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!
What Pac-12 team do you hate the most?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
I don't like ASU....the Bachynski assault on Scott did it for me....and there is nothing to like about Graham
USC would be a distant second for me
USC would be a distant second for me
USC has an enrollment of 40,000, CU has an enrollment of 31,000..
I think what you're saying is USC has a lot of bandwagon type fans. You're not wrong. I just don't think USC/UCLA are benefiting much from the lack of an NFL team. The Raiders/Rams always wanted the Coliseum to be smaller because they would never fill it.
Either way, I'm not going to sit here and defend USC all day. If you have had negative experiences with USC fans, so be it. That hasn't been my experience and I live right by them, but oddly enough don't know many SC grads. I think the people around here are smart enough to know going to school there isn't all that. It's in the middle of the worst part of LA and if you have the grades and money to go there you might as well just go somewhere cool like UCSB.
As usual, THujone is spot on.
I hate them all but I'd have to say Arizona because my son's mom likes them. Oregon pisses me off too.
USC. Leftover distaste from Pete Carolling at the orphanage once a year with camera's rolling. And who the **** hires Lane Kiffin the way they did.
Way back in the day, declaring the bugeaters our "rival" was a pretty bold move by Mac1. It worked in that it set our sights pretty high. Apparently, Mac1 actually made a deliberate decision between the land thieves and the bugeaters - I've heard/read that in the end he chose NU because Switzer/OU was dirtier than Osborne/NU, and he didn't want to set our sights on a program that would be going down to NCAA sanctions in the mid-term future. I also think that he recognized that teams could have more than one "rival," but not more than two, and OU already had NU and UT; whereas NU had OU and ??.
I bring all that up because I think there are some lessons to be learned:
1: Don't call out a tier II team (or even a tier 1b) as your "most hated" - regardless of the their douchebaggery - you're setting your sights too low. There's a reason Mizzou was never going to be our rival.
2: Don't call out a team that has a reasonable chance of badly sucking during the time it will take to return to the top.
and a distant 3: Is there room in their "rivalry slate" for CU?
No. 1 means that ASU, UA, OSU, UCLA, Cal, WSU, and UU are all out.
No. 2 is a harder call.
Stanford historically has about the highest volatility of any football program out there - they go through stretches of greatness and then stretches of suckiness, both of which are periodically interrupted by bouts of mediocrity. I honestly see no reason why they won't change from historic pattern. Stanford is out.
Will the NCAA ever catch up to Oregon? Will Phil Knight keel over, and what happens if he does? Football history tends to say that a reversion to mean is the most likely mid to long term outcome (and their mean level of performance is very, very bad), but is this time different?
UW is about as close to a peer school as we have in the P12, both on and off the field. A "reversion to mean" for them would probably be a small improvement in performance compared to where they are now. This is a team that, like CU, should be consistently ranked (or at least included in "others receiving votes"), consistently goes to mid to upper tier bowl games, and is disappointed with lower tier bowl games. If we want to set our sights on a school that, over time, we should play to a .500 record, UW is that school.
USC is the football class of the conference. They are the only other school besides us with both a mnc and a heisman - difference is that they have multiples of both (7 of each by my count, their count is different...).
No 3 would exclude USC, but leave open UO and UW.
IMO No 3 isn't that important, we're big enough assholes that we force other schools to recognize our rival status, so the choice to me is UO, UW or USC. The aspirational part of me says USC. The "I hate their nouvea rich douchebag fans" says UO. It's weird, but I look at UW and almost see our reflection in a mirror - it's hard to hate that...
At the end of the day, our road to the next MNC will always go through USC. So it's USC. **** those guys.
I bring all that up because I think there are some lessons to be learned:
1: Don't call out a tier II team (or even a tier 1b) as your "most hated" - regardless of the their douchebaggery - you're setting your sights too low. There's a reason Mizzou was never going to be our rival.
2: Don't call out a team that has a reasonable chance of badly sucking during the time it will take to return to the top.
and a distant 3: Is there room in their "rivalry slate" for CU?
No. 1 means that ASU, UA, OSU, UCLA, Cal, WSU, and UU are all out.
No. 2 is a harder call.
Stanford historically has about the highest volatility of any football program out there - they go through stretches of greatness and then stretches of suckiness, both of which are periodically interrupted by bouts of mediocrity. I honestly see no reason why they won't change from historic pattern. Stanford is out.
Will the NCAA ever catch up to Oregon? Will Phil Knight keel over, and what happens if he does? Football history tends to say that a reversion to mean is the most likely mid to long term outcome (and their mean level of performance is very, very bad), but is this time different?
UW is about as close to a peer school as we have in the P12, both on and off the field. A "reversion to mean" for them would probably be a small improvement in performance compared to where they are now. This is a team that, like CU, should be consistently ranked (or at least included in "others receiving votes"), consistently goes to mid to upper tier bowl games, and is disappointed with lower tier bowl games. If we want to set our sights on a school that, over time, we should play to a .500 record, UW is that school.
USC is the football class of the conference. They are the only other school besides us with both a mnc and a heisman - difference is that they have multiples of both (7 of each by my count, their count is different...).
No 3 would exclude USC, but leave open UO and UW.
IMO No 3 isn't that important, we're big enough assholes that we force other schools to recognize our rival status, so the choice to me is UO, UW or USC. The aspirational part of me says USC. The "I hate their nouvea rich douchebag fans" says UO. It's weird, but I look at UW and almost see our reflection in a mirror - it's hard to hate that...
At the end of the day, our road to the next MNC will always go through USC. So it's USC. **** those guys.
Last edited:
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Washington, for some reason I have never liked them.