Positives of a Pac-16 for CU

[sackman]

They are a pain in the ass, but they are not the conference killing cancer sacky makes them out to be.

Signed,

The Big 12 and SWC.

 

[Buffnik]

Signed,

The Big 12 and SWC.

I can't remember UT being responsible for the SWC falling apart except for working behind the scenes to expose the rampant cheating of other conference members. I'm glad they did that.

However, there has to be more to it than that. I know Arkansas fans couldn't get to the SEC fast enough and had major issues with UT that went beyond what I said.

With the Big 12, it was definitely a power grab from the beginning and weak leadership that allowed it to happen. The conference made so many mistakes. Forming the conference as a new, merged entity rather than an expansion of the Big 8. Allowing the conference to be divided North-South instead of East-West. Allowing the conference offices to be based in Texas. Allowing unequal revenue sharing. Allowing the conference championship to be played in Texas every year. Etc., etc., etc. until it lost 2 of its strongest members, didn't replace them, and UT used the opportunity to put a firmer stranglehold on the conference. They no longer position themselves as first among equals. They now position themselves as the conference emperor.

That said, there's still a lot about UT that I like. Great academics. NCAA rules integrity. Great athletics. Passionate fans. Media powerhouse in Texas and for national tv. I just don't know if you can get all that while keeping an ego in line that's almost too big for Texas.

 

[sackman]

It sure as hell wasn't Texas Tech that killed the SWC.

Arky got tired of UT calling all the shots. They left. Sound familiar?

 

[Deleted member 807]

Signed,

The Big 12 and SWC.

In fairness, the whole SWC was pretty damn corrupt. Go ahead and pin SMU's sins on UT if you want to, but that would be disinginious, too. In addition to Texas, TCU, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Houston were found to have committed violations and were placed on probation for one sin or another.

Even looking into our own Big 8 past, the Sooners under Switzer were no choirboys. We all know about Dr Osborn and the Huskers gamesmanship.

At the end of the day, if CU could sell out 105K seats at home and win >90% of our home games and build one of the most recognizable brands in college football, we'd probably be accused of acting just like Texas.

 

[SuperD]

As much as I want UT to hold things together in the Big 12 so that we can stay at 12 teams, IF we are going to the super conference model at the end of the day I would rather see UT in the conference then somewhere else. The realities of geography in flyover country just don't really leave any alternatives. That said the conference agreements and bylaws better be rock solid and take into account that we've learned from past mistakes. The one good thing I've taken from some of the "insider" posts on UT (and actually TAMU) boards is that they like the pod setup because of the potential for setting up lots of games with national appeal (which to be fair to Dodds he has been a proponent of in the past).

That said, I really don't like the thought of UT getting into the ear of USC on some of these issues. The rest of the league already had to strong arm them and make concessions in order to get them to agree to equal revenue sharing. My guess is they are the first school that UT swings to their voting bloc.

 

[BuffLuke80]

In fairness, the whole SWC was pretty damn corrupt. Go ahead and pin SMU's sins on UT if you want to, but that would be disinginious, too. In addition to Texas, TCU, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Houston were found to have committed violations and were placed on probation for one sin or another.

Even looking into our own Big 8 past, the Sooners under Switzer were no choirboys. We all know about Dr Osborn and the Huskers gamesmanship.

At the end of the day, if CU could sell out 105K seats at home and win >90% of our home games and build one of the most recognizable brands in college football, we'd probably be accused of acting just like Texas.

There was a reason SMU started cheating, it's because the whole damn league was. Texas was one of the biggest cheaters and go upstaged cheating wise by SMU, everybody did for that matter. As far as blaming Texas for the sins of SMU, I wouldnt go that far. However since they were the Topdog of the SWC, one could argue that the Topdog cheating set the table for the rest of the unworthy members. Thats not all that killed the SWC but to think Texas isnt a huge reason it fell apart, lol umm ok. As far as the Big 12, it's typical Texas. Think the point missed alot is, no amount of money or power is EVER enough for them. They will play nice for awhile until it's time to make their move to run things, it's inevitable for greedy people. CU will never sell out a 105k stadium nor ever have one. Not really a comparison with the 2 considering Id venture to say they have a much larger alum base and are in a different galaxy financially. If CU could grow to 60 or 70K with good turnouts, Id say we would be sitting pretty. Texas wins alot of home games sure, thats what you are supposed to do when Rice and North Texas come calling. Im against having Texas in the Pac obviously but I understand where a few are coming from wanting UT to eventually land there. My brother, who is the biggest ****ing Texas homer I know, said you want no part of Texas in the Pac. I asked why, he said the last 2 conferences they have been in, they have killed them both. Greed was one of the biggest reasons he used. Anyhow, huge UT fan says be wary, thats good enough for me lol.

 

[NashBuff]

*bump*

I'm astounded by the skepticism of CU competing in the Pac-16 East conference. Would that be what true Buffs would do in this situation? Aren't we the type of school and fans to rise up to the challenge?

Remember, Husker fans laughed when Big Mac said that NU was our rival...perhaps we could take aim at OU or even Texas if we needed to do that.

My position is unchanged: we need a pod scheduling system for the Pac-16. If that happens, I don't have any issues with the Pac-16 at all.

 

[NashBuff]

One more thing...not only would CU have the west coast alumni in the conference footprint but the alumni east of the Rockies especially in Texas. Having the majority of alumni in the conference footprint can be very benefical in a big way.

This has the potential to be full of WIN in a BIG way for the Buffs. We can compete with OU...we did that with a Dan Hawkins team in 2007 and then the last trip to Texas did throw a scare in the DKRS crowd. If we didn't have a coach like Hawkins, we would beat Okie State and Texas Tech more often than not. You could say the same thing about Utah and the Arizona schools.

We can compete in the Pac-16 East over time and if we are able to threaten both OU and UT on a yearly basis, we shouldn't have a problem with the Pac-16 West teams as well.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

I do not see a east west split happening. With a 9 game conference slate it would be like playing in two separate conferences. I am pretty sure that pod scheduling is the only way to make this super conference thing work.

 

[Buffnik]

Extra games, the Texas market, two marquee programs for national interest, an extra round with 2 games in a conference football playoff, a ton more inventory for the conference network in all sports, owning two of the three most important recruiting states within the conference footprint, the population growth rates in the conference footprint, ... the analytics all point to the Pac-16 being far and away the premier college conference if this deal happens.

We may not love it right now, but I think we'd all have to admit that if superconferences happen that this is the best one to be in.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Extra games, the Texas market, two marquee programs for national interest, an extra round with 2 games in a conference football playoff, a ton more inventory for the conference network in all sports, owning two of the three most important recruiting states within the conference footprint, the population growth rates in the conference footprint, ... the analytics all point to the Pac-16 being far and away the premier college conference if this deal happens.

We may not love it right now, but I think we'd all have to admit that if superconferences happen that this is the best one to be in.

plus we all have to agree that it would be better for us to be locked into a conference that will be a super. Getting left out of this is not going to be pretty.

 

[MrFrumpylane]

Nobody is mentioning a Pac-14. Is it not feasible for some reason? At least we wouldn't get stuck with most of the BigXII South in that model.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Nobody is mentioning a Pac-14. Is it not feasible for some reason? At least we wouldn't get stuck with most of the BigXII South in that model.

16 is inevitable + 14 is difficult to schedule.

 

[Buffnik]

Nobody is mentioning a Pac-14. Is it not feasible for some reason? At least we wouldn't get stuck with most of the BigXII South in that model.

14 teams is a tough number for scheduling.

You end up with 6 games in your division, then need to play 3/7 from the other division. You need to set the conference schedule 42 years out in order to balance it with an equal number of home and homes against each of the teams in the other division. With a Pac-16, it balances in 4 years if you do the pod scheduling.

I don't know what the difficulties are in basketball, but I assume they are similar or compounded.

 

[MrFrumpylane]

14 teams is a tough number for scheduling.

You end up with 6 games in your division, then need to play 3/7 from the other division. You need to set the conference schedule 42 years out in order to balance it with an equal number of home and homes against each of the teams in the other division. With a Pac-16, it balances in 4 years if you do the pod scheduling.

I don't know what the difficulties are in basketball, but I assume they are similar or compounded.

Thanks, nik.

 

[Jerry]

Why cant we just take Texas and OU, call it a day? What do their sidekicks bring to the table?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Adding Texas and OU only benefits Colorado in that it brings increased revenue and increased exposure. Colorado will struggle to compete if they wind up in the same division as OU and UT. Just ask OSU and Tech about competing against OU and UT every single year.

 

[JimmyBuff]

Adding Texas and OU only benefits Colorado in that it brings increased revenue and increased exposure. Colorado will struggle to compete if they wind up in the same division as OU and UT. Just ask OSU and Tech about competing against OU and UT every single year.

exactly. It will help $$$$$ wise but at the current time we can't compete with them.

 

[GoBuffs08]

There were 2 main reasons for leaving the big 12.

1) From a competitive standpoint UT and to a lesser extent OU have athletic budgets and revenue sharing models that made it unrealistic for other teams to compete.
2) The large alumni base on the west coast.

Moving to the PAC was going to align CU with athletic budgets closer to theirs, and allow them to have multiple games on the west coast in front of the large alumni base.

Bringing UT, OU and other Big12 leftovers into the PAC completely destroys all the benefits that CU was going to realize by moving away from the Big12.

I hope UT can hold the Big12-3 together for at least 2-3 more years.

 

[NashBuff]

Adding Texas and OU only benefits Colorado in that it brings increased revenue and increased exposure. Colorado will struggle to compete if they wind up in the same division as OU and UT. Just ask OSU and Tech about competing against OU and UT every single year.

Shall I remind you the sorry state that OSU and TT were in when the Big 12 was formed? Fast forward 5-10 years later, they are competitive with UT and OU. It will take time for CU of course but we are talking about the long term here.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

The question isn't whether CU will become more competitive with this! You are actually equating us to OSU and TT? We are going to be competitive in the PAC 12, so no adding ut and OU does not benefit us. This just means we have to deal with their crap and have ****ty road trips

 

[TimmyDUBs]

I do agree we can be more selective as a conference. Screw OSU and TT. The only reasons we included them before was befoause we had to. Now we pick and choose

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Shall I remind you the sorry state that OSU and TT were in when the Big 12 was formed? Fast forward 5-10 years later, they are competitive with UT and OU. It will take time for CU of course but we are talking about the long term here.

Texas Tech hasn't had a losing season since 1992. And they STILL have never played for the conference championship.

OSU has T. Boone Pickens in their corner and they STILL have never played for the conference championship. I don't know if OSU has ever finished as high as 2nd in the Big 12 South before last season, even.

OU and UT are just on a different level. CU may find a way to be competitive every few years, and may even win the division a few times, but not on a year-in year-out basis. Just not going to happen with the current scheme. If, someday down the road, OU and UT stop spending so much on football, or stop receiving the same level of donations/support for the football/athletic programs, the story may change.

 

[NashBuff]

Again, I want to stress that I only support the Pac-16 if we can do pod scheduling.

Dan Beebe might be an idiot but he does make sense when geography does matter when it comes to conference...it still didn't make a difference with both CU & NU and now Texas A&M. But look at it that way...will it really make sense for BYU and Pitt to join the Big 12? Probably not & those schools will come to their senses and that is why the Big 12 will most likely dissolve anyway so we need to focus on how to deal with those four schools eventually.

Under the pod scheduling, we would face only two of the four Tex-OK schools every year. That's better than facing four of them every year.

Honestly, there's not much we can do about the Pac-12 going to 16 schools anyway...we might as well embrace it and I have done that. It will be awesome from a conference wide point.

Look it at this way...we just went through one bad stretch with Hawkins and it wasn't the first time it happened to CU and it won't be the last time it happens in addition to enjoying some special seasons such as the 2001 season.

 

[Mick Ronson]

in terms of the population density and distribution of the US east of the Mississippi or western half.....it makes sense (maybe even a necessity) to lock down all that isn't great lakes/upper midwest states and the southeast. because by the alleged new "calculus" of sports, fannies on the couch determines the cash and prestige flow because of ad revenue sales and ratings (which are indirectly the same thing). if that's the way "power" is going to be distributed, gonna be tough to stand pat. plus, i didn't believe Scott when he said they were through shopping....in the future.

and that means OU and UT and hangers on. east of Kansas City it's all Big Ten and SEC moving forward.

 

[NashBuff]

Texas Tech hasn't had a losing season since 1992. And they STILL have never played for the conference championship.

OSU has T. Boone Pickens in their corner and they STILL have never played for the conference championship. I don't know if OSU has ever finished as high as 2nd in the Big 12 South before last season, even.

OU and UT are just on a different level. CU may find a way to be competitive every few years, and may even win the division a few times, but not on a year-in year-out basis. Just not going to happen with the current scheme. If, someday down the road, OU and UT stop spending so much on football, or stop receiving the same level of donations/support for the football/athletic programs, the story may change.

Only Baylor has not won a share of a Big 12 divisional title. OSU and TT have won a share of their divisions...they just weren't ranked high enough to get into the Big 12 CCG. That does NOT indicate that they can't compete. In order to win a division, conference, or national championship...sometimes it comes with some luck just like back in 1990. We were fortuante with some breaks to get into one or two Big 12 CCGs as well. TT & OSU were only short on breaks in that case.

CU fan's request should be to have a COMPETITIVE football team and one of those years, we will get the breaks every once in awhile.

We would have been easily in TT or OSU's position if we were in the Big 12 South. We will without a dobut surpass both TT and OSU in the East division and we will be in a position to battle UT & OU for divisional titles. Embree is off to a great start in Texas recruiting so far.

We have to get rid of this skepticism.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

The skepticism will leave when it is proven on the field.

I stand corrected, OSU did "tie" for the Big 12 South division last year. However, saying OSU won the Big 12 South in 2010 is similar to Nebraska saying they won the Big 12 North in 2001. OSU lost the head-to-head with Oklahoma, which was the team that went on to represent the Big 12 South in the championship game (and ultimately won the conference).

Texas Tech "tied" for the Big 12 South division in 2008, but again, they were not the Big 12 South's representative in the conference championship game.

I guess if you consider "tying" for the division to be competing - then yes, OSU and Texas Tech were competitive in the Big 12 South division race in two (2) out of the conference's fifteen (15) years of existence, or 13% of the time that the league existed. I do not anticipate Texas Tech will win the Big 12 this year, and frankly OSU's conference schedule (road games) this year is too difficult for them to win the conference - which means their overall percentage of competitiveness is only going to go down.

Do I think Colorado can be MORE competitive than OSU and Texas Tech? Yes. I would expect them to be so. But that's still not the same level as OU and UT.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Some things to consider -- some solid, some whimsical:

- Don't count Mizzery when thinking about conference realignment. Even if the tiggers were invited and bolted to the $ec or the 12-PAC, they might not stay. If the big10 decided they might be thinking about expansion, Mizzery would be on their knees begging, again. This time, the b10 might just take 'em (tv markets).

- The $ec likes their geographic distribution -- 12 teams in 9 different states. Adding the gAggies gives them 13 in 10. Also from what I've heard, there is some in-state resistance regarding expansion, to wit, Fla - FSU, Ky - Louisville, GA - G-tech -- the existing schools are apprehensive about adding another school from their state/area. Contrary to the above, Mizzery would make sense here since it's a whole new territory, so to speak (as would OU).

- Seeing the gAggies part with the whorns leads me to believe that a boomer/okie lite split is also possible. Not so with jaysquawks and kjsu, because of their shared leadership.

- bailer and Iowa State should start looking for new homes.

 

[NashBuff]

The skepticism will leave when it is proven on the field.

I stand corrected, OSU did "tie" for the Big 12 South division last year. However, saying OSU won the Big 12 South in 2010 is similar to Nebraska saying they won the Big 12 North in 2001. OSU lost the head-to-head with Oklahoma, which was the team that went on to represent the Big 12 South in the championship game (and ultimately won the conference).

Texas Tech "tied" for the Big 12 South division in 2008, but again, they were not the Big 12 South's representative in the conference championship game.

I guess if you consider "tying" for the division to be competing - then yes, OSU and Texas Tech were competitive in the Big 12 South division race in two (2) out of the conference's fifteen (15) years of existence, or 13% of the time that the league existed. I do not anticipate Texas Tech will win the Big 12 this year, and frankly OSU's conference schedule (road games) this year is too difficult for them to win the conference - which means their overall percentage of competitiveness is only going to go down.

Do I think Colorado can be MORE competitive than OSU and Texas Tech? Yes. I would expect them to be so. But that's still not the same level as OU and UT.

I'm sure you would prefer a team that competes instead of a team that doesn't compete as was the case under Hawkins. I'm sure TT and OSU fans will tell you that they have never been happier with their team. You need to realize that winning divisional and conference titles will get harder in the super conferences and we will need some breaks bouncing our way and the same could be said about OU and UT when they were winning Big 12 conference titles.

The South was in a down cycle at first especially when OU was down and UT was changing coaches while the North was strong and the roles simply reversed. I can agree with you that it would have been difficult for the North to overcome the South but Nebraska was making progress in getting back to their winning ways and then the North schools plus CU would have followed in that regard.

CU's history trumps TT and OSU and when it comes to the East, CU is clearly the #3 school behind UT and OU and even Utah and ASU will push TT & OSU further down the pecking order. But all eight teams have played for at least a share of a divisional title or conference title so it will be very competitive and we may have to deal with a losing season every once in awhile but as long as we are competitive, we can see similar bounce back seasons such as 2000 to 2001 for instance.

And you should know better to diss TT & OSU since they have had top five teams even in the 1970's when CU was having similar success.

It won't be that much different competition-wise in the Pac-16 compared to the Pac-12. We will have to do what CU football is best known for...physical football and we should have some good teams down the road.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Will Baylor and ISU even be able to continue to have teams?

Iowa State's athletic department budget is only about $30 million per year. Can you imagine having your athletic department budget cut by $10+ million??? That is what is likely to soon happen to ISU and Baylor (and perhaps KSU) if the conference dissolves and the TV money disappears.