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!

Alliance between Pac-12 and Big 12?

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
22 schools in the 2 conferences. The idea floated this week was for everyone to play all 3 of its non-conference games against the other conference. That's not happening. But Wilner's newsletter today lays out how an alliance could work. Very intriguing, imho.

(btw, if you don't get the "Pac-12 Hotline" email blast from Wilner you are missing out: https://apps.mercurynews.com/newsletters/pac-12/ )

Imagining a Pac-12/Big 12 alliance

How might a scheduling partnership between the Pac-12 and the Big 12 play out?
We know a proposed model, in which each team would play three non-conference games against opponents from the other league, isn’t practical. But the Hotline has considered more realistic options, because an alliance makes sense for both conferences: Quality content would help engage fans, sell tickets and please TV partners.

The basics of my plan:

• The math is a bit tricky, because one conference has 12 teams and the other has 10. Roughly speaking, each Pac-12 team could play a Big 12 team twice in a three-year span -- not the same team, mind you -- while each Big 12 team would play a Pac-12 team four times in five years.

• The matchups would change every year, but teams would be guaranteed a home game in seasons their conference rivalry game is on the road.

When Bedlam is in Norman, for example, Oklahoma State would play its Pac-12 opponent at home.
When the Civil War is in Eugene, Oregon would play its Big 12 opponent on the road.

• For optimum flexibility with matchups — and to allow teams to fill out in the rest of their non-conference dates years in advance — an partnership would require dates to be blocked out ahead:

Four teams in each conference would be told to block out Week Two in the 2024 season, for example, and four would block out Week Three in 2024.

• Each spring, after rosters and expectations are established, the matchups would be set from the groups of four teams that have the same week blocked off.

Exceptions would be made:

Stanford and USC would be guaranteed a home game against their Big 12 opponent in the years they play Notre Dame on the road.

Teams involved in neutral-site matchups on Labor Day weekend — those are booked years in advance — would be guaranteed home games against their Big 12/Pac-12 opponent in Week Three, so as to allow for a cupcake in Week Two.

• The partnership would feature quadruple-headers each season in Week Two and Week Three, with the Big 12 hosting the first and third games and the Pac-12 hosting the second and fourth.

Sample schedule (all times Pacific)
Week Two
9 a.m.: Arizona State at West Virginia
12:30 p.m.: Kansas State at Utah
4 p.m.: UCLA at Texas Tech
7:30 p.m.: Oklahoma at Oregon
Week Three
9 a.m.: Washington State at Oklahoma State
12:30 p.m.: Iowa State at Washington
4 p.m.: Stanford at Texas
7:30 p.m.: TCU at USC

The key is buy-in from the coaches; they would have to give up control, which runs counter to their every fiber.

For both conferences, a partnership would create more challenges for individual programs — depending on the year and the matchup, of course — but benefit the collective. — Jon Wilner.
 
Have to put those games on the PAC 12 network. Do that, and cut the B12 a bit of the pie, and this becomes legit.
 
22 schools in the 2 conferences. The idea floated this week was for everyone to play all 3 of its non-conference games against the other conference. That's not happening. But Wilner's newsletter today lays out how an alliance could work. Very intriguing, imho.

(btw, if you don't get the "Pac-12 Hotline" email blast from Wilner you are missing out: https://apps.mercurynews.com/newsletters/pac-12/ )

Imagining a Pac-12/Big 12 alliance

How might a scheduling partnership between the Pac-12 and the Big 12 play out?
We know a proposed model, in which each team would play three non-conference games against opponents from the other league, isn’t practical. But the Hotline has considered more realistic options, because an alliance makes sense for both conferences: Quality content would help engage fans, sell tickets and please TV partners.

The basics of my plan:

• The math is a bit tricky, because one conference has 12 teams and the other has 10. Roughly speaking, each Pac-12 team could play a Big 12 team twice in a three-year span -- not the same team, mind you -- while each Big 12 team would play a Pac-12 team four times in five years.

• The matchups would change every year, but teams would be guaranteed a home game in seasons their conference rivalry game is on the road.

When Bedlam is in Norman, for example, Oklahoma State would play its Pac-12 opponent at home.
When the Civil War is in Eugene, Oregon would play its Big 12 opponent on the road.

• For optimum flexibility with matchups — and to allow teams to fill out in the rest of their non-conference dates years in advance — an partnership would require dates to be blocked out ahead:

Four teams in each conference would be told to block out Week Two in the 2024 season, for example, and four would block out Week Three in 2024.

• Each spring, after rosters and expectations are established, the matchups would be set from the groups of four teams that have the same week blocked off.

Exceptions would be made:

Stanford and USC would be guaranteed a home game against their Big 12 opponent in the years they play Notre Dame on the road.

Teams involved in neutral-site matchups on Labor Day weekend — those are booked years in advance — would be guaranteed home games against their Big 12/Pac-12 opponent in Week Three, so as to allow for a cupcake in Week Two.

• The partnership would feature quadruple-headers each season in Week Two and Week Three, with the Big 12 hosting the first and third games and the Pac-12 hosting the second and fourth.

Sample schedule (all times Pacific)
Week Two
9 a.m.: Arizona State at West Virginia
12:30 p.m.: Kansas State at Utah
4 p.m.: UCLA at Texas Tech
7:30 p.m.: Oklahoma at Oregon
Week Three
9 a.m.: Washington State at Oklahoma State
12:30 p.m.: Iowa State at Washington
4 p.m.: Stanford at Texas
7:30 p.m.: TCU at USC

The key is buy-in from the coaches; they would have to give up control, which runs counter to their every fiber.

For both conferences, a partnership would create more challenges for individual programs — depending on the year and the matchup, of course — but benefit the collective. — Jon Wilner.
Wtf is a football quadruple header? That term has no meaning to me.
 
I don't know if it matches up with what Wilner said about being guaranteed a home game in the alliance when the game against your Pac-12 conference rival is on the road, but what I'd love to see is that we get a Big 12 team at home in years we have 4 Pac-12 home games/ 5 away games and then play the Big 12 on the road in years we have 5H/4A.

To totally balance that, though, the Big 12 needs to expand to 12 teams and make it even. Cincinnati and Houston would be nice additions on that note -- great recruiting grounds and excellent FB + MBB at both of them.
 
Would any other Big 12 team be better than playing Nebraska?
How would you feel about the schedule every year becoming:

9 Pac-12 games
1 Big 12 game
1 Nebraska rivalry
1 open date to schedule whomever

I could definitely get on board with that. I have a feeling that it would do exceptionally well for CU's attendance & season ticket sales, too, because I don't think I'm that weird on what excites me as a CU fan.
 
For someone who gets hung up on phrasing so often, that one is straightforward.
ok, be that way.

the only sport that refers to *-headers, in my experience, is baseball, and they limit to "double headers" and "triple headers". that means that the same teams play 2/3 times in the same stadium, on the same day. I can't imagine that makes any sense for football.

so, brainstorming a bit....

it could mean, that four Pac-12/XII games are played consecutively, but between 8 different teams at four different stadiums. I dismissed this because it would seemingly happen each of the first four weeks under this model without a "guarantee".

it could mean that four Pac-12/XII games are played consecutively, but between 8 different teams at a single stadium. I dismissed this as neutral site games for the Pac 12 and the XII (i.e. the CCGs for each) don't draw well and there would seemingly be little value in that.

feel free to keep mocking me (I can take it), but TIA for a real answer.
 
ok, be that way.

the only sport that refers to *-headers, in my experience, is baseball, and they limit to "double headers" and "triple headers". that means that the same teams play 2/3 times in the same stadium, on the same day. I can't imagine that makes any sense for football.

so, brainstorming a bit....

it could mean, that four Pac-12/XII games are played consecutively, but between 8 different teams at four different stadiums. I dismissed this because it would seemingly happen each of the first four weeks under this model without a "guarantee".

it could mean that four Pac-12/XII games are played consecutively, but between 8 different teams at a single stadium. I dismissed this as neutral site games for the Pac 12 and the XII (i.e. the CCGs for each) don't draw well and there would seemingly be little value in that.

feel free to keep mocking me (I can take it), but TIA for a real answer.
Wilner's simply saying a "quadruple-header" in reference to 4 straight game times for media slots in weeks 2 & 3 for P12/B12 matchups.

No need to overthink this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wip
How would you feel about the schedule every year becoming:

9 Pac-12 games
1 Big 12 game
1 Nebraska rivalry
1 open date to schedule whomever

I could definitely get on board with that. I have a feeling that it would do exceptionally well for CU's attendance & season ticket sales, too, because I don't think I'm that weird on what excites me as a CU fan.
I would love that, but unfortunately it's a much tougher schedule than anyone else plays. If the goal is to get bowl eligible, then that's a tough road to take. Also tough if the window shifts and the goal is getting to the playoff; CU would have to play 12 P5 games. Last year, the 4 participants played either 10 (ND and Alabama) or 11 (Clemson and Oklahoma).
 
Last edited:
ok, be that way.

the only sport that refers to *-headers, in my experience, is baseball, and they limit to "double headers" and "triple headers". that means that the same teams play 2/3 times in the same stadium, on the same day. I can't imagine that makes any sense for football.

so, brainstorming a bit....

it could mean, that four Pac-12/XII games are played consecutively, but between 8 different teams at four different stadiums. I dismissed this because it would seemingly happen each of the first four weeks under this model without a "guarantee".

it could mean that four Pac-12/XII games are played consecutively, but between 8 different teams at a single stadium. I dismissed this as neutral site games for the Pac 12 and the XII (i.e. the CCGs for each) don't draw well and there would seemingly be little value in that.

feel free to keep mocking me (I can take it), but TIA for a real answer.

The (blank)header is used constantly in a sports telecast context: "NBA doubleheader," "SEC football doubleheader," etc.

It simply means four televised games in a row with something in common, from the generic to very specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wip
If this happens I think we need to go back to 8 conf games.

Stick with the 3 Big 12/Pac 12 games and leave one for rivalries or just the ability to schedule Big 10/SEC/ACC games. The only way a non P5 school can be scheduled should be if its a natural rival.
 
Wilner's simply saying a "quadruple-header" in reference to 4 straight game times for media slots in weeks 2 & 3 for P12/B12 matchups.

No need to overthink this.

The (blank)header is used constantly in a sports telecast context: "NBA doubleheader," "SEC football doubleheader," etc.

It simply means four televised games in a row with something in common, from the generic to very specific.

Like i said above, think that happens "for free" on the first four weeks anyway, but ok.

@Duff Man , you're right. The term is used that way in recent years by TV media -- just didn't occur to me for some reason.

Edit: probably because of DVR, and alcohol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wip
CU fans are weird. Bitch about not having a true rival, downplay CSU as non-rival, and now say we want no part of playing our actual, long time rival in Nebraska. I don’t get it.
you have a great point, but I actually don't think I hear or read of CU fans bitching about not having a true rival. I hear them commenting on the subject, but not actually bitching about it (but I tend to not read between the lines as much as others do).

agree there is a strangeness with the pattern of comments surrounding continuing the series with CSU and NU.
 
As far as this idea, I like it. Anything to get our conference shots at positive publicity. I want a shot at the anti-Nebraska takes on this board-they're ridiculous. Might have taken eight years to get the game back on the schedule, but it took only a game to reignite the rivalry. Its a game we need to keep people in this market talking about Colorado football-the Nebraska game got as much attention as the Washington State and Utah games did.
 
CU fans are weird. Bitch about not having a true rival, downplay CSU as non-rival, and now say we want no part of playing our actual, long time rival in Nebraska. I don’t get it.
I never complain about not playing a “natural” rival. **** Nebraska. I don’t feel the need to validate their existence.
 
How would you feel about the schedule every year becoming:

9 Pac-12 games
1 Big 12 game
1 Nebraska rivalry
1 open date to schedule whomever

I could definitely get on board with that. I have a feeling that it would do exceptionally well for CU's attendance & season ticket sales, too, because I don't think I'm that weird on what excites me as a CU fan.
Love this.
 
How would you feel about the schedule every year becoming:

9 Pac-12 games
1 Big 12 game
1 Nebraska rivalry
1 open date to schedule whomever

I could definitely get on board with that. I have a feeling that it would do exceptionally well for CU's attendance & season ticket sales, too, because I don't think I'm that weird on what excites me as a CU fan.

As much as the prospect of playing the fuskers and shorthorns in one season again makes my head hurt.... this would be good.
 
CU fans are weird. Bitch about not having a true rival, downplay CSU as non-rival, and now say we want no part of playing our actual, long time rival in Nebraska. I don’t get it.

I like how you assume things.

I've never bitched about the lack of a rival. Don't really care.

And as far as the csewe series is concerned, the Buffs always stand to lose more than they gain in this game. It can quietly go away.
 
The Pac-12 needs this more than the Big 12. That's annoying to admit.

Anyway, I love @Buffnik's idea. It would be even better if were limited to only former Big 8 schools (yeah, I'm old - eat me), but I admit that limits the pool significantly without Mizzou and the Nubs in the Big 12.

I understand that playing a schedule like that with the 9 game conference schedule makes for tough sledding, but as @Uncle Luko pointed out, CU used to have a reputation of playing anyone, anywhere. We lost a fair share of those games, but in the history of this program, we've won in Columbus, Ann Arbor, and Baton Rouge, among others.

I like that about CU. We need to get back to being that badass program.
 
Because we've moved on to USC.

This was discussed thoroughly, our new beloved coach has wisely moved us on to USC! No more need for Nebraska. It is an unhealthy old rivalry that had a purpose to help us get better and win the Big 8-Big 12, and is no longer needed. We must focus on USC and try and beat them FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!!! Playing Texas schools is the best option ever, so honestly I am somewhat a bigger fan of a run at Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Houston!!! Big Pac 16. Playing Iowa State, Baylor, K-State and Kansas does absolutely nothing for us!!!
 
Back
Top