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!

2018 Offseason News: Pac-12 & CU Opponents

OK, Herm. That line may have worked on the AD who hired you, but... Come on, man!
 
SerenityBuff said:
Click to expand...

Why make things harder on yourself?

Pac-12 schools play more conference games than most P5 schools and now have a higher bar to clear on win total.

While I agree with it being ridiculous that a losing record can get you into the post-season, I don't agree with hurting yourself on principle.
 
So the Pac-12 gets absolutely blasted over a horrible bowl record and a simple remedy to help that bowl record going forward is now stupid? Makes sense.
 
Duff Man said:
So the Pac-12 gets absolutely blasted over a horrible bowl record and a simple remedy to help that bowl record going forward is now stupid? Makes sense.
Click to expand...
Ha, so you're OK with the mentality of "We can't win bowl games, so let's just not even give our teams a chance going forward"? Blasting the conference for a horrible bowl record is legitimate, but doesn't mean the conference should take that stance. Maybe it should take a stance to make the conference more appealing to better recruits and better coaches so Pac 12 teams win more bowl games than they lose.
 
TSchekler said:
Ha, so you're OK with the mentality of "We can't win bowl games, so let's just not even give our teams a chance going forward"? Blasting the conference for a horrible bowl record is legitimate, but doesn't mean the conference should take that stance. Maybe it should take a stance to make the conference more appealing to better recruits and better coaches so Pac 12 teams win more bowl games than they lose.
Click to expand...

I am taking the stance that no one should care about the 9th or 10th best team in the conference. The media has made it abundantly clear in recent years that the depth of a conference does not matter.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
I am actually laughing at people getting upset over this.
Click to expand...
It is pretty much a nothing burger that might impact a Pac-12 team once or twice a decade. And when it did, it would be a ****ty team offered a ****ty bowl that it wasn't enthusiastic about playing in anyway.

It's pretty much symbolic. Pac-12 was sending a message. What I don't like is that part of that message is that the conference will stand on principle even where it puts itself at a competitive disadvantage. It's the same thinking that has us playing 9 conference games. It's the same thinking that makes the mission of the Pac-12 Networks as much or more about promoting gender diversity in college athletics and giving exposure to Olympic sports as the mission is about making money for conference member athletic departments.
 
Buffnik said:
It is pretty much a nothing burger that might impact a Pac-12 team once or twice a decade. And when it did, it would be a ****ty team offered a ****ty bowl that it wasn't enthusiastic about playing in anyway.

It's pretty much symbolic. Pac-12 was sending a message. What I don't like is that part of that message is that the conference will stand on principle even where it puts itself at a competitive disadvantage. It's the same thinking that has us playing 9 conference games. It's the same thinking that makes the mission of the Pac-12 Networks as much or more about promoting gender diversity in college athletics and giving exposure to Olympic sports as the mission is about making money for conference member athletic departments.
Click to expand...
Some are good, some are bad. Lumping them all together isn't really fair, each needs to be evaluated individually. Granted, it does show a trend, however, that trend tells me that the Pac12 isn't willing to sell their soul because other conferences have. Again, I'm ok with that.
 
Crappy teams play other crappy teams, so this isn't going to change conference bowl records much. It does take away extra practice from some teams, which can't be good. So this is a slightly negative position to take. Woohoo!
 
Buffnik said:
It is pretty much a nothing burger that might impact a Pac-12 team once or twice a decade. And when it did, it would be a ****ty team offered a ****ty bowl that it wasn't enthusiastic about playing in anyway.

It's pretty much symbolic. Pac-12 was sending a message. What I don't like is that part of that message is that the conference will stand on principle even where it puts itself at a competitive disadvantage. It's the same thinking that has us playing 9 conference games. It's the same thinking that makes the mission of the Pac-12 Networks as much or more about promoting gender diversity in college athletics and giving exposure to Olympic sports as the mission is about making money for conference member athletic departments.
Click to expand...
Very well put. If you look at this move as a one off issue or decision, then it wouldn't really matter. Problem is, this is a combination of decisions that is constantly hurting the Pac 12.
 
UCLA announced three OL are leaving the program. Like us, the Bruins are going to very young and have questionable depth on the OL all season. Sounds like there are at least a couple walk-ons who will potentially make the traveling squad and as many as three true freshmen OL could play.

Not a recipe for a quick start with a really tough first five games IMO.

Edit: Reading more on the story, sounds like Kelly straight up cut at least three of the four players that were announced to be leaving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top