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!

Breaking: Texas AD Dodds stepping down

That is not exactly what I said, and if you don't think 50 UT alums could write that check today, your nuts. Ever been to a UT game ? Unfortunately I have been to a lot more then I would like to count with my wife being a alum. they regularly have Joe Blow and his wife you have never heard of handing over ungodly amounts of money. I will venture to say I have seen enough handed over at games to fund our stadium expansion, building upgrades, and whatever else it is we can't get enough money for. There are times it makes me sick but if you win at Football in Texas, people give you money, all the way down to the HS where a city like Allen builds a 60 million dollar stadium for HS football. 200 million get real
EagleStadium1stgame.JPG
 
What I am failing to see here is that people keep saying that money is the reason UT (OU etc) would move to the PAC 12. Yet I've pointed out that money is the exact reason that they wouldn't move to the PAC 12. They may have money coming out of their ass with donors, but they also have to show that it is a sound business decision. Throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars to just be part of some other conference when you are in a very stable Big 5 conference makes absolutey no sense. None.

Please show me how Texas moving and paying their way out of the GoR in any way makes them money.
 
buffedup said:
What I am failing to see here is that people keep saying that money is the reason UT (OU etc) would move to the PAC 12. Yet I've pointed out that money is the exact reason that they wouldn't move to the PAC 12. They may have money coming out of their ass with donors, but they also have to show that it is a sound business decision. Throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars to just be part of some other conference when you are in a very stable Big 5 conference makes absolutey no sense. None.

Please show me how Texas moving and paying their way out of the GoR in any way makes them money.
Click to expand...

If your assumption is correct - that there is not a viable exit strategy for the next decade for UT - then you are correct.

Maybe Bevo signed a deal that didn't give it any outs. Usually only the desperate or stupid do that and UT was neither. However, there is the other possibility that an organization completely blinded by its own arrogance and undeniable success of all its involved in could have been willing to lock in a long-term deal to appease its lesser partners.

I don't know.

But I would assume that if there is a way out that puts UT in a better situation and if that better situation is the Pac-12, Bevo and Scott will be skipping down the aisle together.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
All this talk, I can't really tell if people want Texas in the Pac-12, or if they don't want Texas in the Pac-12. Put the shoe on the other foot - what on earth does the Pac-12 have to offer Texas, aside from academic prestige?
Click to expand...

A new conference to kill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Buffnik said:
If your assumption is correct - that there is not a viable exit strategy for the next decade for UT - then you are correct.

Maybe Bevo signed a deal that didn't give it any outs. Usually only the desperate or stupid do that and UT was neither. However, there is the other possibility that an organization completely blinded by its own arrogance and undeniable success of all its involved in could have been willing to lock in a long-term deal to appease its lesser partners.

I don't know.

But I would assume that if there is a way out that puts UT in a better situation and if that better situation is the Pac-12, Bevo and Scott will be skipping down the aisle together.
Click to expand...

What you say makes sense in terms of an exit strategy, but isn't the whole point of the GoR to put your money where your mouth is? The idea is to make a long term legally binding commitment to the overall conference. I can't see the lawyers of the rest of the Big 12 schools allowing for any wiggle room in the contract that isn't mutually agreed to. Those schools are facing basically major athletics annihilation if the Texas/Oklahoma 4 head west.
 
Sounds like UT may start the search now and try to have someone in place sooner rather than later and use the remaining time before Dodds retires as transition time?
 
Buffnik said:
If your assumption is correct - that there is not a viable exit strategy for the next decade for UT - then you are correct.

Maybe Bevo signed a deal that didn't give it any outs. Usually only the desperate or stupid do that and UT was neither. However, there is the other possibility that an organization completely blinded by its own arrogance and undeniable success of all its involved in could have been willing to lock in a long-term deal to appease its lesser partners.

I don't know.

But I would assume that if there is a way out that puts UT in a better situation and if that better situation is the Pac-12, Bevo and Scott will be skipping down the aisle together.
Click to expand...

Possibility? Possibility? UBL/RK?
 
The other faulty assumption is that if UT has an out and leaves the B12 that the PAC is the only destination they would be interested in.

Culturally, geographically, and financially they arguably are a much better fit in the SEC. With the SEC network joined at the hip with ESPN this allows an easier solution to the LHN situation as well and the SEC TV money is bigger than the PAC money.

They would also be welcomed with open arms by the B1G. Again arguably they are culturally closer to tOSU and Mich than they are to the PAC and the market synergy would be easy to argue.

You could also see an opportunity with the ACC which may be willing to give UT the position at the head of the table they like in order to insure their prominence. With the ACC's new agreement with ND it is clear that they are open to "creative" conference building and a conference with UT, ND, and potentially a couple tag-alongs would be in better shape to survive the next round of re-organization. UT loves to be the big hog at the trough and the ACC would happily let them and ND take those prime spots.

We know that the PAC is somewhat limited in expansion options so Texas looks like a logical direction to turn but that doesn't mean that UT senses any obligation to confine their options to going west.
 
MtnBuff said:
The other faulty assumption is that if UT has an out and leaves the B12 that the PAC is the only destination they would be interested in.

Culturally, geographically, and financially they arguably are a much better fit in the SEC. With the SEC network joined at the hip with ESPN this allows an easier solution to the LHN situation as well and the SEC TV money is bigger than the PAC money.

They would also be welcomed with open arms by the B1G. Again arguably they are culturally closer to tOSU and Mich than they are to the PAC and the market synergy would be easy to argue.

You could also see an opportunity with the ACC which may be willing to give UT the position at the head of the table they like in order to insure their prominence. With the ACC's new agreement with ND it is clear that they are open to "creative" conference building and a conference with UT, ND, and potentially a couple tag-alongs would be in better shape to survive the next round of re-organization. UT loves to be the big hog at the trough and the ACC would happily let them and ND take those prime spots.

We know that the PAC is somewhat limited in expansion options so Texas looks like a logical direction to turn but that doesn't mean that UT senses any obligation to confine their options to going west.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, UT will consider that its fans want road games they can drive to. They also want to maintain the Red River Rivalry. Oklahoma likes the Pac-12 and recruits California heavily. Ego (can't be seen to follow aTm), academics and culture would prevent the SEC. Travel, the ACC and B1G. They'll use the others as negotiating leverage but at the end of the day they belong in the Pac-12 if they're going to make a move. It's been in the works for 20 years while UT tried other approaches that would be more Texas-centric and failed. There's a new paradigm developing with its fans and that will be reflected with the new AD.
 
Buffnik said:
At the end of the day, UT will consider that its fans want road games they can drive to. They also want to maintain the Red River Rivalry. Oklahoma likes the Pac-12 and recruits California heavily. Ego (can't be seen to follow aTm), academics and culture would prevent the SEC. Travel, the ACC and B1G. They'll use the others as negotiating leverage but at the end of the day they belong in the Pac-12 if they're going to make a move. It's been in the works for 20 years while UT tried other approaches that would be more Texas-centric and failed. There's a new paradigm developing with its fans and that will be reflected with the new AD.
Click to expand...

this is correct. the blocking terms (grants of rights and such) are just things to work around. for example, if a majority of b12 conf schools were to vote to disband, i'm pretty sure the grant of rights would be rendered meaningless. you also have to consider carriage terms in their current tv deal too.

one of the reasons i think that ut will not come alone is the grant of rights issues. we're at 12 now. let's say, hypothetically, ut brings tcu, baylor, and tech with them. ou and okie state flee to the sec. you only have to find homes for a couple more schools and the b12 would be toast. as i said, the "at risk" programs are the same as they were in the last shuffle--- the former b12north schools. kjuco state and iowa state in particular. ku maybe. altho, i would hope ku found a home just because of bb.
 
Liver said:
this is correct. the blocking terms (grants of rights and such) are just things to work around. for example, if a majority of b12 conf schools were to vote to disband, i'm pretty sure the grant of rights would be rendered meaningless. you also have to consider carriage terms in their current tv deal too.

one of the reasons i think that ut will not come alone is the grant of rights issues. we're at 12 now. let's say, hypothetically, ut brings tcu, baylor, and tech with them. ou and okie state flee to the sec. you only have to find homes for a couple more schools and the b12 would be toast. as i said, the "at risk" programs are the same as they were in the last shuffle--- the former b12north schools. kjuco state and iowa state in particular. ku maybe. altho, i would hope ku found a home just because of bb.
Click to expand...

No way Baylor and Tcu are coming with Texass to the Pac12. No effing way. We don't need them, they need us. In negotiations, having the top hand always wins. Texass either outsmarted themselves or their arrogance did them in. Right now, they have "no hand" which I'm sure galls the hell out of them and the Texass apologists we have on our board. If the PAC goes to 16, it's OU, OSU, TEXASS and whatever. There really is no school from the big 12 other than Kansas that would appeal to the chancellors. He'll, OSU is a huge stretch as its is and only viable if we really want OU that badly. I'd rather take BSU than any Big 12 texas tag along if we're going to stretch academics.
 
Liver said:
this is correct. the blocking terms (grants of rights and such) are just things to work around. for example, if a majority of b12 conf schools were to vote to disband, i'm pretty sure the grant of rights would be rendered meaningless. you also have to consider carriage terms in their current tv deal too.

one of the reasons i think that ut will not come alone is the grant of rights issues. we're at 12 now. let's say, hypothetically, ut brings tcu, baylor, and tech with them. ou and okie state flee to the sec. you only have to find homes for a couple more schools and the b12 would be toast. as i said, the "at risk" programs are the same as they were in the last shuffle--- the former b12north schools. kjuco state and iowa state in particular. ku maybe. altho, i would hope ku found a home just because of bb.
Click to expand...

bigskybuff said:
No way Baylor and Tcu are coming with Texass to the Pac12. No effing way. We don't need them, they need us. In negotiations, having the top hand always wins. Texass either outsmarted themselves or their arrogance did them in. Right now, they have "no hand" which I'm sure galls the hell out of them and the Texass apologists we have on our board. If the PAC goes to 16, it's OU, OSU, TEXASS and whatever. There really is no school from the big 12 other than Kansas that would appeal to the chancellors. He'll, OSU is a huge stretch as its is and only viable if we really want OU that badly. I'd rather take BSU than any Big 12 texas tag along if we're going to stretch academics.
Click to expand...

Big Sky Buff pretty much answers it right. Liver, your scenarios are pretty much impossible in the real world. Baylor and TCU will never ever ever be invited to the Pac 12. The west coast schools want absolutely nothing to do with religious institutions, which is why Baylor and BYU were never even remotely looked at. While Texas likes to think they rule the world, and you for whatever reason seem to agree, the don't. BSB calls it perfectly in that UT outsmarted themselves and have put themselves in a scenario where there is pretty much no way they get the votes needed to disband the conference and GoR in order to bolt to another conference.
 
buffedup said:
Not even UT and OU are going to write checks of AT LEAST $200 Million a piece (~$20M per year over 10 years of GoR) to move conferences. It would be the dumbest idea of all time. Please people at least think of the actual merit of your argument before just throwing out "oh they have all the money, it won't be a problem" argument.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't believe the GoR would hold up. The Big XII wouldn't hold up. I am not suggesting they would write those checks b/c I don't believe they will have to.

As for UTs options.

SEC - no way they would follow Aggy. That alone would be a non starter. But Texas has turned up their nose at SEC academics forever. SEC is least likely fit.
B1G - they need to add two more. The reason we keep talking about realignment, even with the GoR is b/c Delaney has said he is going to add 2-6 more schools. Speculation continues to swirl around Oklahoma and Kansas.
ACC - Texas said last go around ACC would be a possible landing spot. A Notre Dame type deal with football and then going Independent.

There was that article last week that said part of the displeasure with Dodds was screwing up the PAC 16 deal. Why would Texas want to move? B/C aggy is gaining traction big time in Texas. And the Big XII has a small national footprint comprised of a bunch of flyover schools and the Texahoma 4. Joining the PAC or B1G or even the ACC is about national branding. The thought of being Texcentric may be losing steam.
 
Last edited:
Easy to dismiss the SEC for the reasons listed, academic reputation, not following Aggie, etc. At the same time if the SEC meant $5-10 million more a year its a little easy for the Texans to forget certain historical issues. Add to that the idea of road trips to LSU, Bama, Arky, etc. How much could they sell tickets to those games at home for?

B1G would love to have Texas which would expand their footprint and counter their slowly weakening media domain. Again some huge money games in this deal and lots of potential.

ACC as discussed.

Not saying that UT would not be interested in the PAC and vice versa. At the same time UT is most interested in what they see as most beneficial to UT. You can talk all about reputation, history, etc. but in the end UT will do what the think is best for UT at the moment and find a way to justify it afterwords. Don't think for a minute that the other conferences would just accept that UT is headed west without trying to woe them their direction and don't think for a minute that the mighty UT wouldn't at least listen to see if they can get a better deal.
 
GregInArlington said:
Texas fans are probably the largest collective group of SEC haters that exist in this universe.
Click to expand...

This is correct.

Texas fan: "We don't have to cheat like the $EC to be good".

Texas fan likes to put himself up on a pedestal of righteousness. It's the same reason Briles won't end up at UT. Briles is seen as dirty, and Texas thinks they're too clean and special for dirty.
 
I think Texas will look to go the Notre Dame rout...find a conference for basketball, etc. and go Independent for Football.
 
Is it just me or is Muschamp highly overrated, Florida's offense has seemed pretty anemic ever since he got there.
 
That's funny that Muschamp was so far up on that list.

Are they resigning themselves that they put him in a ****ed up situation naming him HCIW to a guy who had no intentions of leaving anytime soon? And what makes them think that Muschamp will just let bygones be bygones and leave Fla for UT? OTOH, he might figure he'll have a better chance of competing with just OU than the rest of the SEC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top