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!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
Memories and Pure Hoe slander…
My proposal for realignment and super division of D1:
- 64 universities
- 8 conferences of 8 teams each
- for football, those are the divisions with each winner getting an auto-bid to the playoffs along with either 4 or 8 wildcards
- for all other sports, these are the regional conferences to save travel & promote regional rivalry
- membership requiring a commitment to enhanced scholarship benefits and university sponsored NIL, agreeing to be under a league office & commissioner with authority and investigative powers, and allowing student athletes to unionize (this would allow things like anti-tampering rules, level scheduling, increased & level national media revenue, microphones in helmets, and an even more interesting EA College Football).
- 64 universities
- 8 conferences of 8 teams each
- for football, those are the divisions with each winner getting an auto-bid to the playoffs along with either 4 or 8 wildcards
- for all other sports, these are the regional conferences to save travel & promote regional rivalry
- membership requiring a commitment to enhanced scholarship benefits and university sponsored NIL, agreeing to be under a league office & commissioner with authority and investigative powers, and allowing student athletes to unionize (this would allow things like anti-tampering rules, level scheduling, increased & level national media revenue, microphones in helmets, and an even more interesting EA College Football).
Hence, my point that conference was poorly run above the commissioner’s office (bad football, poor leadership).
Id care to guess Larry Scott probably put quite a bit of effort into the UT TT OU OSU deal, and the Presidents knew it was happening, and shot it down anyways? LOL
Last edited:
Whenever I read this thread and think about what college football was, and the entertainment value it brought, and where it's seems to be heading I think of this quote from Casino:
I might have to start watching FCS football. I heard a lot of their games are on ESPN+ which I get with my Verizon plan. I need to find a team to root for first.
Realignment is where you are at your very best
I suspect that the fans and media who pushed so hard for a playoff didn't want this to happen. I really believe they were advocating for change they thought would be positive.Whenever I read this thread and think about what college football was, and the entertainment value it brought, and where it's seems to be heading I think of this quote from Casino:
And, it seemed so obvious 20 years ago that it would be horrible, I can't help but question how so many people ignored the pending damage and plowed ahead with the disaster that has been the CFP.
And, in fairness, it got far worse far faster than even I predicted. It's not just the CFP. I didn't predict the exacerbating factors of unregulated NIL and less restricted transfers.
But hey, at least we have the consensus national championship that so many screamed for for so long, so a lot people got what they wanted.
That's worth something, isn't it?
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
The PAC 16 fell apart because some part of the add-ons (mostly UT) declined, not because the PAC rejected it. The PAC board had approved multiple moves by Scott, the first of which was the PAC 16, and the PAC 12 (with CU and UU) was the backup option.
Your timeline is off. Those 4 were after CU/UU had already made it 12. I think that falling apart had a lot to do with UT demands around LHN and other concessions. The one that was for a Pac-14 that got attempted prior to Utah being offered was CU/OU/UT/aTm. Anyway, I believe that most of the fault for those other scenarios not happening was UT hubris and greed.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Your timeline is off. Originally the PAC 16 proposal was UT, OU, OSU, TT, A&M, and CU. There was briefly discussion of swapping KU for one of the others (possibly A&M, who already preferred SEC). Political shenanigans in Texas tried to oust CU in favor of Baylor. That all fell through, and the PAC took CU while still trying to woo the others. When Texas declined, the PAC took UU and stopped.
The superconference that wasn’t: How the Pac-16 plan changed college sports
Larry Scott and other leaders recall June 2010, when the Pac-10 put college sports on edge by attempting to raid the Big 12.
theathletic.com
@BerkeleyBuff ,
Does it confirm that the reason expansion fell through is due to objections over academics by the Bay Areas schools?
Paywall, and I can't figure out the "reading mode" work around.Your timeline is off. Originally the PAC 16 proposal was UT, OU, OSU, TT, A&M, and CU. There was briefly discussion of swapping KU for one of the others (possibly A&M, who already preferred SEC). Political shenanigans in Texas tried to oust CU in favor of Baylor. That all fell through, and the PAC took CU while still trying to woo the others. When Texas declined, the PAC took UU and stopped.
The superconference that wasn’t: How the Pac-16 plan changed college sports
Larry Scott and other leaders recall June 2010, when the Pac-10 put college sports on edge by attempting to raid the Big 12.
Does it confirm that the reason expansion fell through is due to objections over academics by the Bay Areas schools?
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
It's about the original PAC 16 proposal, not the later consideration of just OU + OSU. It fell through due to Texas deciding to stay in the Big XII, which was some combo of LHN considerations and wanting to remain the big fish in a small pond/ wield a lot of power in a conference it could politically control.
Ok. But then when that didn't happen, CU accepted in 2010 with Utah coming as a backup after things couldn't work with UT. Then UT-TTU-OU-OSU was on the table in 2011 which would have made 16. There was never a scenario that didn't include CU other that Baylor going on a media campaign to disparage CU and try to take our spot.Your timeline is off. Originally the PAC 16 proposal was UT, OU, OSU, TT, A&M, and CU. There was briefly discussion of swapping KU for one of the others (possibly A&M, who already preferred SEC). Political shenanigans in Texas tried to oust CU in favor of Baylor. That all fell through, and the PAC took CU while still trying to woo the others. When Texas declined, the PAC took UU and stopped.
The superconference that wasn’t: How the Pac-16 plan changed college sports
Larry Scott and other leaders recall June 2010, when the Pac-10 put college sports on edge by attempting to raid the Big 12.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
So we were just talking about different events at the start. I never argued there was any scenario that didn't include CU. The push to try and swap Baylor for CU came not only from Baylor, but from Texas (not because Texas cares about Baylor, but because it would make things politically easier for Texas AND because UT brass felt they could "control" Baylor, in the sense that they felt BU would be happy to always do/ vote as UT wanted).
Anyways, what could have been. The PAC may well have survived. But all ancient history now.
Only the later OU/OSU. Partly that (2 non-AAUs and OSU was only a school they were willing to hold their noses for and accept if UT was part of the package). There was also concern from the Pac-12 that the interest wasn't serious and they only wanted to use an invite for negotiating leverage with UT & the Big 12, which was likely true.
SeanMSan
Well-Known Member
Didn’t that NC come against Nebraska? He wasn’t even a starter on that team
Most FCS games are on ESPN+ as far as I know.
Big Sky Conference and Missouri Valley Football Conference would be two good conferences to watch. If you prefer offense, I believe the Big Sky would be the better choice and I'm not going to simply recommend Northern Colorado because they suck and it is questionable whether the UNC administration really cares about football. On the opposite end the MVFC would be a good choice.
If you want to follow a former Buff, Cody Hawkins is the head coach at Idaho State and he did a good job in his first season there given where ISU was at. Also you have Montana and Montana State. There's Idaho who is a rival of Montana too from the days before Idaho foolhardily followed Boise State to FBS before dropping back down to FCS.
It seems like the states of Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas just have good football teams so maybe that would be a good place to start.
Like most things in CFB it collapsed due to ****ery by the TV networks, specifically ESPN. The Mouse decided it wasn’t in its best interest to have a league that owned all of major college football west of the Mississippi outside of a few rust belt states in the B1G and that it would be cheaper to pay off Texas than have to negotiate with a P16 that wanted the equivalent of the Big 10 network.
Really, nothing would have happened like it did if UT hadn't started LHN and told the Big 12 that it needed conference games on it plus had plans to broadcast (and gain recruiting advantage) by making it the home for TX HS Football (which got blocked later by NCAA).
Can't wait to see what UT does to the SEC.
Texas and USC are the Nexus of a lot of demise of CFB, couple that with Alabama's rise to supreme prominence and the SEC's efforts to dickslap the rest of the CFB.
Just wish that CU had not thrown away everything that was built up to 2005, we would have been at the table the whole time, even with the move to the PAC12
I'm putting that in my I-don't-give-two-dern-forks about it bucket.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I'm personally hoping to see UT get bitch-slapped on a weekly basis in the SEC.
Why would you need any wildcards?
Want to be in the playoffs? WIN YOUR CONFERENCE. <- It's almost like it's a built in 1st round of the playoffs.
Doubtful as long as Sark’s there…
just watched the Big XII podcast guy talking XII/ACC merger following Yormark's comments about "I am pro consolidation".
video probably not worth the 7 minutes.
I'm now trying to consider, if we allow for contraction, what 16 - 20 conference be formed that could compete for media revenue long term with the P2.
I'm assuming no ND. Of course, if they join, that changes a lot. Likewise if FSU and Clemson go SEC. Likewise if UNC and UVA go B1G. etc...
I briefly questioned if the Pac-2 would possibly get invited, but I don't think so.
On my first pass, all the schools just now moving up don't make the cut, but have to admit excluding BYU seems tough.
I think it's hard to kick any of the Texas schools to the curb, even though that would be a popular choice.
I'm sure other people have schools they'd boot before Iowa State, but this is my list.
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
TCU
West Virginia
BYU
UCF
Cincinnati
Houston
Boston College
California
Clemson
Duke
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Miami
North Carolina
NC State
Pittsburgh
SMU
Stanford
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
video probably not worth the 7 minutes.
I'm now trying to consider, if we allow for contraction, what 16 - 20 conference be formed that could compete for media revenue long term with the P2.
I'm assuming no ND. Of course, if they join, that changes a lot. Likewise if FSU and Clemson go SEC. Likewise if UNC and UVA go B1G. etc...
I briefly questioned if the Pac-2 would possibly get invited, but I don't think so.
On my first pass, all the schools just now moving up don't make the cut, but have to admit excluding BYU seems tough.
I think it's hard to kick any of the Texas schools to the curb, even though that would be a popular choice.
I'm sure other people have schools they'd boot before Iowa State, but this is my list.
Baylor
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
TCU
West Virginia
UCF
Cincinnati
Houston
Boston College
California
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Miami
North Carolina
NC State
Pittsburgh
Stanford
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Larry Scott talked about the future being the further consolidation of the conferences and that was way back to when CU joined the PAC. Yormark is an aggressive guy and being a former media executive, he probably knows what is coming. I'm thinking this big massive consolidation will hit its climax in the last half of this decade if not by 2030.
I'm at a crossroads when it comes to continuing with college sports or not. The stability of professional sports is very appealing right now but I'm seeing some positives from consolidation depending on the sport. The college basketball fan in me loves the idea of consolidation because that means conference games will mean more especially if teams are only meeting one time a year just like in football for the most part. Same for the Olympic sports as well.
The elephant in the room for me is the football scheduling in a consolidated college athletics landscape. How will that work in a consolidated landscape? Who will be CU's annual opponents?
I'm starting to see myself as someone who will be enjoying sports more through videogames & ten minute YouTube replays and that is what I have done the last few months. I'm starting to get into the habit of not knowing the final scores of some games until I watch the replays. So far so good.
I'm at a crossroads when it comes to continuing with college sports or not. The stability of professional sports is very appealing right now but I'm seeing some positives from consolidation depending on the sport. The college basketball fan in me loves the idea of consolidation because that means conference games will mean more especially if teams are only meeting one time a year just like in football for the most part. Same for the Olympic sports as well.
The elephant in the room for me is the football scheduling in a consolidated college athletics landscape. How will that work in a consolidated landscape? Who will be CU's annual opponents?
I'm starting to see myself as someone who will be enjoying sports more through videogames & ten minute YouTube replays and that is what I have done the last few months. I'm starting to get into the habit of not knowing the final scores of some games until I watch the replays. So far so good.
Hokies probably ought to talk to Oregon State and Washington State.