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!
Chipper: OU To Apply For PAC 12 Membership
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
I'd rather have KU than Sand Aggie or Okie light.
Well, we don't have pull on our own. But combine us with the AZ schools and that is 4 schools that almost certainly will say HELL NO to southwest division status. We got it good right now. Even if EVERYONE ELSE votes for expansion (no sure thing), 4 schools is enough to block expansion iirc.
Also, MU has called for a regents meeting tonight. Nothing on the agenda sugesteing conference stuff tho. http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/public_notices/090911_public_notice
CUFan
Welcome back
Stay at 12 please. However, if, for some reason unknown to me, we have to take some refugees, then I am all for OU and KU. Stop at 14.
You do realize the AZ schools are also in the Mountain Time Zone as well don't you?
The Guest
Guest
C'mon man, UBT isn't that bad.
ou would be a good get, at the right price. that's how the p12 is going to look at it. academically, they are improving. athletically, they are first-tier.
okie state would be a reach, but if the deal for ou is right, i expect the p12 will hold its nose and agree to let them in too.
tech brings nothing to the table. mizzery is a real stretch. ku is geographically undesirable but they bring an elite bb program. i think they'd be a stretch too.
reading the tea leaves, if everything comes apart, i would think the p12 will try to go to 14 and hold there until texas comes begging for admittance in a few years. in that scenario, you'd have to put the money on ou/osu as the next 2 members.
as to the question "why do they have to expand at all?" the answer is that the p12 is not going to put itself in a position where it is scrambling to find the right teams to get to 16 if the superconference thing starts to come together. if the p12 stands pat now and others go to 14, they won't have the strong bargaining position they have now to get the teams they want on the terms they want. and, there won't be as many teams to choose from. the p12 is not going to let other conferences have first choice of the teams available. otherwise, in a few years, they'll be scrambling to fill out the conference with teams like new mexico, san diego state, or boise state, none of which meets p12 criteria for athletics, academics, or overall prestige.
okie state would be a reach, but if the deal for ou is right, i expect the p12 will hold its nose and agree to let them in too.
tech brings nothing to the table. mizzery is a real stretch. ku is geographically undesirable but they bring an elite bb program. i think they'd be a stretch too.
reading the tea leaves, if everything comes apart, i would think the p12 will try to go to 14 and hold there until texas comes begging for admittance in a few years. in that scenario, you'd have to put the money on ou/osu as the next 2 members.
as to the question "why do they have to expand at all?" the answer is that the p12 is not going to put itself in a position where it is scrambling to find the right teams to get to 16 if the superconference thing starts to come together. if the p12 stands pat now and others go to 14, they won't have the strong bargaining position they have now to get the teams they want on the terms they want. and, there won't be as many teams to choose from. the p12 is not going to let other conferences have first choice of the teams available. otherwise, in a few years, they'll be scrambling to fill out the conference with teams like new mexico, san diego state, or boise state, none of which meets p12 criteria for athletics, academics, or overall prestige.
dply
Doble hoja
Sometimes.:lol:
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
OK, sure. however, you think the AZ schools are power players in the Pac? you might be right about a bloc of 4 but you couldn't put together 4 teams with less pull...imo. remember it was the Pac 8 at one point. not exactly like we have USC or UCLA on our side. we might, who knows? not sure exactly what makes the MST schools against OU that the PST seems to favor. OU is for real. they have a lot of trophies and a couple Elite Eights in hoops this decade. Tech, OSU (who i think is undervalued)..that's a diff story.
Last edited:
nope. if they do pods, i'd be willing to wager HUGE sums of money that one of the pods will be usc, ucla, cal, stanford.
the california schools will stick together.
CU isn't going to be a consideration for them at all.
Well thank god we got voting power. All that matters.
4 schools equals 4 votes which equals no expansion if they vote against it. So yeah they have enough pull. All 4 schools stand to lose a lot if they are moved into an east division.
we'll see.
i don't like our chances to block this. and if we cannot, i think we are stuck in an eastern division. and, honestly, if everything goes to 16 team superconferences with a playoff, i can't see how we avoid being a part of the whole thing.
CU is a passenger on the train.
What makes a conference a "superconference" at 16, but not at 12?
I don't give a damn what the other conferences do. I honestly don't see how that impacts us. Why do we care if the SEC has 16 teams? Do we really believe that will preclude us from participating in a championship tournament? Why is the magic number 16? or 14, for that matter? And why, if the magic number for the SEC is 16, does that automatically mean the same for the Pac? Makes no sense.
because tv money drives everything. and if you are going to break the bcs and the ncaa and do an elite school playoff, the brains want four 16 team conferences. each conf. champion advances to the playoffs, which only adds 2 games to the season. the whole deal prints billions in tv money. and college presidents don't have to wring their hands over an overly long season, while at the same time, the athletic directors of the 64 programs included get to control the whole thing.
follow.the.money.
GoBuffs08
Well-Known Member
Yeah but will UW and the Ducks vote for that? The nice part about the power breakdown in the PAC is everyone wants access to the Cali market and anything that restricts the access will be a roadblock to expansion.
That's making a very large assumption. Who are "the brains", and what the hell do they care whether the Pac has 12 teams or 16? There aren't four teams out there that would add to the money already being brought in. Expansion would be dilutive, except for *maybe* OU. UT is a non-starter. Nobody wants any part of them, the Pac included.
Again, if the SEC wants 16 teams, let them have it. No reason for us to follow suit. We'll be part of any championship discussion, regardless of the number of schools in the conference.
I trust Larry Scott. When the 16 team expansion was a possibility, and Baylor was making a stink, he went ahead and took that out of the equation by having CU join first. I could see him looking to expand to 14 teams first, having KU and OU join. One football power, one basketball power, and both provide new TV markets. Looking at the PAC-12 memebers the schools would at least have the better academic standards for the conferense. This would also put UT close to being on the outside looking in, where they may have to cave in order to get a seat at the table in any conference.
With aTm going to the SEC, Scott could cherry pick OU and KU, while MU and Okie State fight to become the 14th in the SEC.
With aTm going to the SEC, Scott could cherry pick OU and KU, while MU and Okie State fight to become the 14th in the SEC.
why such hate for Okie St ? is it because we see them as OU's little brother?
they aren't like csu is to the Buffs..
they have been very good at football, have great facilities - bball has been good for the most part
I'd be onboard for OU, OSU, MU & KU- TT is who I don't get
they aren't like csu is to the Buffs..
they have been very good at football, have great facilities - bball has been good for the most part
I'd be onboard for OU, OSU, MU & KU- TT is who I don't get
I see the NW schools fighting like hell to a) expand to 16, and b) go to east/west divisions.
An old Pac-8 division works better for them than the current north division, because it will give them a SoCal trip annually, which they don't have now.
I still think that Pac-12 is best, Pac-14 with OU and someone else is next, Pac-16 with pods is acceptable, Pac-16 with east/west is going to suck. The 4 schools that would be shuffled off to the east have to stick together, block expansion as long as possible, and get concessions from Scott. There are options other than east/west. The Big Ten and ACC do not have geographic divisions, and the Pac-16 wouldn't have to, either.
You could break up the schools into divisions where the travel partners are in different division with a guaranteed game against each other every year. Just don't call it 'Leaders' and 'Legends'.
An old Pac-8 division works better for them than the current north division, because it will give them a SoCal trip annually, which they don't have now.
I still think that Pac-12 is best, Pac-14 with OU and someone else is next, Pac-16 with pods is acceptable, Pac-16 with east/west is going to suck. The 4 schools that would be shuffled off to the east have to stick together, block expansion as long as possible, and get concessions from Scott. There are options other than east/west. The Big Ten and ACC do not have geographic divisions, and the Pac-16 wouldn't have to, either.
You could break up the schools into divisions where the travel partners are in different division with a guaranteed game against each other every year. Just don't call it 'Leaders' and 'Legends'.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
that's kind of what i think. frankly, i think we are pretty lucky to be in this conversation. we've sucked balls in men's rev sports for a while....
Okie St, first of all, does nothing to bring extra eyeballs and ergo is a net loss to us in terms of tv $$$$$. It would lessen our share, not expand it. Secondly, what does a trip to Stillwater do for us in terms of recruiting? If we're already going to Norman every two years, wouldn't we rather go to another market to play? It is the same as Lubbock. Finally, and no one need pretend that this isn't an issue, we don't have a T. Boone. The dude pours tons of $$$$$$$ to OSU. Sure, he's old, but that just means he'll leave like a billion $ to OSU when he kicks off.
So why, considering they don't help us at all and will consistently out-raise us in terms of $$$$$ because of T. Boone, would we want them in our conference? Especially if doing so cuts us off from CA and the Pacific NW?
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
That is only true if the financials stay the same with the new teams added. As it is likely that the money from TV goes up substantially if Texas joins the conference, I think CU will still see more money, even if OSU is in the conference.
Why go to Corvallis when we already go to Eugene? Why go to Pullman when we are already going to Seattle. We certainly aren't recruiting anyone up there. However, we are recruiting in Texas - and any games in Oklahoma are going to get us closer to Texas.
As Liver stated - the Buffs are just riding this train, we certainly aren't directing it.
Why pick up OU & KU? You get a football school and a b-ball school, but it's not going to increase your revenue. Those dates have a combined population of like 15 people.
Because it's the Pac foot print. I for one, think it is imperative to get OU in the PAC. If it takes accepting OSU too then so be it. It is looking more and more like Texas will not go PAC so OU becomes very important to the PAC to keep up with the Jones'.
Let's face it, who else out west is going to bring the strong tradition of winning and national branding that OU can. No one. If expansion is inevitable then OU to the PAC is a necessity, IMHO
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
I think you forgot that those schools were in the conference BEFORE us.