Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

12 Years Since CU Left Big 12

Was so excited for the transition - better fit and just the buzz around the new P12 Network underdevelopment that would turn the P12 into a powerhouse.
 
I would have expected our tennis team to be more successful at this point in our Pac 12 trajectory.

The Pac is still my favorite conference, but we certainly haven't established the football reputation (as a team and a conference) that I was expecting.
 
The Pac 12 has been a disaster. Larry Scott was clueless, and I'm not sold on Kliavkoff being that much better. Case in point is the P12N not being on Youtube TV. YTTV HQ is 13 miles away from where LS had the Pac 12 HQ. That's a joke to me.

Is there a better answer for CU right now? Nope.
 
ahoelsken said:
The Pac 12 has been a disaster. Larry Scott was clueless, and I'm not sold on Kliavkoff being that much better. Case in point is the P12N not being on Youtube TV. YTTV HQ is 13 miles away from where LS had the Pac 12 HQ. That's a joke to me.

Is there a better answer for CU right now? Nope.
Click to expand...
I think this is important to point out. As bad as we’ve been in the PAC 12, and as disappointing as the P12 network distribution has been, and for all the other warts that have come with the move, we are still in a better spot than we would be had we stayed in the B12. All the stuff we “lost”’with the move would be gone anyway, and we would still suck.
 
Not Sure said:
I think this is important to point out. As bad as we’ve been in the PAC 12, and as disappointing as the P12 network distribution has been, and for all the other warts that have come with the move, we are still in a better spot than we would be had we stayed in the B12. All the stuff we “lost”’with the move would be gone anyway, and we would still suck.
Click to expand...
Exactly. CU could be anywhere, and as long as sub-mediocrity is the standard, that will be the result. We often blame the HC, and the AD, and they have their share of the result to answer for, but the responsibility for failure goes much higher and new leadership is required.
 
With all of the change, CU is still positioned better in the Pac as long as USC is still around. The Big 12 will be holding on by a thread once Texas and OU leave. That conference is dead in the water without a legit big player School.
 
Not Sure said:
I think this is important to point out. As bad as we’ve been in the PAC 12, and as disappointing as the P12 network distribution has been, and for all the other warts that have come with the move, we are still in a better spot than we would be had we stayed in the B12. All the stuff we “lost”’with the move would be gone anyway, and we would still suck.
Click to expand...
You're right-but I don't think that became reality until UT and OU left the Big 12.
 
I was opposed to the moving to the Pac 12. I liked our rivalries and I also thought the Big 12 schools in general took football more seriously. But things have changed, right now we are better off being in the PAC 12 but things have not turned out how most of us hoped. The PAC 12 has not been what we wanted it to be either and CU has continued to torpedo the AD.
 
Last edited:
patebuff said:
With all of the change, CU is still positioned better in the Pac as long as USC is still around. The Big 12 will be holding on by a thread once Texas and OU leave. That conference is dead in the water without a legit big player School.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. I think the new Big 12 is very well positioned to be the third best P5 conference. The pac 12 (-Oregon and USC) will be at a G5 level in football in the very near future.
 
SBP said:
I don’t agree. I think the new Big 12 is very well positioned to be the third best P5 conference. The pac 12 (-Oregon and USC) will be at a G5 level in football in the very near future.
Click to expand...
Any conference without at least 2 of the Top 10 programs is going to struggle. Pac-12 has been hurt by only having 1 - and a bs NCAA ruling gutting that program to the point where it's just now showing signs of life. Big 12 has zero as soon as UT and OU leave. Big 12 is done as a major football conference, just as the Big East was as soon as Miami decided to leave.
 
Buffnik said:
Any conference without at least 2 of the Top 10 programs is going to struggle. Pac-12 has been hurt by only having 1 - and a bs NCAA ruling gutting that program to the point where it's just now showing signs of life. Big 12 has zero as soon as UT and OU leave. Big 12 is done as a major football conference, just as the Big East was as soon as Miami decided to leave.
Click to expand...
The big 12 has some fairly feverish fan bases that are well positioned to take advantage of NIL. They are also the only conference that has a coast to coast presence which will pay big dividends. I think UCF and BYU in a P5 conference will be able to succeed rapidly.

They will be able to get kids in because none of the B12 schools have strict admissions criteria.

I think the Miami references is a fair point but if I remember the Big East only had WVU and Miami as the name brand members. I would argue that OK St, TT, KSU, WVU, ISU, and Baylor all are fairly strong football brands that will still garner interest
Time will tell.
 
i am super bummed by how it all has transpired. i thought it was a great move at the time. at the time.

i am not so sure we couldn't have gotten an invite to the b10 had we tried... i dont think it was ever really on the table-- we were working with the pac to try to get texas and oklahoma to join. the b12 was definitely a dead end so we needed out but it didn't work out so well for us.

i don't think any of us diehards were thinking we would be in this bad of shape for this long.
 
One unexpected consequence of the move, I believe, was the idea that it was going to solve all our AD funding ills and that the move itself would propel us back to national relevance. I honestly think that was part of the sales pitch to CU leadership. The notion that they wouldn’t have to pay much attention to the AD any longer was undoubtedly attractive. It’s come as a unpleasant shock to the system that they still need to do all the things that they need to do in order to remain competitive. Had we stayed in the B12, I would imagine campus leadership would have been forced to take a more active role.
 
Liver said:
i am super bummed by how it all has transpired. i thought it was a great move at the time. at the time.

i am not so sure we couldn't have gotten an invite to the b10 had we tried... i dont think it was ever really on the table-- we were working with the pac to try to get texas and oklahoma to join. the b12 was definitely a dead end so we needed out but it didn't work out so well for us.

i don't think any of us diehards were thinking we would be in this bad of shape for this long.
Click to expand...
Lots of dominoes fell the wrong way. The most significant one, I think, was B1G not taking KU & Mizzou - which would have meant that (with CU, NU and aTm also bolting), the B12 would have lost 5/12 members. That number would have gone to 6 if the SEC went with a 2nd B12 team (also a possibility it would have sniped an ACC team). With half the conference gone, the B12 in trouble, and the Pac the only conference that could take 4 teams, a Pac-16 with OU, UT and 2 add-ons (likely TTU and OSU) would have been almost certain.

Frankly, this or something similar should have happened. Unfortunately, Larry Scott was a lightweight and wasn't willing to be aggressive enough.
 
I wouldn't sell the Big 12 short sans OU & UT and keep in mind no matter what happens, the Big 12 is legislated in the NCAA as a P5 conference so they will not be losing that P5 status much like the Pac-12 if USC was to leave the conference. If ESPN & Fox Sports simply extends the Big 12 media rights deal to sync up with the ACC contract and keeps the Big 12 on par with the ACC, the Big 12 will be fine for the time being. If that deal is reached this year, expect OU & UT to go to the SEC next year instead of 2024 with lower exit fees than originally reported.

As long as the current CU administration is in place, it wouldn't matter what conference the Buffs were in when it came to football.
 
Buffnik said:
Frankly, this or something similar should have happened. Unfortunately, Larry Scott was a lightweight and wasn't willing to be aggressive enough.
Click to expand...

Larry Scott was an easy scapegoat given what he was doing behind the scenes but the P12's issues go deeper than whoever is commissioner of the conference and it is the collective lukewarm attitude that the presidents & chancellors have towards athletics.

I long for those annual games with Nebraska and looking back, the CU-Nebraska rivalry was one of the big appeals of CU football for me. We should have gone with Nebraska to the B1G instead of the Pac-12.

I never thought CU's status within the state of Colorado could have sunk this low after the move to the Pac-12 and with the Broncos about to receive a major jolt of capital with the $4.65B purchase of the team by the Walton & Penner guys, will people within Colorado notice that there is a P5 football team in Boulder?
 
Liver said:
i am super bummed by how it all has transpired. i thought it was a great move at the time. at the time.

i am not so sure we couldn't have gotten an invite to the b10 had we tried... i dont think it was ever really on the table-- we were working with the pac to try to get texas and oklahoma to join. the b12 was definitely a dead end so we needed out but it didn't work out so well for us.

i don't think any of us diehards were thinking we would be in this bad of shape for this long.
Click to expand...
Preaching to the choir on that one. I think most everyone liked it, definitely seemed to be a better fit culture wise. It hasn't worked out that way, football wise anyway.
 
I always chuckle at the notion that fans should be happy because CU is in a better financial situation in the Pac. It wouldn't matter if the Pac brought in as much money as B1G or $EC, CU administration would just piss it away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top