
I think people are overreacting. If CU had a winning season last year and contended, no one here would be talking about this. I agree that the B12 has some serious issues, but I don't think the situation is unfixable.
 
valdezj said:
I think people are overreacting. If CU had a winning season last year and contended, no one here would be talking about this. I agree that the B12 has some serious issues, but I don't think the situation is unfixable.
Click to expand...

For my part I know it isn't an over-reaction to the recent rumors. Which is why I stated that regardless of any other teams changing conferences, the Pac-10 would be a much better long-term for the Buffs.

Easy to say though with all the "hysteria" going around right now. I was surprised that even Mike Bohn said that "it feels different this time around" in regards to the rumors.
 
Disagree Valdez. The Texas domination of this conference has possibly been brought to a boil by the Hawk ****show, but in years past when this Pac-10 scenario has been brought up, there has been significantly less (or zero) substance. Not to mention, you now have at least four Big XII teams (UT, NU, Mizzou and ISU) openly considering leaving the conference and OU and UT possibly joining the SEC if **** really hits the fan. Do you think UT is having conversations with the Big 10 because they had such a bad season last year? I don't.
 
azbuff said:
Do you think UT is having conversations with the Big 10 because they had such a bad season last year? I don't.
Click to expand...
I really don't think UT is going to leave the B12. I could be wrong.

I really see this as a way to use leverage against the league. I hope CU does the same. But in the end, I don't want to see CU leave the B12.
 
azbuff said:
Disagree Valdez. The Texas domination of this conference has possibly been brought to a boil by the Hawk ****show, but in years past when this Pac-10 scenario has been brought up, there has been significantly less (or zero) substance. Not to mention, you now have at least four Big XII teams (UT, NU, Mizzou and ISU) openly considering leaving the conference and OU and UT possibly joining the SEC if **** really hits the fan. Do you think UT is having conversations with the Big 10 because they had such a bad season last year? I don't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What this tells me? There's a systemic problem in the Big 12 and power people at the various schools are starting to whisper around to see what other schools know. And they're getting bad news.

I think this whole deal is on the verge of implosion. I think we need to get to the Pac FAST -- and this is coming from a "stay with the Big Eight brothers" guy.
 
OKCBuff said:
I think this whole deal is on the verge of implosion. I think we need to get to the Pac FAST -- and this is coming from a "stay with the Big Eight brothers" guy.
Click to expand...
If it benefits CU to go to another conference then so be it. I'll support it. But when I hear all the "Adapt or Die" stuff that's going around...Sorry if I don't buy into that. Especially from people in Cali.

I think the B12 has a big problem. But is it broken beyond repair? Is UT really a conference killer?
 
Okay, well I'm not from Cali. And a move to the Pac-10 would benefit me personally, but I remember being for the Pac-10 when I was a 12 year old in 1994 - when I lived in Colorado. We "fit" more in that league, the revenues would be greater, we wouldn't have to play every football championship in Texas (assuming we ever get to another) and we won't have to worry about conference fixtures leaving (UT, NU).
 
Yes, without UT the conference dies, IMO. You basically lose all the TV sets in Texas, because A&M would go with them I'm sure. Plus, losing one of the biggest cogs in the system wouldn't be good for the overall machine.
 
It just seems to me that the Pac 10 brass is just as inept as the B12 (Okay maybe not that much). Their failure to secure a big TV contract is almost inexcusable imo. Even with the current 10 teams. LA alone should be able to get a good deal done.

I also don't see how this will be a magic pill that will inspire all of our alums back. Our fan base is notoriously fickle. I just don't see it. I'm not trying to be a downer, or tell you that your wrong. I just don't see how the pac 10 is going to save our hides.
 
OKCBuff said:
Yes, without UT the conference dies, IMO. You basically lose all the TV sets in Texas, because A&M would go with them I'm sure. Plus, losing one of the biggest cogs in the system wouldn't be good for the overall machine.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about UT in the conference. Not leaving.

This whole argument is bizarre to me. People say UT's shadow is too big for us to survive, then say we can't survive without them. Which one is it?

...I'm not specifically talking about you OKC.
 
Oh no worries man. I see what you were getting at now.

As to your last post, my take would be: "UT is too big for CU to survive in the Big 12" and "UT is too important for the Big 12 to survive without the Horns."
 
OKCBuff said:
Oh no worries man. I see what you were getting at now.

As to your last post, my take would be: "UT is too big for CU to survive in the Big 12" and "UT is too important for the Big 12 to survive without the Horns."
Click to expand...

I know it's the SEC and they have a great deal set in place, but how much does Vandy get? I'm sure it's pretty darn good. Why can't we get a similar deal? UT, kNU, and OU has enough pull. I'm sure if we can get some competent B12 officials in there, we can get a similar deal. Maybe not as much, but the B12 is the second best football conference in the US. At least imo.
 
OKCBuff said:
Oh no worries man. I see what you were getting at now.

As to your last post, my take would be: "UT is too big for CU to survive in the Big 12" and "UT is too important for the Big 12 to survive without the Horns."
Click to expand...

Well said there. However, I don't have a problem with UT, they are doing everything they should be doing. They are maximizing their opportunities to build their brand and long-term stability. My problem is with Nebraska, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Texas A&M. Those four have been voting against any positive change in the Big 12 for years. Nebraska tried to stand up to Texas when the Big 12 was formed but ever since then those four "big money" teams have prevented any growth for the conference because they only wanted to growth for themselves. Now Nebraska is openly stating that they would listen to a better offer because Texas is doing so. Oklahoma must be ****ting in their pants right now, and A&M to a lesser extent, but they probably figure they can still ride UT's coattails into a better conference.

The Big 12 rule that requires 9 votes to make any rules changes means that if those 4 teams don't want something then it won't happen. Missouri, Iowa State, and Kansas have all publicly criticised the leadership in the Big 12 for not making progress on revenue sharing and the TV network, but it was shot down by the "big 4". So what does Texas do? They start to form their own Longhorn Network! They are just selfish pricks, yeah they are the biggest program in the conference, but you know you need quality teams to play week-in-week-out.

Sorry for the rant, but my problems with the Big 12 are "systemic" as was stated, not because of the recent rumors.

In the Pac-10 they are slower to change but they require 100% voting in order to enact change, so no "power blocks" can form to steer the ship off-course. It requires the issues to be thoroughly discussed and researched by all members.

Sure the Pac-10 had issues with their marketing, which is why the brought in the team of Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg specifically to address the issue. The Big 12 hasn't taken a proactive step in any of these areas, so the programs are all talking about taking their own.... out the door.
 
valdezj said:
I know it's the SEC and they have a great deal set in place, but how much does Vandy get? I'm sure it's pretty darn good. Why can't we get a similar deal? UT, kNU, and OU has enough pull. I'm sure if we can get some competent B12 officials in there, we can get a similar deal. Maybe not as much, but the B12 is the second best football conference in the US. At least imo.
Click to expand...

Vandy gets $17 million from TV revenues alone.

The Big 12 can't negotiate a "full-rights" TV deal like the SEC until 2016, as that is when the ABC/ESPN deal expires. The secondary deal with FSN expires in 2012, but obviously isn't a lucrative.

The SEC deal with ESPN and CBS is a national deal, the first of its kind, with nearly all SEC home games to be aired all over the country. It was struck prior to the recession when advertising money was still inflated.

The best chance we have of getting a significant jump in TV revenues in the Big 12 after 2012 is if the Big 12 and Pac-10 form an alliance to form a new network (ala the BigTen network) or to sign a mutual TV deal. Hopefully the economy doesn't get any further into the ****ter by then.
 
ScottyBuff said:
Well said there. However, I don't have a problem with UT, they are doing everything they should be doing. They are maximizing their opportunities to build their brand and long-term stability. My problem is with Nebraska, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Texas A&M. Those four have been voting against any positive change in the Big 12 for years. Nebraska tried to stand up to Texas when the Big 12 was formed but ever since then those four "big money" teams have prevented any growth for the conference because they only wanted to growth for themselves. Now Nebraska is openly stating that they would listen to a better offer because Texas is doing so. Oklahoma must be ****ting in their pants right now, and A&M to a lesser extent, but they probably figure they can still ride UT's coattails into a better conference.

The Big 12 rule that requires 9 votes to make any rules changes means that if those 4 teams don't want something then it won't happen. Missouri, Iowa State, and Kansas have all publicly criticised the leadership in the Big 12 for not making progress on revenue sharing and the TV network, but it was shot down by the "big 4". So what does Texas do? They start to form their own Longhorn Network! They are just selfish pricks, yeah they are the biggest program in the conference, but you know you need quality teams to play week-in-week-out.

Sorry for the rant, but my problems with the Big 12 are "systemic" as was stated, not because of the recent rumors.

In the Pac-10 they are slower to change but they require 100% voting in order to enact change, so no "power blocks" can form to steer the ship off-course. It requires the issues to be thoroughly discussed and researched by all members.

Sure the Pac-10 had issues with their marketing, which is why the brought in the team of Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg specifically to address the issue. The Big 12 hasn't taken a proactive step in any of these areas, so the programs are all talking about taking their own.... out the door.
Click to expand...

Good post. I can't really dispute much. Except when the fuskers stood up to UT as you say, I always thought that was about admission standards.
 
valdezj said:
Good post. I can't really dispute much. Except when the fuskers stood up to UT as you say, I always thought that was about admission standards.
Click to expand...

Yep it was admission standards and I think also on the championship game location.
 
azbuff said:
Okay, well I'm not from Cali. And a move to the Pac-10 would benefit me personally, but I remember being for the Pac-10 when I was a 12 year old in 1994 - when I lived in Colorado. We "fit" more in that league, the revenues would be greater, we wouldn't have to play every football championship in Texas (assuming we ever get to another) and we won't have to worry about conference fixtures leaving (UT, NU).
Click to expand...

Where is this a given?
 
fwiw, CU's current state of disrepair in fb has nothing to do with this being a good move. had we done it in 94 when we are at the top of our game, we'd have OWNED the p10 then. it is cyclical. the issue is what is best for the school in the long run. we are a better fit with the p10 than the b12, culturally, academically, etc. this was true then and it is true now.

the tex-ification of the conference helps to illustrate why we made a bad choice before. think more strategically than short-term wins/losses.

if the money can be made to work, this will happen. CU and p10 have been giving each other pie-eyed looks of longing for far too long. eventually, the clothes have to come off.
 
Liver said:
fwiw, CU's current state of disrepair in fb has nothing to do with this being a good move. had we done it in 94 when we are at the top of our game, we'd have OWNED the p10 then. it is cyclical. the issue is what is best for the school in the long run. we are a better fit with the p10 than the b12, culturally, academically, etc. this was true then and it is true now.

the tex-ification of the conference helps to illustrate why we made a bad choice before. think more strategically than short-term wins/losses.

if the money can be made to work, this will happen. CU and p10 have been giving each other pie-eyed looks of longing for far too long. eventually, the clothes have to come off.
Click to expand...


I think you should take them out to dinner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top