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!

Texas Involved In Preliminary Discussions w/the ACC

Reads like a very typical non-denial denial. Saying that "at this moment" and "in discussion and analysis stage" means something is going on but nothing is finalized.

ACC TV contract is with ESPN so th LHN contract would not be an issue and in fact would be complimentary.
 
Aside from Beebe, who is obviously in a league of his own (quite literally), John Swofford is the most useless, piece of **** commissioner out there. Concerned about UNC and little, if anything, else
 
The only way I can see Texas going to the ACC is if the Big Ten and SEC are raiding the current ACC membership to get to 16 teams. Then the ACC would be poaching the Big East once again, and probably the Big 12 as well. This would create the 4th "super-conference" but the one with the weakest membership and therefore the most opportunity for Texas to dominant politically and get preferential treatment.
 
It's pretty clear to me that OU and UT are playing a game of chicken right now. OU and Okie St want UT to give some concessions to save the Big 12, and they figure A&M bolting gives them the perfect opportunity to scare UT into doing so, and so they're courting the Pac.

UT is pissed off, and scared, and wanting to hold on to what they figured was their perfect scenario, so they're trying to play every card they can. Evidently the most recent one is to float a ridiculous "we're gonna go to the ACC" rumor.

What I'd like is for Scott and all these other conference heads to tell OU, UT, and the rest of these chicken****ers to get **** themselves and quit trying to use them for leverage on each other.
 
InTheBuff said:
Texas and Oklahoma have both been strong supporters of KU recently, if for no other reason than to keep their basketball programs associated with one of the nation’s elite hoops schools. Think about it. If UT goes to the Pac-12, Texas football remains as strong as ever but their basketball brotherhood weakens. UCLA may have great history but their recent performances and overall tradition pales in comparison to Kansas.
Click to expand...

I can't believe no on jumped on this one yet. Apparently KU's been auditing "Revision of History 204-How to Overstate Self-Import" from Baylor. On balance, KU probably has a better tradition than UCLA and they may also have better recent performances, but on a whole, the Pac-12 has a better basketball tradition (there, I said it). More National Titles (15 to 5), more teams winning National Titles (6 vs 2) more teams in the top 50 all time winning %age (7 to 6 ), more All Americans (53 to 41), better record in tourney games (.578 vs. .562), etc. Almost any way you cut it, the Pac comes out on top.

KU's a good program, but there's no reason to say that the Big 12 is the superior BB conference.
 
Denver_sc said:
KU's a good program, but there's no reason to say that the Big 12 is the superior BB conference.
Click to expand...

Big XII has only existed since 1996. the Big 8 was a mediocre hoops league (minus KU, the old timey OSU NC's and some KSU flashes was basically a poor man's Big Ten. slow paced games, physical, low scoring) until the 80's when it was then routinely sending 5 of 8 teams to the NCAA. Since 96, i think you could make a very good argument the XII is the better league. KU, OU, UT, OSU in the final four at least once. other elite 8's from those teams....and elite 8's from MU (2), BU, ISU (Eustachy blows it against Mich State and Cleaves?)...ATM, Tech, KSU in the sweet 16. that's pretty strong and balanced over that time period. off the top of my head...that's everyone but CU and NU in the Sweet Sixteen at least once.

i can think of UCLA and a couple U of A teams playing the last weekend of the Dance.....SC (Clancy, Trepanier, Scalabrini), Oregon (Ridnour, Luke Jackson), maybe one of those Mike Montgomery Stanford teams in the Sweet 16. Romar had a Sweet 16 i think.
 
Last edited:
If texas goes, which I hope they do, it opens up a few interesting scenarios in the eventual expansion of the pac. I think OU and by extension OSU would fit well, I think KU would instantly bolster the conference basketball prowess, and that leaves one open slot, do they wait and see how SMU recovers and if they ever get back to a respectable level and then jump on a texas market, do we go after mizzou who wants to be in the big 10 anyway, or do we try and pick off one of the top teams in the MWC? Like Nevada or AFA?
 
would be kind of funny if somehow Mizzou ended up in the ACC with Texas....after all this. i don't think the Big Ten is that interested in them...and if OU and OSU head west...Truman may not have a lot of other options.
 
Go to the ACC, then in five years the ACC decides to do their own network. Texas doesn't give their network up. So the rest of the ACC says their conference, sans Texas, can only be covered by the major networks and the ACC channel.
 
Mick Ronson said:
Big XII has only existed since 1996. the Big 8 was a mediocre hoops league (minus KU, the old timey OSU NC's and some KSU flashes was basically a poor man's Big Ten. slow paced games, physical, low scoring) until the 80's when it was then routinely sending 5 of 8 teams to the NCAA. Since 96, i think you could make a very good argument the XII is the better league. KU, OU, UT, OSU in the final four at least once. other elite 8's from those teams....and elite 8's from MU (2), BU, ISU (Eustachy blows it against Mich State and Cleaves?)...ATM, Tech, KSU in the sweet 16. that's pretty strong and balanced over that time period. off the top of my head...that's everyone but CU and NU in the Sweet Sixteen at least once.

i can think of UCLA and a couple U of A teams playing the last weekend of the Dance.....SC (Clancy, Trepanier, Scalabrini), Oregon (Ridnour, Luke Jackson), maybe one of those Mike Montgomery Stanford teams in the Sweet 16. Romar had a Sweet 16 i think.
Click to expand...

If you take just since '96 (which kind of sucks for the Pac-10 because it misses the UCLA NC in '95), there are 6 Pac 10 appearances by 3 different teams in the Final 4 with 1 NC and 6 Big 12 appearances by 4 different teams in the Final 4 with 1 NC. Expanding to the Elite 8, 6 Pac 12 teams have appeared vs. 8 Big 12 teams since '96. 9 different Pac 12 teams have made the Sweet 16 since '96 (although ASU made it in '95, I'm not counting that) whereas all 10 Big 12 teams have made the Sweet 16 since '96. So, the Big 12 may have well been a bit better over the last 15 years, but not much more than that.

By the way, all of my numbers include the numbers from the new conference members moved over to the new conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top