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!

Boise State Football

TSchekler said:
When it comes to football/basketball affiliation, why do we care?
Click to expand...
It only matters in terms of the institution matching the culture of the rest of the conference members. Which means that for a school to fit in the Pac-12 it needs to be research focused in certain academic disciplines. No agriculture or military schools or schools that don't have an emphasis on its graduate programs. Possibly on religious schools, but they'd have to allow full academic & research freedom.

Beyond that, I don't particularly care. If a new member isn't Tier 1 but is striving toward it, I figure it will get there quickly with the Pac-12 affiliation. Important thing is on whether it's a cultural fit that would move the needle on the strength and value of the athletic conference.
 
Buffnik said:
It only matters in terms of the institution matching the culture of the rest of the conference members. Which means that for a school to fit in the Pac-12 it needs to be research focused in certain academic disciplines. No agriculture or military schools or schools that don't have an emphasis on its graduate programs.

Beyond that, I don't particularly care. If a new member isn't Tier 1 but is striving toward it, I figure it will get there quickly with the Pac-12 affiliation. Important thing is on whether it's a cultural fit that would move the needle on the strength and value of the athletic conference.
Click to expand...
Serious question because I don't know... Were Missouri and aTm good cultural and academic fits with the SEC? We've discussed Nebraska going into the BIG, and while they are a decent cultural fit, they clearly don't belong, academically. Yes, CU as an institution is a perfect match for the Pac 12 culturally and academically and that is all well and good, if the sport of college football wasn't rapidly changing into the 2nd most popular sport in the country and a billion dollar business.
 
TSchekler said:
Serious question because I don't know... Were Missouri and aTm good cultural and academic fits with the SEC? We've discussed Nebraska going into the BIG, and while they are a decent cultural fit, they clearly don't belong, academically. Yes, CU as an institution is a perfect match for the Pac 12 culturally and academically and that is all well and good, if the sport of college football wasn't rapidly changing into the 2nd most popular sport in the country and a billion dollar business.
Click to expand...
Missouri and aTm absolutely raised the academic prestige of the SEC. Something the conference wanted.

But it was a tough move, particularly for Mizzou. They really wanted the B1G. To this day, many in the B1G think it was a mistake to go with Rutgers & Maryland instead of Kansas & Missouri.
 
Buffnik said:
Missouri and aTm absolutely raised the academic prestige of the SEC. Something the conference wanted.

But it was a tough move, particularly for Mizzou. They really wanted the B1G. To this day, many in the B1G think it was a mistake to go with Rutgers & Maryland instead of Kansas & Missouri.
Click to expand...
That's great that they raised the academic prestige of the SEC, but you can't tell me for a second that the academic side of things were the driving factors of those institutions joining the SEC.
 
Buffnik said:
Missouri and aTm absolutely raised the academic prestige of the SEC. Something the conference wanted.

But it was a tough move, particularly for Mizzou. They really wanted the B1G. To this day, many in the B1G think it was a mistake to go with Rutgers & Maryland instead of Kansas & Missouri.
Click to expand...
Kansas and Missouri make way more sense. kNU makes more sense in the SEC or staying in the Big XII. These conferences are making less sense as time goes on...they seem a bit anachronistic.
 
TSchekler said:
That's great that they raised the academic prestige of the SEC, but you can't tell me for a second that the academic side of things were the driving factors of those institutions joining the SEC.
Click to expand...
Certainly not. But the SEC is different than everyone else with its culture. B1G, Pac-12 and ACC are all much more focused on the academic side of affiliations. That was a move that made the SEC more like everyone else. I don't think we'll see university presidents choose to go the other way.

The academic issues are a big reason why the Big 12 remains unstable and has trouble finding new members. At the time CU was in the conference, the Big 12 had 7 AAU members with CU, NU (at the time), KU, MU, UT, ISU and aTm. 4 of those 7 have left and the 2 additions (TCU and WVU) are not AAU. That has bothered a lot of folks at UT and KU (probably ISU, too, but they seem to be happy just being in a P5 these days because their situation is so precarious). OU also has academic aspirations to AAU and has been doing a lot more research, hiring very high caliber professors, etc. They don't like the academic dilution of the Big 12.
 
I would bet that most top professors/researchers at a university don't even know what athletic conference their school is in. I was just at a cocktail party (my wife is a prof at CU), and her dean thought we still played Texas and Nebraska every year. When my wife conducts research and writes articles, she hasn't once been asked to coordinate with other Pac 12 schools - hell she works with other profs at Georgia, Univ. of Chicago and Michigan most of the time.

This bullsh*t mostly matters to the presidents of the universities so they can use it for inspiration during their egghead circle jerks. It is also used as fodder by fans who want to make excuses why their team isn't any good, like they should get extra credit for every win because their school isn't a dumpster fire like KSU.

The Big 12 is unstable because it has Texas and Oklahoma in it, not because they lack AAU credentials.

If academic standards of a conference mattered, the SEC would have the lowest revenue.
 
One the most hilarious post threads in recent Allbuffs memoryy was some dude trying to prove to us that Boise is a worse program than csu. Pure comedy.
 
Buffnik said:
It only matters in terms of the institution matching the culture of the rest of the conference members. Which means that for a school to fit in the Pac-12 it needs to be research focused in certain academic disciplines. No agriculture or military schools or schools that don't have an emphasis on its graduate programs. Possibly on religious schools, but they'd have to allow full academic & research freedom.

Beyond that, I don't particularly care. If a new member isn't Tier 1 but is striving toward it, I figure it will get there quickly with the Pac-12 affiliation. Important thing is on whether it's a cultural fit that would move the needle on the strength and value of the athletic conference.
Click to expand...

Does Boise match that in your opinion Nik? If they do, I'd say invite them to join. I think we're falling behind the rest of the Power 5. They're one of the few who could help in this part of the country. If we could get the liberals in Cali to take BYU (ideally...hell CSU would work just fine if not) to go with them, we're in great shape.
 
ahoelsken said:
Does Boise match that in your opinion Nik? If they do, I'd say invite them to join. I think we're falling behind the rest of the Power 5. They're one of the few who could help in this part of the country. If we could get the liberals in Cali to take BYU to go with them, we're in great shape.
Click to expand...
They’re better and growing, but they’re very light still on grad schools.

UNLV, New Mexico and San Diego State definitely fit what I’m talking about from the MWC, but Boise State is still quite a stretch.

fwiw, it’s a stretch I’d make with an academic plan tied to membership because their goal as an institution is to be a peer and I think they’d get to the WSU/OSU level.
 
Buffnik said:
They’re better and growing, but they’re very light still on grad schools.

UNLV, New Mexico and San Diego State definitely fit what I’m talking about from the MWC, but Boise State is still quite a stretch.

fwiw, it’s a stretch I’d make with an academic plan tied to membership because their goal as an institution is to be a peer and I think they’d get to the WSU/OSU level.
Click to expand...

If we get them there, they're probably worth it as an add. I like New Mexico as an add over the others (I think we have a ton of alums in Vegas and San Diego already). What about Wyoming-don't they fit academically because they've gotta have everything?
 
hokiehead said:
**** you. I mean seriously, **** you -- that was uncalled for.

You attend an FCS school and you're calling VT's 2010 team led by Tyrod Taylor (which went on to win the ACC, FFS) "weak competition"?!?!?! **** you and the Bison you rode in on. Jesus Fvcking H. Christ.

we need to take this elsewhere, what other gawddamn boards do you post on?
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:
 
buffaholic said:
Boise State has to find guys that P5 guys pass on. They do an incredible job of evaluation.
However, I do believe it's slipped a bit under Harsin and we are starting to see just a small crack in the armor. They don't seem nearly as good on D as they used to be under Petersen. Something to watch IMO.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought their offense has really stepped back and the defense has kinda carried them.
 
Short of an almost immediate invitation to join a P5 conference Boise is in trouble financially.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sport...ty/boise-state-football/article181643311.html

Their revenues are not close to enough to sustain their athletic program. In the past they have depended on some significant contributions from the local business community and on even bigger subsidies from the school.

Both of those sources are now questionable. Some of the major corporate players in the Boise area have either struggled or even are gone. There are a substantial number of smaller businesses doing well there but those don't normally make the big contributions

MPC is gone, Albertsons workforce has shrunk by over half and some other long time players are out of the game. The economy of the area is growing rapidly, one of the fastest in the nation, but the newcomers are not likely to have the willingness to put the kind of money into the football program that others have in the past.

At the same time all that growth has strained the state budget. HIgher education is feeling the pinch and it will be hard for them to justify putting money into athletics while cutting funding in other areas.
 
For 30 years, until last year, Boise State was in the Pac-12 as an affiliate member in Wrestling until it was dropped by the school. Why didn't that raise any academic flags? San Diego State is in for soccer also.

Affiliate football membership for Boise State and BYU in the Pac-12 would be huge. Invite Gonzaga and New Mexico for basketball only.
 
ScottyBuff said:
For 30 years, until last year, Boise State was in the Pac-12 as an affiliate member in Wrestling until it was dropped by the school. Why didn't that raise any academic flags? San Diego State is in for soccer also.

Affiliate football membership for Boise State and BYU in the Pac-12 would be huge. Invite Gonzaga and New Mexico for basketball only.
Click to expand...

From a financial standpoint BYU would be the best bet. They fill a 65k seat stadium and due to their religious affiliation draw a national TV audience sufficient for ESPN to pay them for rights and show them frequently. They travel well and have national name recognition.

With all that BYU has zero chance of getting in to the PAC. The Presidents of the California schools and many others would never, and I mean never, vote for a school that is owned by the LDS church as long as that church requires the school to be highly consistent with church teaching in terms of homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, the role of women in leadership and society, and others. They would not accept a school that not only is a limited school in terms of research muscle but that also restricts the academic and research freedom of it's faculty and students.
 
MtnBuff said:
From a financial standpoint BYU would be the best bet. They fill a 65k seat stadium and due to their religious affiliation draw a national TV audience sufficient for ESPN to pay them for rights and show them frequently. They travel well and have national name recognition.

With all that BYU has zero chance of getting in to the PAC. The Presidents of the California schools and many others would never, and I mean never, vote for a school that is owned by the LDS church as long as that church requires the school to be highly consistent with church teaching in terms of homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, the role of women in leadership and society, and others. They would not accept a school that not only is a limited school in terms of research muscle but that also restricts the academic and research freedom of it's faculty and students.
Click to expand...

Not making a case for them to be full-fledged members. Yet, as referenced here, the Pac-12 moral high grounds don't prevent them from regularly scheduling BYU in football games. Why the hypocrisy?

It's just football for crying out loud, nobody is asking the Pac-12 presidents to become BFF's with the LDS church.
 
Buffnik said:
They had a special deal within the MWC tv deal that paid them more than every other member of the conference and the MWC's tv deal didn't limit how much one team could be picked for the main broadcast slot. The unbalanced money is going away (it was a payoff to keep them from leaving for the Big East) and Boise State is not happy with things. They feel that all the late start times are killing attendance. They'd love to move up and would probably do very well. Program's at least as good as Utah's was when they moved up.
Click to expand...

I agree with them. But not just attendance, it seems it’s killing TV viewership and exposure in the PAC.
 
Buffnik said:
Why wouldn't you want their basketball and other programs in the conference?
Click to expand...
I’m not opposed to them having full membership. I was thinking out loud that perhaps a football only affiliation would actually be accepted by PAC presidents. It would give the revenue boost where needed while also not earning BSU a complete full revenue share, and could be attached to a long term proposal to raise their academic profile.
 
Buffs35 said:
I would bet that most top professors/researchers at a university don't even know what athletic conference their school is in. I was just at a cocktail party (my wife is a prof at CU), and her dean thought we still played Texas and Nebraska every year. When my wife conducts research and writes articles, she hasn't once been asked to coordinate with other Pac 12 schools - hell she works with other profs at Georgia, Univ. of Chicago and Michigan most of the time.

This bullsh*t mostly matters to the presidents of the universities so they can use it for inspiration during their egghead circle jerks. It is also used as fodder by fans who want to make excuses why their team isn't any good, like they should get extra credit for every win because their school isn't a dumpster fire like KSU.

The Big 12 is unstable because it has Texas and Oklahoma in it, not because they lack AAU credentials.

If academic standards of a conference mattered, the SEC would have the lowest revenue.
Click to expand...
I disagree. most professors are well aware of the conference their school is in. I spent 25 years as a professor at several schools. The people you work with are usually the ones you have common interests with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top