1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

the part we want want to sweep under the rug

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Liver, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Liver

    Liver modded mod Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,871
    Likes Received:
    2,688
    way back last year, when this whole conference re-alignment thing was underway, CU was PRAYING for a p10 invitation. in fact, when it was revealed that the pac wanted to go to 16 by tearing apart the b12, we were on pins and needles, hoping to be included. baylor was working evil behind the scenes to try to take our spot on the re-alignment train. our football program was (and is) at a near historical low. our athletic budget was a mess.

    so, when the texas cabal slowed down, scott went bold. he invited CU to see if it would rattle the others. he took a risk in doing that. CU should be very grateful.

    the texas cabal ultimately decided they'd get a better deal ****ing over the lesser remnants of the b12 so they didn't move. at that point, scott got some criticism for jumping too early and inviting CU. the view was that CU would be there, waiting for the pac, later as well as sooner. that's hard to argue with, imho. so, scott went out and had to take another risk by adding utah to round out the 12 teams (to get a conf. champ. game). this was not a first-choice for scott. utah is moving up in class and despite their very significant recent success, they are not anywhere near as big a name as ou or ut and they don't add the texas market. adding the texas market was a huge part of the pac's strategy in order to get a good tv deal.

    then, scott was able to get a really epic deal for the new pac 12. everyone is thrilled. CU is rewarded for being the first to jump by being placed in with the socal teams. the other schools are cooperative because the money is so big.

    now, we sit here, popping off because scott may or may not be able to pull together the 16 team conference the pac originally wanted to build. we like that we got in the door first. we want to close the door behind us. yet, when push comes to shove, usc, ucla, cal, and stanford have a much stronger argument to be allowed to stay together than any argument we could make that we shouldn't be sent east (as was the original plan).

    i know this will not be a popular opinion. but, this is the "other" side of this thing. i hate texas. i hope they get ****ed and i don't want them anywhere near our conference. i like the current conference setup and i don't want it to change. but, we hardly have the moral high ground on this. everyone, including the ****ers from texas, is looking out for their self interest. scott's job is to protect and promote the collective interests of the conference, not the individual interests of any particular school, including CU.

    if this train leaves the station again and the pac goes to 16, we are merely a passenger and we're not going to be able to change the destination.

    just my 2 cents.
     
    CarolinaBuff likes this.
  2. Ralphandler1

    Ralphandler1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    19
    Some of the points you bring up are sort of valid.... But you make it sound like we are just a pawn that Scott used to get at bigger programs. What you're not remembering is the Pac10 has WANTED CU in it for over a decade. In fact, when the Big 12 was being formed, and years after, there was significant speculation that the Pac 10 was lobbying CU to jump ship and move to the west coast. So I think it is not really fair to characterize CU as being "lucky" to be on this ship. They wanted CU long before they ever considered or wanted UT, UU, OU etc. CU fits in perfectly with the PAC10 schools academically and traditionally athletically as well. The other schools are not a great fit in the PAC12 academically (although some argument can be made for UT but certainly not tech, OU, OK state) They just bring athletic money with them which is the ONLY reason the PAC12 is even considering them. I think CU made a long desired and anticipated move.... In my opinion UT and OU success in the past decade athletically are the only reason they are even being considered and they are the lucky ones to even have this potential option. They do not fit with the environment, culture or academic/research prestige of the PAC12 schools.
     
  3. InTheBuff

    InTheBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    11,252
    Likes Received:
    507
    I agree with you 100%-

    this is why Benson's comments pissed off Scott
     
  4. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    I agree with your take --

    Scott's job is to do what is in the best interest of the Pac ____ conference.

    At the same time, Colorado's job (and specifically the Colorado president's job) is to do what is in the best interest of Colorado. I had no problem with Benson's comments. He is looking out for Colorado. I was somewhat perturbed by Larry Scott's response (i.e. I'm not going to dignify those comments with a response) because he needs to remember that he serves at the whim of the schools who make up the conference. But at the same time, I realize that he has to do what is right for the conference, and Colorado is just 1/12 of the current conference.

    I also agree that Colorado is just riding the train right now. We certainly aren't directing it. Colorado is in a good position, and going forward our position in the conference can only go UP (it can't get any worse than it is now!). Colorado is about to receive a financial windfall by nature of the increased television revenue. Colorado is used to operating on television revenue of less than $10 million per year. It will be quite a change when there is $10 million more in the annual distribution.

    Colorado fans have a one track mind. They want what is best for Colorado and they view the world from Colorado-colored glasses. The Pac ___ has no long term relationship with Oklahoma or Oklahoma State or even Texas. But they know the tradition and history of all of those programs, in more than just football. They also know that there are an awful lot of television sets which are tuned in to those football programs.
     
  5. buffedup

    buffedup Cooler than a Popsicle Stand. Club Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,586
    Likes Received:
    846
    You have to remember what was going on at the time though. The Big 10 was the conference that started the ball rolling in December 2009 when they announced that they would actively look into expanding. Then Mizzou eventually started yapping about how the Big 12 sucks and how they have an invite in hand. This was a HUGE trigger for the realignment frenzy. Up until then the Pac 10 had been relatively quiet. All of the sudden the Pac 10 indicates that they may be interested in expanding as well, but 16 was not a bombshell that was dropped for a while.

    Colorado was not actively praying for anything until it became very apparent that the fundamental foundation of the Big 12 was gone. CU and Utah were talked about for fun, but it was mostly speculation. It wasn't until Scott dropped the Nuclear bomb on college football that we had tough choices to accept. The reason that the Pac 16 looked great at the time was that everybody else in the Big 12 was facing BCS conference annihalation. Then Baylor went to war on us and it of course dragged up the very ugly history of how politics and football coexist down in Texas.

    Given our current status as down trodden program, this was VERY alarming as we were facing possible MWC status. So yeah UT as a conference partner looked damn good compared to the alternative and still does, but it doesn't change the fact that we were mostly looking at the Pac 12 as it sits today with wistful thinking. I don't really think we have changed our thinking since the whole thing blew up last year.
     
  6. Liver

    Liver modded mod Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,871
    Likes Received:
    2,688
    i am well aware of the flirtation between CU and the pac 10 over the years. in the early 90s, however, the part you are missing is that CU's invitation was coupled with an invitation to ut. they wanted us as a pair. they've been flirting with texas for just as long as they have been flirting with us. the only difference is we've wanted to move and ut, until recently, has been content to stay.
     
  7. CUFan

    CUFan Welcome back Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    470
    I agree with you. Larry works for CU and the other 11. Even if CU is only 1/12 of the conference, it still has a vote and an opinion. Benson should and can say whatever he wants. Someone needs to let Larry and the other Presidents know about UT shenanigans.
     
  8. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,516
    I have a very different memory of how this whole thing went down. I remember the CU and Utah talks being the starting point. Then Scott saw that he might have a chance at nabbing UT, OU, A&M, OSU, Tech and CU all at once. He went down that road, until UT started throwing around a bunch of demands about how he was supposed to run the new conference. At that point, he told them to go f**k themselves (paraphrasing), and went back to the original plan of CU and UU.

    I think it's very important for Scott and the rest of the Pac 12 to understand exactly what they're getting if they accept Texas into the conference. Death. It's a suicide pact.

    I've said it a bajillion times and I'll say it again - there's no compelling reason to expand beyond 12 schools. None. Money? What, $30MM/Yr +/- isn't enough for you? Whatever UT *might* bring to the table would pale in comparison to the drama and nightmare that would accompany them. Frankly, OU is probably more drama than we really want, too. Those are the only two schools that would be financially acretive, and they're more trouble than they're worth - by a lot (UT moreso than OU).
     
  9. wsp4820

    wsp4820 Sally Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Acretive.
     
  10. Darth Snow

    Darth Snow Hawaiian Buffalo Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    56,962
    Likes Received:
    4,967
    Sacky is wrong, but not far off. Liver, you misconstrue. The PAC was gonna expand. There were three options for expansion. CU was the only team in all three options. CU was going to the pac12 with or without hangers on. UU was the 3d option. Your OP describes them perfectly. For Expansion, the PAC NEEDED CU. So we do have some high ground here.
     
  11. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,449
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    CU has always been a target of the PAC, with or without UT, for a number of reasons including the similarity with and shared interest with the PAC schools. At the same time the PAC had interest in Texas for similar reasons as well as obvious financial interest.

    Joining a conference which CU has done in the PAC doesn't mean that it gives up it right to try to work in that conference in its own best interest, same would apply with Texas. What Benson did was make a statement that was expressing the interest of CU. At the same time he has an obligation to the other existing members of the conference to contribute his knowledge and experience for the good of the conference. I would argue that Benson is uniquely equiped to do this being the only president in the PAC with direct experience working with Texas in a conference setting.

    We know that if Texas joins the PAC or any other conference they will continue to work in their own best interest. Benson knows that that doesn't always match up with the best interest of Texas conference partners and expressed this.

    You can argue with the timing or the manner of the statement but to criticize him for what he said isn't valid in my mind.
     
  12. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    I don't buy this argument. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State certainly have the academic wherewithal to compare with other programs currently in the Pac-12. Certainly Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are on par with the other "State" schools in the Pac 12. This has been addressed in other posts. So it seems entirely hypocritical to me, for the Pac-12 to attack the academics of certain would-be-Pac___ members, when current Pac-12 members are below them.


    As for the 2nd point - you completely lost me. In terms of football (and let's be honest, that's what is driving this expansion talk) Oklahoma and Texas have more all time wins than anyone in the Pac-12. Oklahoma and Texas have higher all time winning percentages than anyone in the Pac-12. To think that what OU and Texas have done for the "past 10 years" is what is creating their consideration is incredibly un-informed. Oklahoma has seven (7) national championships -- all of which occurred more than 10 years ago. Texas has four (4) national championships.

    I will agree with one point --- the prize is Texas. That's what the Pac-12 wants. That's what EVERY conference wants. OU, OSU, Tech, etc. are just the gems on the side.
     
  13. Ralphandler1

    Ralphandler1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    19
    This is kinda how I remember it too.... CU has been the talk of PAC10 expansion for well over 15 years and the PAC 10 expanded to 12 because CU is a great fit for them and allowed them into a new market with more money.
     
  14. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    Some of that is incorrect. The plan was Colorado, OU, OSU, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech all to the Pac 10 -- thereby creating the Pac 16. Utah was not part of the equation until after Texas and its stooges backed out of the deal at the 11th hour.
     
  15. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,516
    Are you nuts? It seems to me like pretty much every conference is trying to stay the hell away from UT at this point.
     
  16. Liver

    Liver modded mod Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,871
    Likes Received:
    2,688
    actually, that's nearly a fair point. the pac did, in fact, WANT CU in all circumstances. need? well, i guess it depends on how you look at it... it is true to say we were the key to their strategy. so, maybe there is a teensy bit of moral high ground. i dunno... i feel like we are letting our emotions (hate for ut, love for the current conf. configuration) get the better of us. we are acting more aggrieved than perhaps we have the right to do.

    but, hey... **** texas. i hope they get screwed somehow. on that we can all agree. oh, and the baylor baptists are dirty mutha****ers.
     
  17. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,516
    It was CU/UU before the other schools entered the picture. I remember very distinctly having a few UU posters on here lamenting the fact that it seemed like they were going to the Pac, and then the rug got pulled out from under them.
     
  18. TimmyDUBs

    TimmyDUBs Dirty haole Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,570
    Likes Received:
    951
    I am missing the point of the original post. Of course we're all bitching about not wanting the shlonghorns because they are going to mess up everything we have going for us. It isn't a 'moral' question...at this point we are happy with making a butt oaf of money while also having a setup that might lead to us competing at a high level in the conference.

    What is being swept under the rug?!?
     
  19. buffaholic

    buffaholic Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,197
    Likes Received:
    1,634
    Money talks and Texas is the prize. It's known as TV money and none of the conferences are trying to stay away.

    The part the OP had wrong though is Scott wanted Texas for sure, but he mostly wanted to get to 12 teams first as he was already in deep negotiations on the TV contract and he needed a conference championship game. Utah was an afterthought. Colorado was coming with a lucrative Denver market from the get go.

    But the OP's point that we would have been thrilled to see the B12 crumble then and come over as part of 16 teams is valid. CU would have taken that over being stuck like KSU and ISU will be stuck. That doesn't mean we shouldn't complain now though!
     
  20. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    Scott has a stated goal of making the PAC the most elite conference in the country. The thing that strikes me about this round of expansion is that there are candidates that have the ability to elevate the PAC into that conversation. Utah and Colorado simply don't accomplish that stated goal regardless of the size of the television contract. If the PAC truly wants to be in the conversation with the BIG10 or the SEC, Scott has to add the truly "elite" options of OU and UT in this round, at a minimum. The worst thing that could happen to the PAC is for OU and UT to end up in some other conference(s) followed by a 16 team super conference race. If that happens the PAC would be left selecting from the Big12 leftovers, the MWC or C-USA.
     
  21. Jens1893

    Jens1893 Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    33,958
    Likes Received:
    3,282
    Slade <3 Oklahoma Sooners
     
  22. Darth Snow

    Darth Snow Hawaiian Buffalo Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    56,962
    Likes Received:
    4,967
    Thanks for the "almost" point remark. Frankly, I think you are letting your inherent need to **** with me override your common sense. The debate over "need" going on in your skull is a strange one. They needed to expand. CU was required for them to expand. They didn't hire Larry Scott to twiddle his thumbs.

    If you need to get from A to C, and there are three roads between the two, but all three roads go through B... do you "need" to go through B? Yes, if you want to get to C.
     
  23. Darth Snow

    Darth Snow Hawaiian Buffalo Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    56,962
    Likes Received:
    4,967
    Funny how OU centric pretty much every post of his has been lately.
     
  24. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,516
    bull****.

    The Pac has plenty of money. UT would bring a *little* more. So what? It's not worth it.
     
  25. buffaholic

    buffaholic Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,197
    Likes Received:
    1,634
    Little? Ok keep thinking so.....
     
  26. rodrigo

    rodrigo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    96
    This x10. Morality? Give me a break.
     
  27. Liver

    Liver modded mod Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,871
    Likes Received:
    2,688
    need to **** with you?

    naw.

    want? maybe.

    of course, if all roads lead to ****ing with snow, then maybe it is a need?

    :rofl:
     
  28. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,522
    Likes Received:
    4,516
    The Pac already IS the most elite conference in the country. The Pac 12 has more national championships than any other conference. That's a fact. Look it up. They don't need OU or UT to reach "elite" status. They had a team playing in the MNC game just last year. Don't throw that garbage out around here.
     
  29. wsp4820

    wsp4820 Sally Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Certainly, if the Pac was going to pick one team to come over, it was going to be UT. However, CU was always the 11th or 12th team in any scenario because of the TV market. If it took going to 16 and letting Tech and OSU in to get UT, they were willing to do that. But CU was in any plan to get to 12.

    Also, I don't remember exactly, but I don't believe that the East/West thing was guaranteed once the move to 16 was announced. Even then discussion of pods was at play. So, this whole "just shut up and take what you agreed to last year" argument rings somewhat shallow to me. I understand the argument that we still would have chosen a Pac-16 East division to being left with no conference, but again, that was never part of anyone's plan despite how hard Baylor tried to make it the plan.
     
  30. buffedup

    buffedup Cooler than a Popsicle Stand. Club Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,586
    Likes Received:
    846
    On paper this is accurate, but this is exactly the thinking that cause so many headaches with them. The additonal revenue WILL NOT offset the damage they can and will do.
     

Share This Page