Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by sackman, Jun 4, 2010.
I agree 100% and that also gives us a bordering state that we can learn to hate and have a rivalry with in conference
I bet Texas requested that Tech comes along.
I agree. KU is getting the shaft.
That school is snakebit right now. The ticket scandal is enough to make some heads roll. Mangino's departure was not on ideal terms. Even without the conference expansion, the KU nation has their hands full. This expansion bomb caught them at a bad time.
The other factor is Kjuco and the package deal that the Kansas lawmakers might demand.
If the Pac10 could pick and choose, they'd be smart to go for KU and ditch OSU or TT.
But this is a political process rife with package deals, and not a garage sale.
even if KU and KSU are a package deal, i'd rather have Baylor than Tech. BU is on the rise in hoops and much better academically (for all the Pac huff and puff about "academic fits").
You're probably right, but that doesn't make it a good deal for the Pac or something they should agree to. Why is the Pac allowing UT to dictate to them who to invite? The only reason Texas wants Tech along for the ride is because it gives them extra leverage within the new conference. And people wonder why I don't trust UT? This deal stinks.
Because CU failed to forge any strong alliances, this is all idle talk. Bohn and the Regents and DiStephano would not demand our participation is contingent upon a swap between TT or OSU in exchange for NU, UU or KU.
We're going to get what we get, so don't pitch a fit.
Guys and gals, we're not driving this bus. And given CU's irrelevance and ineptitude during the past decade, we ought to feel damn grateful to have been offered a seat on this bus in the first place.
Yeah, TT included in the rumor is a head scratcher. I wonder how many off-shoot rumors are gonna sprout in the next 12-24 hours.
Also come conference vote time, CU around more like minded schools won't just vote with whatever Texas wants
this a million times
So UT gets to dictate all the terms of this deal, and we're just supposed to sit by, like Ringo Starr, and say "I'm just happy to be here"?
This is crap.
You are a banker. It's about $$$. Duh. It's about getting as many people as possible to shell out $20/month for a premium sports channel. Do the math.
Pac-10 is allowing UT to dictate schools, because they are bringing in about 100-150 million per year extra to the table (I'm guessing here).
Texas is what makes this whole thing work. If Texas requested that we invite Oral Roberts..I bet you that is what happens.
This IS crap and life is a crap sandwitch. The more bread you have, the less crap you have to eat.
And so it begins. "oh, no Sacky, the pac won't be controlled from Texas like the Big 12 was. Things will be different this time".
Yeah, right. Get ready to grab your ankles, Pac 10.
There's always high school football. You won't have to worry about the Texans screwing that up.
Hey the Pac-10 offers the other part of the network. USC/UCLA It is a good counter balance. Texas brings 40%, SoCal brings 40% and everything else brings 20%.
No offense, but you haven't lived under the boot of Texas for the last 10 years. You have no idea what you're in for. All the same stuff you're saying was said in 1993/1994 when the Big 12 was formed. The Pac is selling it's soul to the Devil, and CU is along for the ride.
In all honesty, the Pac would be better off without Texas. The original plan of CU & Utah would have worked. Perhaps even CU, Utah, *ebraska and Kansas. Need 16 teams? Add CU, KU, NU, OU, UU and NMU. Anybody but UT.
Were you not able to get into UT or something, you seem pretty hostile
Who knows. I guess some people don't believe in rewarding success.
This would make the most sense, to me.
KU/KSU/Mizzou/Nebraska to the Big 10 makes the most sense, to me.
CU/OU/OSU/UT/A&M/TT to the Pac 10, to join with UA and ASU to create a Pac 10 "East" division.
I actually agree with Sacky. In an ideal world if CU was to switch conferences I´d like to get as far away from UT as humanly possible, which is why the 12 Pac idea appealed to me, however, if the rumors are true and the Pac X is looking to expand into a Western Super Conference, it´d be devestating if we weren´t invited and left scrambling to find a conference which is gonna take us along with the other Big 12 leftovers.
I had considered going to UT, but it was the cost, not the admission requirements that kept me in Boulder.
I wasn't a big fan of the whole "move to the Big 12 South" thing originally, and its still not my ideal solution, but is this really any tougher then competing in the old Big 8? Sorry but AU and ASU aren't particularly scary, and shockingly if there is one team that Hawkins seems to own its TT. So really we're back to playing OU every year, and swapping a dominant Texas for a dominant Nebraska. Mac seemed to do okay in the Big 8 when he got things rolling. Plus we've got Boulder...if we spend some of the initial money on coaching and facilities enhancements and get some good coaching going I think we'll be fine. Probably not perennial top 10 or anything but we'll be okay if we can ditch this culture that we're losers.
I'll say it again, just in case it has been lost somewhere along the line; The only thing worse than accepting this invite would be not accepting it. For all the problems that dealing with UT will invariably bring, we're better off in this scenario than we would be if were left off the bus.
This is true. I just don't understand the negativity towards UT. Trying to get away from UT is akin to smashing the mirrors in your house because you don't look like George Clooney.
This offer is way better than we have now. ($20M>$8M) Plus we get to exchange Lincoln, Columbia, Ames, Lawrence and Manhattan for the Pac 10 locations. If you want to be the best, you got to play with the best. This conference will elevate our game.
The U$C/UCLA/Stanford/Cal consortium will drive CU fans as mad as the folks down in Austin. This way, at least there is some counterbalance. And instead of being an outpost, CU is now a mid-point, which will pay dividends to the local economy.
Repeat after me. It's all good.
It does suck, but if the Pac wants Texass they appear to be playing to their demands (politics in Texass and their wanting to bring OU alonng as well). I also agree that Texass is a conference killer, but what can you do. I have to believe that the Pac is in a unique position to get Texas and is playing the game to get them...no way the Big Televen or SEC will be able to offer what it would take to get them...and they are a prized possession at this point. (Still sux)
Very glad CU appears to be in the mix.
On the positives that I can think of after a bit of time:
- Playing more of Texass and OU should help recruiting in Texas, and lowers the amount of competition for recuits there. Specifically, we could move up in priority for Texas kids...Mizzou and Nebraska will definitely fall down the order with a possible Big Ten move.
- Would like much more California exposure via games there, but being in the Pac would still be a step better than what we have today
-and heres one for you...Hawk has proven to do better against the south than the north :smile2: (BTW...Texas and OU still don't scare me and with the additional funds that this SHOULD give us we hopefully can make some good decisions within our athletic department to get us more competitive)
I can justify Tech. They've got a strong plan in place (fully funded) to become a Tier 1 university and AAU member. West Texas is a real growth area, too.
Oklahoma State is hard for me to see. Texas A&M is an awful cultural fit.
I'm hoping that when the dust settles those two teams are in the SEC and the Pac gets KU and Utah instead (maybe UNM as an alternate to the Utes).
Would the SEC have any interest in OSU without OU? I just don't see how the SEC is better off by adding aTm and Okie St. More mouths to feed without really bringing much to the table.
Expands the footprint into Houston/South Texas, Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Probably more important in recruiting than anything. Nice fit as a "western" 4-team pod to pair with LSU and Arkansas. Again with this one, I think the key is whether the NCAA bylaw changes to allow a 2-round conference football tournament. Those 2 extra playoff games are worth millions.
A 16-team SEC with the following 4 pods would definitely be stronger than the current setup:
East (1): Florida, Florida State, South Carolina, Clemson
East (2): Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
West (1): Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
West (2): LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State
East (1) vs East (2) Semifinal
West (1) vs West (2) Semifinal
East Champ vs West Champ Final
That's big money. And it fits
Separate names with a comma.