It appears that Woody Paige is a avid reader of AllBuffs

[SuperD]

I dunno...ND is kind of a horse of a different color. Its true they would make more being part of the Big 10, but I've read some credible arguments that its not entirely about the money for them. They already have rabid booster support that gives them the money they need. They really love the idea of being perceived as a "national" team, and remaining independent lets them play a slate of games across the country and continue to maintain that national following. A lot of folks around the country follow and support ND that never went to the school, and I think they fear losing that support and becoming more of a regional midwest team if they give up their independent status. It will be interesting to see if they can hold to that stance if we really do see a major consolidation into a super-conference model.

 

[absinthe]

OK I am losing this argument but I'll take one last stab at it before I curl up:

Better cultural fit=content with second rate athletics. But sadly you are correct on this point, which is exactly what we have lamented on this site the past 6 months!!!!!!!
Increased AD revenue - don't know the numbers - not sure why its better for CU lose on other TV markets than the one we have. Simply put if you win you will get TV revenue (see Boise State)
Increased alumni support - don't know how this can be calculated but OK??
Increased academic prestige. Don't see it. Sports have nothing to do with academic prestige. If they did MIT would win the BCS.
Long term sustainability. I don't tihink any conference is here forever.

last point: who wants to be in the same conference as Slick Rick???

That is all.

ID one thing you are ignoring is that the Big 12 doesn't share revenue equally and Texas has all but said they will never participate in a conference that does. In a situation like the proposed Pac-12 equal TV rev sharing is almost a guarantee.

As to the alumni support, there are north of 10,000 cu alums in both the bay area and LA respectively you would see much more involvement in the program from these people if we could watch them in person 1 or 2x a year. This is support that for all intents and purposes is non-existent right now.

 

[Buffnik]

One would have to assume that the PAC has more alumni media people than any other conference. My suspicion is that the conference could do its own network better than anyone else. Especially now that they have a couple blueprints already in place from the Big 10 and, to a lesser extent, MWC.

 

[Mick Ronson]

One would have to assume that the PAC has more alumni media people than any other conference.

why? because of LA? the two big feeder schools for sports journalism/media nationally are Syracuse and Missouri.

 

[Buffnik]

why? because of LA? the two big feeder schools for sports journalism/media nationally are Syracuse and Missouri.

Sports journalism, yes. But not production people and other media jobs. The talking heads are the least important part of making this successful. I can't name a single broadcast journalist on the Big 10 network.

Besides, adding CU gives the conference a sports journalism program that's at the top of the list after Northwestern/Syracuse. Our school of journalism & mass communication is one of the best around. How great would it be if we got Chris Fowler to come over as the top dog anchor of a PAC 12 Network? Could happen.

 

[sackman]

How great would it be if we got Chris Fowler to come over as the top dog anchor of a PAC 12 Network? Could happen.

No, it couldn't. Fowler is the most influential sports journalist in college sports. Nobody else comes close. He wouldn't give that up, nor should he. But I like your style.

 

[SINKRATZ]

How about this snippet from Woody's column:

"According to a highly placed CU source, the school relaxed its qualifying standards to allow running back Darrell Scott to enroll, and one of the reasons he departed was "because he had troubles handling" the academics."

Say what?! Maybe I'm oblivious, but I hadn't heard this before. Could explain why he's having trouble finding a landing spot if true. Also begs the question, why do we still lose out on so many kids with academic question marks if the school is willing to make some exceptions?

 

[Darian3Hagan]

How about this snippet from Woody's column:

"According to a highly placed CU source, the school relaxed its qualifying standards to allow running back Darrell Scott to enroll, and one of the reasons he departed was "because he had troubles handling" the academics."

Say what?! Maybe I'm oblivious, but I hadn't heard this before. Could explain why he's having trouble finding a landing spot if true. Also begs the question, why do we still lose out on so many kids with academic question marks if the school is willing to make some exceptions?

I read in an old article that back when the Big 12 was formed Nebraska fought the heightened enrollment requirements and the Big 12 allowed teams to add 2 men and 2 women per year that under lessened requirements. I dont know if this allowance exists though.

 

[sackman]

I remember there being some talk about Scott not qualifying.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I read in an old article that back when the Big 12 was formed Nebraska fought the heightened enrollment requirements and the Big 12 allowed teams to add 2 men and 2 women per year that under lessened requirements. I dont know if this allowance exists though.

So KSU only has 2 players enrolled under lesser requirements? I thought part of the problem at CU was we had higher academic standards than our Big 12 peers, but if we made an exception for DS, why not others? Maybe the school has its own policy on how many exceptions they will allow, I was always just under the impression that CU was at a competetive disadvantage because we couldn't or wouldn't admit some kids that other Big 12 schools would.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

Here is the article. http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html

Keep in mind there are other advantages besides just enrollment requirements for example Nebraska awards varsity athletes 40 credit hours just for playing sports.

Short honeymoon

While the forgotten four stewed about being jilted, the honeymoon that followed the marriage of the fortunate four and the Big Eight was short. Officials of the new league were quickly saddled with two contentious issues: initial eligibility for athletes and arrangements for a football championship game.
The SWC expatriates wanted entrance requirements that were stiffer than those mandated by the NCAA. Nebraska, sustained through the years by more lenient standards, objected.
Suddenly, the process of forming the Big 12 became a clash of priorities and a dispute over how priorities shape integrity.
Cornhuskers fans howled about UT arrogance. UT supporters saw Nebraska's reluctance as a cynical, self-serving way to keep the Cornhuskers on top.
"Nebraska and Texas were jockeying for position," said Bill Byrne, the A&M AD who then held that position at Nebraska. "Nebraska was the 800-pound gorilla in the Big Eight. Texas was the 800-pound gorilla in the Southwest Conference."
In December of 1995, 10 months before the first Big 12 football game, the league's school presidents agreed to allow each Big 12 school to admit two male and two female partial qualifiers each season. Still, Nebraska officials wanted to delay implementation. League presidents voted 11-1 to put the rules into immediate effect.

 

[ScottyBuff]

So KSU only has 2 players enrolled under lesser requirements? I thought part of the problem at CU was we had higher academic standards than our Big 12 peers, but if we made an exception for DS, why not others? Maybe the school has its own policy on how many exceptions they will allow, I was always just under the impression that CU was at a competetive disadvantage because we couldn't or wouldn't admit some kids that other Big 12 schools would.

The Big 12 has the same standards for partial qualifiers as Hagan posted.

The difference between CU and the other schools is in the programs offered. Most schools in the Big 12 offer a "P.E." degree while CU does not. That is the single most popular degree in major college sports for struggling student-athletes to take. This is also the reason why it is harder to accept JUCO transfers as they have to fit into a degree program at CU, but typically the reason those kids went JUCO in the first place was due to academics and getting the right class mix to be accepted at CU is tough. All the more props due to guys like Mohler and Simmons for even qualifying in the first place (not sure if one of the two exceptions applied to either of them).

 

[SINKRATZ]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I wonder if CU gets its "exception" back if DS is gone for good?

 

[Darian3Hagan]

The Big 12 has the same standards for partial qualifiers as Hagan posted.

The difference between CU and the other schools is in the programs offered. Most schools in the Big 12 offer a "P.E." degree while CU does not. That is the single most popular degree in major college sports for struggling student-athletes to take. This is also the reason why it is harder to accept JUCO transfers as they have to fit into a degree program at CU, but typically the reason those kids went JUCO in the first place was due to academics and getting the right class mix to be accepted at CU is tough. All the more props due to guys like Mohler and Simmons for even qualifying in the first place (not sure if one of the two exceptions applied to either of them).

Also IIRC CU doesnt not allow D grades to transfer while other schools do.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Also IIRC CU doesnt not allow D grades to transfer while other schools do.

Yes that too. Not sure which Big 12 schools do. K-State probably does, not sure about Okie-lite or TX Tech.

In the academic regard, CU and Texas currently have very much the same agenda, which is why we might still be tied to them in a new conference alignment.

However, it is no argument that since we removed our partial qualifier program that Mac was a big champion of, we haven't had near the success on the football field. I remember reading that Coach Mac actually had a pretty good graduation rate for bringing in those kids, but the subsequent admins and the Big 12 move killed the program anyway.

While CU is certainly not "= Stanford" as Paige ignorantly (or incitefully) claims, they certainly are not on the level of Kansas State, Oklahoma State, or Texas Tech. But the Pac-10 has their academic dogs as well with Wazzou, Oregon State, and Arizona State.

I truly think that within several "waves" of conference re-alignments that the schools will pair themselves up with "peer" schools and the traditional "rivalries" with smaller market, academically inferior, and financially inferior schools will be relegated to OOC games.

 

[SuperD]

Actually I've seen claims that Nebraska brought data to the table to support their argument that the partial qualifier rule was better for the kids as students. Those who started as partial qualifiers had a lot more success at staying in school and graduating than the kids coming in as Juco transfers, and Nebraska supposedly had an award winning program and resources set up to bring the kids up to speed and keep them in school. Now I'm the last one to be a Nebraska cheerleader, but CU benefited from the program as well, and I could definitely see the argument that some of these kids would benefit a lot more from the extra time and resources a D1 school could provide than essentially going it alone as a Juco. Is it somewhat at odds with upholding the overall high academic standards of the university? Yep. But lets face it if you're on scholarship you're already an exception from the normal student body, and there is something to be said for giving a kid a shot if they are willing to do the work to come up to speed and stay eligible. Now if you game the system and the kids aren't doing the work or there is academic cheating going on then that is another story.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that having different (lower) academic standards for athletes is really all that detrimental to a school's overall academic reputation and it certainly wouldn't be a new practice in the Pac 10.

I would give you Jason Kidd and Marshawn Lynch as exhibits A & B. Cal is regarded as maybe one of the top 3 public universities in the nation (Virginia and UCLA also come to mind) and they have much more relaxed academic standards for athletes than CU and it isn't even close.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that having different (lower) academic standards for athletes is really all that detrimental to a school's overall academic reputation and it certainly wouldn't be a new practice in the Pac 10.

I would give you Jason Kidd and Marshawn Lynch as exhibits A & B. Cal is regarded as maybe one of the top 3 public universities in the nation (Virginia and UCLA also come to mind) and they have much more relaxed academic standards for athletes than CU and it isn't even close.

I would like to think if we were in a league with Cal and the like our admin would be more willing to do the same.

 

[Liver]

if you put woody paige and tony kornheiser in cages and let them starve for a week and then released them simultaneously into an octagon where an inebriated rick reilly is covered entirely in peanut butter and is sitting patiently in the middle of the ring, which blowhard would rip a reilly drumstick off first and eat it?

 

[Hugegroove]

if you put woody paige and tony kornheiser in cages and let them starve for a week and then released them simultaneously into an octagon where an inebriated rick reilly is covered entirely in peanut butter and is sitting patiently in the middle of the ring, which blowhard would rip a reilly drumstick off first and eat it?

Tony kornholer

 

[Junction]

if you put woody paige and tony kornheiser in cages and let them starve for a week and then released them simultaneously into an octagon where an inebriated rick reilly is covered entirely in peanut butter and is sitting patiently in the middle of the ring, which blowhard would rip a reilly drumstick off first and eat it?

Does it really matter, as long as the ****ing douchebag ends up dismembered???

 

[BlackNGold]

One would have to assume that the PAC has more alumni media people than any other conference. My suspicion is that the conference could do its own network better than anyone else. Especially now that they have a couple blueprints already in place from the Big 10 and, to a lesser extent, MWC.

Bad assumption...A TV network has to do with the people behind the scenes not the heads on TV. Big 10 network - 49% owned by Foxsports (Newscorp). Doing a network successfully is a function of the people doing the deal...the Big 10 is being picked up everywhere while the MTN takes out radio ads for people to complain to their satellite providers because they won't carry it.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that having different (lower) academic standards for athletes is really all that detrimental to a school's overall academic reputation and it certainly wouldn't be a new practice in the Pac 10.

I would give you Jason Kidd and Marshawn Lynch as exhibits A & B. Cal is regarded as maybe one of the top 3 public universities in the nation (Virginia and UCLA also come to mind) and they have much more relaxed academic standards for athletes than CU and it isn't even close.

I don't think that the argument is that it affects the school's overall academic reputation, except that schools want to be in a league with peers that have similar standards so that there is a level playing field for their athletes.

Another point of view is that the athletes are high-profile representatives of the university, and the public perception of their academic success affects thousands of potential applicants and is a part of the "branding" for that school. Which is why Myron Rolle will be the poster child for FSU academics for this next generation, nevermind all the numerous academic violations that occurred at FSU simultaneous to his college career.

 

[Buffnik]

I would like to think if we were in a league with Cal and the like our admin would be more willing to do the same.

I believe it's much easier for a CU Chancellor, President or Regent to say: "Our academic standards for athletes are directly in line with Cal-Berkeley" than it is for them to say "We need to get our academic standards for athletes in line with Oklahoma".

 

[Darian3Hagan]

I believe it's much easier for a CU Chancellor, President or Regent to say: "Our academic standards for athletes are directly in line with Cal-Berkeley" than it is for them to say "We need to get our academic standards for athletes in line with Oklahoma".

Exactly.

 

[SINKRATZ]

The difference between a school like Cal or CU versus an FSU is that an athlete won't be a poster boy for the school's academics. We have Nobel prize winners to fill that role.

The FSUs of the world need to use a Myron Rolle to legitimize their academics, CU already has a strong academic reputation in comparison.

There seems to be the perception that moving to the Pac 10 will allow us to be more competetive athletically because we will be in a conference that has higher academic standards, but this may not be true. Unless we bring our academic and admittance policies in line with our peers we will continue to have the same problems we have now.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

As to the alumni support, there are north of 10,000 cu alums in both the bay area and LA respectively you would see much more involvement in the program from these people if we could watch them in person 1 or 2x a year. This is support that for all intents and purposes is non-existent right now.

It seems as though most people are assuming that all these CU alums in Cali would suddenly open up their wallets and start donating to CU athletics if we joined the Pac-10. That's nothing but conjecture. Sure there'd undoubtedly be alot more CU fans at certain road games, particularly the ones in Cali, but there's nothing to say that will translate into more generous athletic boosters across the board.

It's not very often that I agree with Woody, but as he points out if CU starts winning, alot of these problems will cure themselves. And increasing admissions and/or academic standards for student athletes certainly hasn't helped that cause.

 

[Buffnik]

It seems as though most people are assuming that all these CU alums in Cali would suddenly open up their wallets and start donating to CU athletics if we joined the Pac-10. That's nothing but conjecture. Sure there'd undoubtedly be alot more CU fans at certain road games, particularly the ones in Cali, but there's nothing to say that will translate into more generous athletic boosters across the board.

It is definitely conjecture. Whereas our California alums being disorganized, disconnected from the university and light on their donations is a proven fact while we're playing all our games on the great plains and in Texas. Things are bad right now and we've got to try to do something to fix it.

It's not very often that I agree with Woody, but as he points out if CU starts winning, alot of these problems will cure themselves. And increasing admissions and/or academic standards for student athletes certainly hasn't helped that cause.

Agree that winning cures a lot of what's been ailing the CU athletic department. But I'm not sure that "let's move to the Pac so we can win" is an argument that anyone is making. Weed to week, that's a tougher conference than the Big 12.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

It is definitely conjecture. Whereas our California alums being disorganized, disconnected from the university and light on their donations is a proven fact while we're playing all our games on the great plains and in Texas. Things are bad right now and we've got to try to do something to fix it.



Agree that winning cures a lot of what's been ailing the CU athletic department. But I'm not sure that "let's move to the Pac so we can win" is an argument that anyone is making. Weed to week, that's a tougher conference than the Big 12.

Sure, last year you can make that argument but these type of things are cyclical, and while I haven't looked it up, I would have a hard time believing that the Pac-10 has been stronger than the Big 12 top to bottom over the past 15 years or so. Up until this past season, the Pac-10 has pretty much been USC and everyone else since 2002. As for name recognition in football, the Pac has USC and UCLA to some extent, whereas in the Big 12 has OU, UT, NU, and A&M to some extent. Advantage Big 12.

Another thing which may have been brought up a couple of times in all these Pac-10 threads being thrown around is that if CU goes to the Pac-10, they'll be in the forgotten time zone with all those late games. Like it or not, fair or not, but that's the reality of the Pac-10. :huh:

 

[Buffnik]

Carolina:

For conference balance, you went straight to the top when discussing the Big 12. And that's the problem. USC is definitely the top dog in the Pac, but other programs also have their moments/runs. Stanford probably the least likely due to academic constraints, but they've been a top 25 team and also fielded some great basketball programs (while being a powerhouse AD when evaluated across the board). The Pac does not have programs like Iowa State and Baylor.

We're currently the forgotten time zone in the Big 12, being the only school in the Mountain time zone. We'd at least be paired with Utah (Mountain zone) in the Pac and also the state of Arizona doesn't do daylight savings time, so we'd be in the same time zone as them for half the year. That's much better than what we have now.