What's new
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!

Where should the Pac-12 Championship game be held?

Where should Pac-12 title game be held?

  • Neutral site - fixed location

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Neutral site - rotating location

    Votes: 15 38.5%
  • Home stadium of higher ranked team

    Votes: 15 38.5%

  • Total voters
    39
Arizona State (2 1-AA teams)

I think they deserve a pass on that this year. Recently, they picked back up the NAU series after a 50-year break (some sort of in-state goodwill/keep the check in-state deal) so that's OK because it's an in-state thing. The Portland State thing was because someone from back east canceled really late; forget who it was. But I seem to remember ASU scheduling pretty tough. In the last few years they've had LSU, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska and us (I'm sure they thought it would be tough when they signed).

It worked for the Bears when the renovated Solider Field

That was the worst stadium job ever. It's like they dropped a spaceship on a historic site! In fact, I think it lost its historic site status after that was done.
 
Denver!

We can still watch the Pac-12 CCG at Invesco Field even if the Buffs don't play in that game. Just imagine the Arizona or California teams playing in the snow!
 
Denver!

We can still watch the Pac-12 CCG at Invesco Field even if the Buffs don't play in that game. Just imagine the Arizona or California teams playing in the snow!

Denver is even less likely to host this game than the B12 CCG...
 
Denver!

We can still watch the Pac-12 CCG at Invesco Field even if the Buffs don't play in that game. Just imagine the Arizona or California teams playing in the snow!

:smile2:

I'm looking for an excuse to go to somewhere like Phoenix, Vegas, San Diego or LA in December.
 
if this gets played at the rose bowl i think it takes something away from the actual Rose Bowl if you end up playing there again a month later. Vegas is appealing, but the stadium only seats 36k.
 
Think of USC -- there would be a year where they win @ UCLA, win the Pac-12 title and play in the Rose Bowl. Three games in the same stadium less than 20 miles from their campus in basically a month. lol
 
In my opinion San Francisco makes the most sense. Actually when the 49ers move to Santa Clara which is very close to San Jose they should have a great facility that would be perfect. The infrastructure is there with 3 very large airports to service the area. The facility will be ideal. The weather is absolutely perfect in December. Geographically it makes the most sense.
Flight time from_____ to SJC (San Jose airport)
SEA - 1 hour 45 min.
PHX - 1 hour 30 min.
DEN - 2 hour 20 min
SLC - 1 hour 30 min
LAX - 1 hour
Obviously a short drive for Stanford (25min) and less than an hour drive for Cal.

I say to keep it in Santa Clara
 
Ve-gas, Ve-gas, Ve-gas.

Stadium is a dump. But Pac 10 fanbases don't travel that well, and, well, it's...Ve-gas, Ve-gas, Ve-gas.....
 
You guys thinking Vegas would be good are nuts. I live here and don't want it here. The stadium sucks and the weather in December sucks, too. It's windy as hell and by no means warm. Watch this years Vegas bowl-or better yet last years. If you want to freeze your ass off hold it in Denver. If you want to get your gamble or strip club on come some other time. Put the game in a warm weather site. San Diego, PHX or LA.
 
It would look sad only half full when CU plays Oregon, though. Vegas is a much better scenario.

Any stadium that holds 100,000+ is going to have a lot of work to do to fill it up. Plus, CU wouldn't be playing UO, as they're probably going to be in the same division.

If it can't be in Vegas, which is apparently off the table now anyway, then my vote goes to the Rose Bowl. Not that I have a vote, but you get the idea.
 
Any stadium that holds 100,000+ is going to have a lot of work to do to fill it up. Plus, CU wouldn't be playing UO, as they're probably going to be in the same division.

If it can't be in Vegas, which is apparently off the table now anyway, then my vote goes to the Rose Bowl. Not that I have a vote, but you get the idea.

The link azbuff put up was from today and said Vegas is a possibility.

If not Vegas, I would vote for highest rated team getting it. Vegas is the only place I would be OK having it every year because it's neutral (and because it's Vegas). I absolutely do not want it in the Rose Bowl every year, where USC and UCLA can have home games. I did not like that in Dallas and do not want it here.
 
They'd have to at least double the size of the stadium in Vegas in order for the Pac-12 to have an interest in holding it there, and that's not gonna happen.

The argument about logistics being a problem when holding at the site of the higher-seeded team on only 6 days' notice is a weak one. This isn't the Super Bowl or a major bowl game we're talking about. At least 70% of the fans will already be living at or near the site. And I saw a mention in the DP article where 3 Pac-12 stadiums only seat 50K or less. So what. If you have it at a neutral site and the right teams don't make the game, that's about how many people you'd have at the game anyway. The big money for a title game is in the TV revenue anyway.
 
They'd have to at least double the size of the stadium in Vegas in order for the Pac-12 to have an interest in holding it there, and that's not gonna happen.

The argument about logistics being a problem when holding at the site of the higher-seeded team on only 6 days' notice is a weak one. This isn't the Super Bowl or a major bowl game we're talking about. At least 70% of the fans will already be living at or near the site. And I saw a mention in the DP article where 3 Pac-12 stadiums only seat 50K or less. So what. If you have it at a neutral site and the right teams don't make the game, that's about how many people you'd have at the game anyway. The big money for a title game is in the TV revenue anyway.

Aren't you saying that the stadium in Vegas, that can seat 40k+, "would have to be at least doubled," but also saying "so what" regarding the seven stadiums in the Pac-12 that seat 55k or less (some substantially less)? Your argument against Vegas gets smoked by your last line: "The big money for a title game is in the TV revenue anyway."

I'm for Vegas OR a rotation between Seattle, the new 49ers stadium, San Diego and Phoenix. But, I'm more for Vegas for two reasons: 1. central location; 2. full stadium, regardless of match-up. Can you imagine how awful the attendance would be for an ASU-CU title game in Seattle?
 
Last edited:
There's a bunch of local money to be made and none of the administrators are going to ignore that. Sure Las Vegas is being considered, but I seriously doubt it has much of a chance to be picked.
 
You guys thinking Vegas would be good are nuts. I live here and don't want it here. The stadium sucks and the weather in December sucks, too. It's windy as hell and by no means warm. Watch this years Vegas bowl-or better yet last years. If you want to freeze your ass off hold it in Denver. If you want to get your gamble or strip club on come some other time. Put the game in a warm weather site. San Diego, PHX or LA.

:lol:

I lived there, too. Vegas is great in December. You must love the heat if you think that's the bad weather season in Vegas.

That first couple weeks of the month should be right around 60 degrees with the low being around 40 overnight.
 
I was in Vegas in December one year and it snowed. Temp 19 degrees. I was in Scottsdale last December and it was in the high 50's. Lots of temp swings.
 
Aren't you saying that the stadium in Vegas, that can seat 40k+, "would have to be at least doubled," but also saying "so what" regarding the seven stadiums in the Pac-12 that seat 55k or less (some substantially less)? Your argument against Vegas gets smoked by your last line: "The big money for a title game is in the TV revenue anyway."

But from the perspective of the conference presidents and commissioner, if they were to have a neutral-site location for this game they sure as hell aren't going to pick a place with 50K or less seats, because they have the pipe dream that they could fill a large stadium like Phoenix or the Rose Bowl. And in their minds, one of the biggest if not the biggest drawback of having it at the site of the top seed is the potential of a smaller stadium hosting the game.

Point being, if they pick a neutral site for the CCG then they aren't going to pick a place that only holds about 50K or less.
 
I thought Vegas was looking into building a new stadium. Anyway, Vegas has my vote because they win going away for 1) Neutral location and 2) Game week activities. Ruling out Vegas based on present stadium size alone is short-sighted, imo. Also, I thought Vegas has been talking about trying to get an eventual Super Bowl, well this could be the first steps toward showing the NFL that it can host a major football event.
 
But from the perspective of the conference presidents and commissioner, if they were to have a neutral-site location for this game they sure as hell aren't going to pick a place with 50K or less seats, because they have the pipe dream that they could fill a large stadium like Phoenix or the Rose Bowl. And in their minds, one of the biggest if not the biggest drawback of having it at the site of the top seed is the potential of a smaller stadium hosting the game.

Point being, if they pick a neutral site for the CCG then they aren't going to pick a place that only holds about 50K or less.

Fair enough. They aren't filling up the Seahawks, Cardinals, 49ers or the LA stadiums unless one of the local schools is in the game (UW, UA/ASU, CAL/STAN, UCLA/USC, respectively). However, as you say, they may have that pipe dream.
 
You guys thinking Vegas would be good are nuts. I live here and don't want it here. The stadium sucks and the weather in December sucks, too. It's windy as hell and by no means warm. Watch this years Vegas bowl-or better yet last years. If you want to freeze your ass off hold it in Denver. If you want to get your gamble or strip club on come some other time. Put the game in a warm weather site. San Diego, PHX or LA.

I missed this post the first time through, but I have a couple counterpoints for you:

1. Cold in Vegas is not the same thing as cold in Denver. I would happily watch a game in 'cold' early December weather out there. The key being early December and not late December. Average temps in Vegas in December are low 60s during the day and low 40s at night. That's a hell of a lot warmer than Denver.

2. I want to leave the Venetian poker room, go to the game, and then go back to the Venetian poker room. I can't do that anywhere but Vegas. :lol:

3. You probably want to go somewhere else for the game. The rest of us want to come to you.
 
Back
Top