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!

Other games weekend of 9/20-9/22

buffedup said:
They are elite because of winning. What if Colorado starts winning at an elite level for a couple of decades with a couple national championships thrown in?
Then Colorado becomes elite. Independent of USC.
Just because it has been that way in the past doesn’t mean it always has to be that way. That just tells me that we shouldn’t and can’t think we can change the status quo. I disagree with that thinking.
Click to expand...
Sure, 20 years from now that might be the case. I hope that it is and I am obsessed with CU doing the things to make that a reality. But to make that happen, the short-term is that USC is elite so that the conference can attract a huge deal in its next media rights negotiation and so that the nation takes note that something big was accomplished when CU starts beating USC's ass on a regular basis.

Similarly in basketball, it doesn't mean as much and doesn't impress as much if CU wins the conference if UCLA and Arizona are both down. But if they're humming and CU wins, then we are considered elite by everyone paying a lick of attention.
 
buffedup said:
They are elite because of winning. What if Colorado starts winning at an elite level for a couple of decades with a couple national championships thrown in?
Then Colorado becomes elite. Independent of USC.
Just because it has been that way in the past doesn’t mean it always has to be that way. That just tells me that we shouldn’t and can’t think we can change the status quo. I disagree with that thinking.
Click to expand...

We would need 6 more Heismans and 8 more national championships. But yeah, let's do it!
 
Buffnik said:
What kind of ratings is the B1G gonna get if Maryland plays for the championship? Or the ACC if it's Duke? What level of respect will those programs get as champions if the traditional elite powers in their conferences aren't still great? It's the same thing in the Pac-12 but more because USC is the only true elite in the conference. We've got a ton of Top 35 all-time type programs, but only 1 elite.
Click to expand...
I’d say your comparisons aren’t the most accurate. I would argue CU is more the Wisconsin of the PAC-12 and we’re not too far off Clemson historically (before its recent run, the ACC was Miami, FSU, VT with smatterings of NCST, Wake, etc).
And CU’s success wasn’t so far ago that it would be far fetched for us to be the elite. And I think people would buy in. WAZZU, OSU, ASU...not so much. People probably said the same thing about Stanford 10 years ago, now people with short memories consider them a “traditional power”.
 
CUAviator said:
I’d say your comparisons aren’t the most accurate. I would argue CU is more the Wisconsin of the PAC-12 and we’re not too far off Clemson historically (before its recent run, the ACC was Miami, FSU, VT with smatterings of NCST, Wake, etc).
And CU’s success wasn’t so far ago that it would be far fetched for us to be the elite. And I think people would buy in. WAZZU, OSU, ASU...not so much. People probably said the same thing about Stanford 10 years ago, now people with short memories consider them a “traditional power”.
Click to expand...
As @Jens1893 said to me a little while ago, there's a difference between "prestige" and "brands". Colorado is much like Clemson in that it's a program that has won a national championship, a Heisman and is historically in the Top 30. A program like that can do things right, go on a run, and find itself a top "brand" within 5 or so years. But it takes a couple decades to develop blue blood "prestige". Right now and for the near future, USC is the only program in the Pac-12 that has blue blood prestige and that matters a lot when it comes to the overall perception of the conference. Whether we like it or not, when they're down the conference is down.
 
CUAviator said:
I’d say your comparisons aren’t the most accurate. I would argue CU is more the Wisconsin of the PAC-12 and we’re not too far off Clemson historically (before its recent run, the ACC was Miami, FSU, VT with smatterings of NCST, Wake, etc).
And CU’s success wasn’t so far ago that it would be far fetched for us to be the elite. And I think people would buy in. WAZZU, OSU, ASU...not so much. People probably said the same thing about Stanford 10 years ago, now people with short memories consider them a “traditional power”.
Click to expand...

Wake has won the ACC twice- 1970 and 2006. In 1970 when they won the ACC, they had a 6-5 record. They're .413 all-time overall, have had 3 consensus All-Americans, play in a 31k stadium and generally can't even sell that many tickets, and the last coach with an above-.500 record there was D.C. "Peahead" Walker from 1937-1950.

I love Wake, many members of my family went there and live in the area, and I've rooted for them always, but besides an aberrational 2006, they've never been a factor in college football. They're a P5 team by pure historic accident, and are the smallest such school, with fewer than 5,000 undergrads.

I know you were just mentioning them off-hand and pointing out that Clemson hasn't always been a top program, even without that league... but whoever was winning before Clemson, it certainly wasn't Wake. Beautiful campus though.
 
HighlandsBuff said:
Wake has won the ACC twice- 1970 and 2006. In 1970 when they won the ACC, they had a 6-5 record. They're .413 all-time overall, have had 3 consensus All-Americans, play in a 31k stadium and generally can't even sell that many tickets, and the last coach with an above-.500 record there was D.C. "Peahead" Walker from 1937-1950.

I love Wake, many members of my family went there and live in the area, and I've rooted for them always, but besides an aberrational 2006, they've never been a factor in college football. They're a P5 team by pure historic accident, and are the smallest such school, with fewer than 5,000 undergrads.

I know you were just mentioning them off-hand and pointing out that Clemson hasn't always been a top program, even without that league... but whoever was winning before Clemson, it certainly wasn't Wake. Beautiful campus though.
Click to expand...

I'm actually heading up to Wake tomorrow to watch them play ND.

There's a number of power 5 schools within a few hours of here and Wake by far has the least visible fanbase despite being the closest one.
 
Based on what has actually happened on the field this season, are Miss State and Okie Lite the 2 most under-ranked teams in college football right now?
 
Okie Lite will drop a game or two that they shouldn't. Pretty much like every other year.
 
Buffnik said:
I guess we should root for Wazzu tonight since it helps us in the P12 South race.

And, frankly, we need USC to be an elite national power for the health of the Pac-12. So seeing them bottom out and massive changes forced is probably what needs to happen instead of them limping along as a good program that's a pretender in terms of competing with the true elites. For CU, I also feel that we need them to be the type of program that we can put a real target on and say "that's who we need to beat if we want to be nationally relevant for championships". USC will not become that program again if it stays on its current path.
Click to expand...

We're in the driver's seat in the division right now at least until a week from tonight when we play FUCLA. I think we can count on some help from Washington, and I for one think Oregon State is going to beat Arizona. Frankly, there's one game on the conference schedule that looks like a sure L at this point-Washington. This is setting up to be another 2016 in terms of the type of season it could be-especially with USC as a total trainwreck.

As far as the health of the conference, it depends on how you look at it. Do the issues of the LA schools hurt from an exposure standpoint? Yes. Are we still going to get a team in the playoff? I think so. I think they won't take two SEC teams again, especially since Georgia's toughest hurdle to their division (South Carolina) is already behind them. The Big 10 is way down-Penn State and Ohio State are the only two noteworthy unbeatens, and PSU looked like a paper tiger against Appy State. Oklahoma is unbeaten, but they have to play at TCU and West Virginia. A couple things playing in our favor-Notre Dame is highly thought of, and BYU is off to a good start (which is good given they're playing a third of the teams in our league).

As far as targeting somebody and saying that's who we need to beat to be a threat nationally-That's Washington (seems logical given we're playing them four years out of every six) in my opinion until Peterson retires or unless USC gets their issues fixed.
 
Duff Man said:
Okie Lite's last three games:

@ Oklahoma
West Virginia
@ TCU
Click to expand...
I think that voters often downgrade teams in their rankings because of what they assume they'll do later on their schedule. That's not right.
 
Buffnik said:
I think that voters often downgrade teams in their rankings because of what they assume they'll do later on their schedule. That's not right.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but in this case, it also has something to do with an extremely backloaded schedule. Boise State is possibly the only ranked team they will face in their first nine games. Really hard to gauge a team when they are blasting nobodies.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
I'm actually heading up to Wake tomorrow to watch them play ND.

There's a number of power 5 schools within a few hours of here and Wake by far has the least visible fanbase despite being the closest one.
Click to expand...

I know that Stanford only has 200k total living alumni... one would imagine Wake has fewer, and perhaps far fewer. Stanford would need 1/4th of all their living alumni to fill their stadium, Wake faces a similar challenge with even fewer local alumni, and tepid local community support.

Winston-Salem was once a robust economic center, thanks to Reynolds tobacco being headquartered there, but with tobacco's (thankful) diminishing role in the American economy, Winston Salem ain't what it used to be. The Reynolds family was so powerful they paid to move Wake Forest U from Wake Forest, N.C. (outside Raleigh) to W-S in the 1950's, when the school was already 120 years old.

With RJ Reynolds and Krispy Kreme headquartered there, W-S may have the most unhealthy 1-2 punch of hometown companies anywhere.

And my final useless fact- Bryce Love is from Wake Forest, N.C., where the school once was.

I'll be quiet now.
 
BuffNut99 said:
Nebraska is must see TV all year. We haven't nearly seen every Frost face yet.
Click to expand...
ScottFrost_2018_1.jpg

this is the Frost face we have seen this season ...the one who knows his team sucks and isn't going to win
 
Holy crap! Fightin' Kiffins just tied things up at 14 at UCF. We've got a game!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top