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.
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.