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!
Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025
I almost had to drop a "Dude."
Chances are good OU & UT retained that law firm that helped CU have about $8M off of the Big 12 exit fees or more than half. Getting those numbers down to $30-35M instead of $80M would be something OU & UT would be willing to stomach imo.
I don't know, and I don't really care about a one-off event like that that involves one of the most well travelled and rabid fanbases in the sport that is also the closest P5 program to Boulder (drive time). I'm also curious about why it really matters in the grand scheme of things? The game sold out. Some CU fans decided to pay for their entire season ticket package by selling their game tickets to Nebraska fans. Why does this definitively mean CU fan support sucks? Wasn't it you the other day who said CU fans don't travel based on destination, but rather when CU is good (paraphrasing)?
It's hard to make a case if full sellouts of 85k+ person stadiums and recent on field success are the main qualifications. If that's actually the case, half the current BIG and SEC should probably be relegated, but there's obviously more to it. The case for CU is mostly around the historical success, cultural and academic fit (which I, myself, have poo pooed in having any bearing, but apparently it might), the BIG possibly wanting a MTZ program, etc. Honestly, a lot of this might also come down to politics and connections and CU seems to be viewed in a very good light among the BIG and Rick George/Phil D have their connections there as well.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
LOL yes Stanford absolutely has, because I've been in attendance at multiple such occasions. USC had home field advantage at Stanford's stadium.
Did you by any chance go to Cal?
Welcome back, and great joke.
What is B12 going to do if UT decides not to pay?
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Hard to believe CA schools would choose blowing up Pac over adding schools and/or forming alliance w B10.
Sue the SEC?
And call it the B1G PAC? You may be onto something, there.
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
I’d scale back conf schedule 2 games and have each team play 2 B10-Pac each year. Would get 70% of country interested in both conferences. With 12 team playoff, 5+ should come from these two conferences every year.
Yeah, they do. As I pointed out, the red sticks out more and makes it look worse than it was. But again, that’s completely irrelevant to the discussion and I don’t know why you are choosing this hill to die on.
BIG, Pac 12, ACC, Big 12 leftovers, and ND all combine to create a super league that doesn't acknowledge the SEC as a legitimate entity competing for the College Football National Championship. Profit.
I think what I said was that I hope CU doesn’t consider quality of roadies in any realignment discussion because we don’t travel well now and the roadie locations are good. That’s still true. We’re very much a bandwagon fan base (as are many programs).
You’re getting to what I’m really wondering here and that is about the case for CU (compared to available alternatives). When you factor football success, cultural and academic fit, media attraction, commitment to fielding a winner, financial support, and all those things - do we have a better case than the Stanford’s and Cal’s of the world?
Don’t even need to scale it back really. You can play two games against big 10 programs and be at 11 games each (we need to add two more teams).
Sure ok. Was it Antifa pretending to be Nub fans?
I don't pretend to know Stanford's administrations actual commitment to winning because they have all the money in the world and haven't had to really make any decisions to prove it one way or another. There was talk about Cal's football program being more of an irritation for the University and their AD being in the red.
I think CU has definitely shown the commitment to athletics by investing millions in the football program over the last 5+ years, but the resources just haven't been there on the same scale as other programs. Duff mentioned the other day that it's his opinion that a well funded CU could make some noise and surprise people with the commitment they show. I think this "CU doesn't support football" is mostly born out of the Jack Kroll and Linda Shoemaker grandstanding when they have to vote on contracts. Is that actually a good representation of how CU's admin feels about athletics or is that just a couple visible members of the BOR pushing their political agenda?
I’m still curious also how there’s any kind of connection between what happened at a game two years ago at CU and Stanford University. Maybe if the same poster had shown pictures of the Stanford/Nebraska game (that never happened), I could possibly see the connection.
Thereare a lot of little brother problems that in the end won't mean anything.
If the B1G comes calling all they have to say is 'our invitation is for the named school, they come alone or we invite someone else."
Faced with having one school in or no schools in the choice becomes clearer.
For the B1G UCLA is far from a dealbreaker. They tell the board that USC is coming either way, they don't have to have a second LA school and they have other regional options.
All four California schools aren't going to be invited or accepted.
CU fan base > Stanford, no question. But yes we are generally apathetic compared to diehards in the Big Ten / SEC and likely will never close that gap because there are simply other things to do in Colorado / regional differences (plus media/general obsession with Broncos) and people aren't exactly moving to Boulder for football.
BUT I think we do show up and will show up if the program is able to have any consistent success (I think of some of the crowds we get when the basketball team has had success), which I'm not sure you could say the same about Stanford who has been "good" to "great" for a good chunk of the last 15 years in much larger market with not much to show in terms of fan support whereas we were objectively "god awful" for most of the years during that same stretch.
CU has a larger alumni base than Stanford, and I would guess it is equally (if not more) spread out across the country.
I absolutely think that CU will fare better than Stanford in the Big 10 as far as fan engagement, and from the Big Ten's perspective, I think there is a lot of upside there with the growth and interest in Denver/Boulder metro in even the last year. Big Ten schools, fans, and alumni from Iowa City to State College and New Brunswick like the idea of being associated with Boulder and Colorado in general and are happy to make the trek out to Boulder for a game, and I think some of you are understating that appeal. Also, the idea of Colorado being the link/gateway to pacific contingent if Big Ten wants the coast to coast branding just makes too much sense. It just seems like a natural insertion notwithstanding Stanford crushing us in terms of media market and academics. The real risk I see is that Big Ten decides to only take 6 for new bloc and ends up going with the 4 CA schools plus Oregon, and Washington. Otherwise, I think we should be and probably are right there in the discussion.
TL;DR: I think CU could be a sleeping giant with more upside than Stanford and really just needs some sustained success. Granted we will never be the (moronic) cult that is Big Red and many others in the Big Ten (I don't similarly pass judgement on these fanbases), but we don't need to be. Having Big Red take over our stadium I think is more a reflection on their obsession (lack of IQ) than our lack of interest + other factors discussed already, and like many others I don't see it as an end all or huge sticking point.
CU fan base >>>> Stanford
Big Ten "fit" / desirability in Big Ten = give the edge to Stanford, but I think it would come down to what the CA contingent decides to do and how many teams the Big Ten would be looking to take... and I think we are closer to Stanford in the conversation than some of you are giving us credit for.
BUT I think we do show up and will show up if the program is able to have any consistent success (I think of some of the crowds we get when the basketball team has had success), which I'm not sure you could say the same about Stanford who has been "good" to "great" for a good chunk of the last 15 years in much larger market with not much to show in terms of fan support whereas we were objectively "god awful" for most of the years during that same stretch.
CU has a larger alumni base than Stanford, and I would guess it is equally (if not more) spread out across the country.
I absolutely think that CU will fare better than Stanford in the Big 10 as far as fan engagement, and from the Big Ten's perspective, I think there is a lot of upside there with the growth and interest in Denver/Boulder metro in even the last year. Big Ten schools, fans, and alumni from Iowa City to State College and New Brunswick like the idea of being associated with Boulder and Colorado in general and are happy to make the trek out to Boulder for a game, and I think some of you are understating that appeal. Also, the idea of Colorado being the link/gateway to pacific contingent if Big Ten wants the coast to coast branding just makes too much sense. It just seems like a natural insertion notwithstanding Stanford crushing us in terms of media market and academics. The real risk I see is that Big Ten decides to only take 6 for new bloc and ends up going with the 4 CA schools plus Oregon, and Washington. Otherwise, I think we should be and probably are right there in the discussion.
TL;DR: I think CU could be a sleeping giant with more upside than Stanford and really just needs some sustained success. Granted we will never be the (moronic) cult that is Big Red and many others in the Big Ten (I don't similarly pass judgement on these fanbases), but we don't need to be. Having Big Red take over our stadium I think is more a reflection on their obsession (lack of IQ) than our lack of interest + other factors discussed already, and like many others I don't see it as an end all or huge sticking point.
CU fan base >>>> Stanford
Big Ten "fit" / desirability in Big Ten = give the edge to Stanford, but I think it would come down to what the CA contingent decides to do and how many teams the Big Ten would be looking to take... and I think we are closer to Stanford in the conversation than some of you are giving us credit for.
Other than the Broncos Colorado is a bandwagon state.
Win some games in Boulder and you will see the fans and the money show up.
Not sure.
Furthermore, CU has averaged 45K and 49K the past 2 seasons while Stanford averaged 37K both those years.
two out of the last three seasons, maybe. CU attendance really sucked last season.
Someone said that CU fan base is wayyyyyy better than Stanford, I’m not convinced that is really true but it maybe doesn’t matter today if it’s a matter of degree. No one is courting CU into a super conference because of our loyal, passionate fan base so beyond that this really doesn’t matter.
One of the better tweets I've seen in all this realignment craziness
I should've known better
