What's new
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!

if this p12 south thing holds true...

Liver

modded mod
Club Member
Junta Member
and it sounds like it might, i cannot believe our good fortune. sure, we've got usc and ucla every year, but we also have the socal recruiting that we need so badly.

i am surprised but i speculate that it went something like this:

scott: if/when the texas schools come, then you are in with them in p16 east.

bohn: ok, but if they don't, and you go to 12, then we are in the south with usc/ucla.

scott: deal (thinking to himself that he had the texas cabal locked down).

:woot:
 
and it sounds like it might, i cannot believe our good fortune. sure, we've got usc and ucla every year, but we also have the socal recruiting that we need so badly.

i am surprised but i speculate that it went something like this:

scott: if/when the texas schools come, then you are in with them in p16 east.

bohn: ok, but if they don't, and you go to 12, then we are in the south with usc/ucla.

scott: deal (thinking to himself that he had the texas cabal locked down).

:woot:

It might have gone down that way. A less entertaining possibility is that the NW schools weren't at all down with a conference format that put them in a division away from all the California schools. While NoCal games < SoCal games for recruiting purposes, getting locked out of California entirely as far as annual rivalries go would be far worse, I'd guess...
 
I've read that, to appease the NW schools that want an annual game in Cali, that there will be a 9 game conference schedule - 5 games against your own division, and 4 games against the other division on a rotating basis. Doesn't matter to me as long as whatever division we're in is also a Texas-free zone.
 
I've read that, to appease the NW schools that want an annual game in Cali, that there will be a 9 game conference schedule - 5 games against your own division, and 4 games against the other division on a rotating basis. Doesn't matter to me as long as whatever division we're in is also a Texas-free zone.

Yeah I've read that too and Bohn has hinted that the Pac 10 will stay at 9 conference games for football.. I'm cool with it.
 
I like having 9 conference games.

It does make Bohn's job more difficult for scheduling the non-conference, though.

Some years, we'll have 5 home games and 4 away games within the Pac 12. Other years, it will be 4 home and 5 away. Then we've got the neutral site game with CSU every year at Mile High. I'm not sure that CU can promise season ticket holders that there will always be at least 6 home games on the schedule.

Maybe there's a way he can get 2-for-1s with the Sun Belt and what's going to be left of the WAC. That could potentially solve it. But I'd really rather not go to the other option: having a 1AA program on the schedule every year in order to get the extra home game. Yuck.
 
I like having 9 conference games.

It does make Bohn's job more difficult for scheduling the non-conference, though.

Some years, we'll have 5 home games and 4 away games within the Pac 12. Other years, it will be 4 home and 5 away. Then we've got the neutral site game with CSU every year at Mile High. I'm not sure that CU can promise season ticket holders that there will always be at least 6 home games on the schedule.

Maybe there's a way he can get 2-for-1s with the Sun Belt and what's going to be left of the WAC. That could potentially solve it. But I'd really rather not go to the other option: having a 1AA program on the schedule every year in order to get the extra home game. Yuck.
 
I like having 9 conference games.

It does make Bohn's job more difficult for scheduling the non-conference, though.

Some years, we'll have 5 home games and 4 away games within the Pac 12. Other years, it will be 4 home and 5 away. Then we've got the neutral site game with CSU every year at Mile High. I'm not sure that CU can promise season ticket holders that there will always be at least 6 home games on the schedule.

Maybe there's a way he can get 2-for-1s with the Sun Belt and what's going to be left of the WAC. That could potentially solve it. But I'd really rather not go to the other option: having a 1AA program on the schedule every year in order to get the extra home game. Yuck.

Seems to me Bohn has two choices there. 1) Schedule 75% of non-Lammie OOC games at home (2 in the years 4 conf games are at home, 1 in the other years), which will severely limit has options to put together a strong OOC schedule... or 2) Go DeLoss Dodds on the Lammies asses and get a home game every other year in that series. If they walk over it, too ****ing bad. With the reduced OOC schedules, CU is going to need that game at home some years in order to do right by it's season ticket holders.

And we are tied to that stupid CSU game @ Investco until 2019. Ugh.

And that ****ing sucks - and it's why Bohn should never have given away the farm to the aggies that far into the future. Assuming the Pac starts CU with a shorter home schedule their first year, and assuming that's in 2011, we will have 5 seasons with 5 road games and 1 neutral site game already locked in before Bohn even starts his other OOC scheduling. It's going to be tough to get to 6 home games all 5 times. Need to take a look at what the future OOC schedules look like right now to see what he might have to work with... :huh:
 
And we are tied to that stupid CSU game @ Investco until 2019. Ugh.

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15305999

It sounds like there is standard language in all ooc agreements that dissolve the agreement without penalty should a team change conferences due to the uncertainty in new league scheduling. I would imagine this holds with the CSU game as well.

Bohn did say he expects the CSU game to continue, but he didn't say in what form.
 
http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15305999

It sounds like there is standard language in all ooc agreements that dissolve the agreement without penalty should a team change conferences due to the uncertainty in new league scheduling. I would imagine this holds with the CSU game as well.

Bohn did say he expects the CSU game to continue, but he didn't say in what form.

I don't think the contract has been nullifed and CU will be playing CSU at Invesco for the forseeable future. If CU trys to nullify the contract - my assumption is CU would have
to pay a pretty heavy buyout. Read exactly what CU associate athletic director Dave Plati says.

"Plati who shares scheduling responsibilities, said it is standard procedure to nullify all nonleague contracts if a school changes conferences. That also would absolve CU of paying a buyout to a nonleague opponent if a game is dropped to accommodate the new league schedule."

IF a game is dropped to accommodate the new league schedule. That is a critical IF. CU is moving from one 12 team conference to another 12 team conference. Unless CU can show a need to schedule a PAC-12 opponent on Labor Day Weekend to accomodate the new league schedule - I beleive CU would most certianly be on the hook for any buyout clause and I imagine CSU would make them pay every penny of it.
 
I don't think the contract has been nullifed and CU will be playing CSU at Invesco for the forseeable future. If CU trys to nullify the contract - my assumption is CU would have
to pay a pretty heavy buyout. Read exactly what CU associate athletic director Dave Plati says.

"Plati who shares scheduling responsibilities, said it is standard procedure to nullify all nonleague contracts if a school changes conferences. That also would absolve CU of paying a buyout to a nonleague opponent if a game is dropped to accommodate the new league schedule."

IF a game is dropped to accommodate the new league schedule. That is a critical IF. CU is moving from one 12 team conference to another 12 team conference. Unless CU can show a need to schedule a PAC-12 opponent on Labor Day Weekend to accomodate the new league schedule - I beleive CU would most certianly be on the hook for any buyout clause and I imagine CSU would make them pay every penny of it.

1 12 team conference that plays 8 conference games a season, to another 12 conference team that is looking to play 9 conference games a year.
 
http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15305999

It sounds like there is standard language in all ooc agreements that dissolve the agreement without penalty should a team change conferences due to the uncertainty in new league scheduling. I would imagine this holds with the CSU game as well.

Bohn did say he expects the CSU game to continue, but he didn't say in what form.

That's fine. But hopefully the Pac move will allow us to make the series shorter and augment the new conference schedule with OOC stuff and fit them back in where/when we can.
 
1 12 team conference that plays 8 conference games a season, to another 12 conference team that is looking to play 9 conference games a year.

I still read that to say that a conference game would have to effect the RMS as it is currently scheduled. The precise terms of the contract obviously would tell the tale, but I think CU is locked in for 10 years.
 
We've got CSU in week 3 in both 2011 and 2015. I don't know beyond that since the official site has only posted schedules through 2015. Wikipedia shows the 2017 and 2018 games as TBA for the date. Those games are potential conflicts with a 9-game conference schedule.

I do want to keep the game. I believe it's important for the state even if it doesn't benefit CU (everyone likes an underdog and if CU wins people just say that we should win every year). The only way it helps CU is if we get back to being nationally relevant and CSU gets back to regular bowl appearances. Then it will at least be on national television and get talked about on ESPN Gameday.
 
2 opinions:

1. I see no reasonable advantage in keeping the RMS if CU has 9 conference games per year. Of particular importance is how many OOC home games we can schedule. The RMS impacts CU's ability in that respect.

2. I guess I'm one of the loners -- I'd rather see 8 12-PAC conference games. Since there will be 6 teams in each division, it will be a lot simpler to institute a 2 year rotation against 3 teams from the other division (as the B12-2 LoneTex conference is now).

jmho
 
I really don't see this as being that big of a deal. It's a challenge, but nothing that can't be overcome. In years where we only have four home conference games, schedule two OOC home games. Problem solved. If those games have to be against the little sisters of the poor, so be it.
 
i really don't see this as being that big of a deal. It's a challenge, but nothing that can't be overcome. In years where we only have four home conference games, schedule two ooc home games. Problem solved. If those games have to be against the little sisters of the poor, so be it.

csu?
 
I really don't see this as being that big of a deal. It's a challenge, but nothing that can't be overcome. In years where we only have four home conference games, schedule two OOC home games. Problem solved. If those games have to be against the little sisters of the poor, so be it.
What's going to help a little bit is that we have upcoming (previously) OOC games with Cal, Utah, and I believe Oregon and Washington as well. Those can be morphed into conference games so that we really don't have to cancel or reschedule anyone.
 
and it sounds like it might, i cannot believe our good fortune. sure, we've got usc and ucla every year, but we also have the socal recruiting that we need so badly.

i am surprised but i speculate that it went something like this:

scott: if/when the texas schools come, then you are in with them in p16 east.

bohn: ok, but if they don't, and you go to 12, then we are in the south with usc/ucla.

scott: deal (thinking to himself that he had the texas cabal locked down).

:woot:

Just to give a little weight to the idea Liver floated...

Oregonian Blog

The most widely reported scenario has Colorado and Utah joining up with Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA and USC in a south division. Reports say Colorado's inclusion with the Southern California schools was a condition of its accepting the Pac-10's invitation because of the Buffaloes' large alumni base in So Cal.
 
Can someone tell me what it means that Utah is now our "Travel Partner?"
The Pac-10 is set up in basketball with each team is paired up with a "partner" (UA and ASU; USC and UCLA; Cal and Stanford; UO and OSU; UW and WSU). When playing conference games, one set of partners (we'll use the Arizona schools as our example) goes on the road, and will play UofA at Cal and ASU at Stanford on a Thursday, then switch on Saturday. So, CU and Utah will play at home, against the same two teams, at the same time, and travel at the same time.
 
CU is now going to be playing a Pac-10 schedule. USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah on the schedule EVERY YEAR. Four teams from the northern division on the schedule every single year.

There is NO REASON to play a murderer's row of non-conference games anymore.

Now is the time to load up on the cupcakes. Arkansas State. Ball State. Buffalo. Duke! (Hey, it's a BCS team) Florida Atlantic. Florida International. Idaho. Throw Iowa State a bone. Kent State. Louisiana-Lafeyette. Louisiana-Monroe. Middle Tennessee State. Nevada. New Mexico State. North Texas. Northern Illinois. San Jose State. Temple. Tulsa. Utah State.

Those are all NCAA I-A schools. I don't care if CU has to do a 2-for-1 deal with them. With the conference schedule of 9 conference games, CU needs to be loading up the wins and loading up the home schedule.
 
I guess I don't see that schedule as any more difficult than a BigXII schedule. Not sure why it should change the Buff's philosophy regarding OOC games. Besides, it's not like the cupcakes have been acting like cupcakes the last few years :cry:
 
I guess I don't see that schedule as any more difficult than a BigXII schedule. Not sure why it should change the Buff's philosophy regarding OOC games. Besides, it's not like the cupcakes have been acting like cupcakes the last few years :cry:

when you look over the schedule and you aren't sure who the cupcakes are, then a wise football coach looks in the mirror.
 
my version of football schedule

I spent way too much time on this 6-year rotating football schedule of 9 games. lemme know what you think.

football schedul&#10.JPG
 
I think the Pac-10 does 18 games of Home and Home in basketball. I don't see them moving to 22 games of home and home. Maybe 16 games with 10 in division and 6 vs North? What about 19 games with 10 in division and 9 vs North?

18 games is too hard for me to wrap my head around. I wasted too much time figuring out a balanced football schedule.
 
I think the Pac-10 does 18 games of Home and Home in basketball. I don't see them moving to 22 games of home and home. Maybe 16 games with 10 in division and 6 vs North? What about 19 games with 10 in division and 9 vs North?

18 games is too hard for me to wrap my head around. I wasted too much time figuring out a balanced football schedule.

It will probably be 16 games, and it's really pretty easy. Play the other 5 teams in your division home-and-home every year (10 games) + 6 games against the opposite division (3 home and 3 road). If you insist on 18 games, the other two could be at Texas, according to orangeboobs.com.
 
Back
Top