College Football News, Rumor & Humor

[The Alabaster Yak]

Football fans don't get to make decisions about conferences and other things. University administrators do. You think CU's powers don't remember being in the same conference as Oklahoma State, who matriculated illiterate students as long as they could play football? It matters to them that they can claim to be the academic peer of Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Washington, etc.

So we joined a conference with ASU! Got it!

 

[buffaholic]

I can agree with that from a moral perspective, but nobody is really sitting here anymore slamming the SEC, ACC and Big 12 for their handling of it, even the BIG, who handled it the same way the Pac 12 did, ended up starting two weeks earlier, which has allowed their middling programs the opportunity to be nationally relevant. In the context of big money college athletics, they did it wrong and the Pac 12 is once again irrelevant.

The PAC12 could have played 40 games this year and still been irrelevant.

This is a "practice year" and I wouldn't draw too much from a silly season like this. There's absolutely issues that we've been discussing for years, but how the PAC12 decided to handle this as a good global citizen did not having meaningful effect on those issues.

The biggest issue is culture followed by timezone. Culture is why the PAC12 handled this correctly. It's why the Ivy schools cancelled the season.

edit: and I agree with Klatt that this is the worse run sports conference. But I just happen to take issue with the way the rest of the conferences other than the B1G handled Covid.

 

[Uncle Ken]

This is correct.

These things with conferences run in cycles. It wasn't too many years back that the talk was that the Big 10 was obsolete and on the way out. A bunch of schools in states with declining populations and economies that couldn't recruit talent from warm weather states because of lousy climate. A list of the faster declining TV viewing markets included most of the Big 10 and the joke was how badly their teams were getting beaten in bowls against the SEC and the PAC.

In the long run nobody is going to compete even up with the SEC. The culture of the market and the schools is simply different than the rest of the country.

CU like the other PAC schools doesn't dominate the sports marketplace in the state and the region like SEC schools do. CU and the other PAC schools as well are not willing to sell their souls to a football culture in order to win like the SEC schools do.

The ACC has some schools that function in SEC manner, some others who don't, hence the conference with the largest gap between the top and bottom of the conference.

I know Sacky and some others don't like this idea but the college football is in an era of change and restructuring.

The PAC does dominate the geographic western 1/3 of the nation including many of the fastest growing and highest income metropolitan areas in the nation.

Where are the fastest growing markets not already in the PAC region of dominance? Mostly in Texas.

The B12 as it sits is not viable for the long term. UT and OU are powers both on the field and more importantly in terms of TV viewership. Okie Lite, and TTU have some strength and financial support. The rest are lower tier programs. Baylor only got included in the B12 because of politics, KU is a quality school and a top BB program but football is what drives finances and KU football has never been viable. Iowa State, KjSU, and the other Texas schools are only P5 now because of history and good fortune.

Eventually a financially viable PAC 12 will include UT, OU, Okie Lite and one other, most likely TTU. UT will have options but the Texans like the idea of being associated with a conference with the academic standing of the PAC. OU has put huge amounts of money into increasing their academic standing as well. The Longhorn Network is an obstacle but is also a financial failure and an early end could be negotiated to the benefit of ESPN and UT. The rest of the B12 will go into it's slide into G5 status.

We would all love to see CU at the top of the college football world but do we have the finances to go there? Not likely. We have a smallish stadium that we don't sell out, our donations are at best middle of the PAC, and our administration is not going to make the academic and other compromises needed to put us on a footing with the SEC mentality.

Some have talked about going to the B1G but are we willing and able to compete with tOSU, PSU, etc. to do what it takes to win. How did that work out for ****braska and they spend the money and make the compromises.

Our fit is the PAC, our future though is in a different looking PAC.

Are you mocking me?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The PAC12 could have played 40 games this year and still been irrelevant.

This is a "practice year" and I wouldn't draw too much from a silly season like this. There's absolutely issues that we've been discussing for years, but how the PAC12 decided to handle this as a good global citizen did not having meaningful effect on those issues.

The biggest issue is culture followed by timezone. Culture is why the PAC12 handled this correctly. It's why the Ivy schools cancelled the season.

USC sitting at 7-0 right now with a regular season game and Pac 12 Championship left would put them fully in play for the CFP.

 

[BuffsNYC]

So we joined a conference with ASU! Got it!

Good argument, bro. I don't think a conference where the second highest ranked university doesn't believe in evolution is the right fit for CU--and neither does CU's administration.

• University of Texas—Austin: 48 (tie)
• Baylor University: 79 (tie)
• Texas Christian University: 97 (tie)
• Iowa State University: 121 (tie)
• University of Kansas: 130 (tie)
• University of Oklahoma: 132 (tie)
• Kansas State University: 162 (tie)
• Oklahoma State University: 192 (tie)

• Stanford University: 7.
• University of California—Los Angeles: 19 (tie)
• University of California—Berkeley: 22 (tie)
• University of Southern California: 22 (tie)
• University of Washington: 59 (tie)
• University of Colorado—Boulder: 96 (tie)
• University of Oregon: 102 (tie)
• University of Arizona: 106 (tie)

 

[BuffsNYC]

Are you mocking me?

Boy, you're sensitive today. Is it that time of your cycle?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Good argument, bro. I don't think a conference where the second highest ranked university doesn't believe in evolution is the right fit for CU--and neither does CU's administration.

• University of Texas—Austin: 48 (tie)
• Baylor University: 79 (tie)
• Texas Christian University: 97 (tie)
• Iowa State University: 121 (tie)
• University of Kansas: 130 (tie)
• University of Oklahoma: 132 (tie)
• Kansas State University: 162 (tie)
• Oklahoma State University: 192 (tie)

• Stanford University: 7.
• University of California—Los Angeles: 19 (tie)
• University of California—Berkeley: 22 (tie)
• University of Southern California: 22 (tie)
• University of Washington: 59 (tie)
• University of Colorado—Boulder: 96 (tie)
• University of Oregon: 102 (tie)
• University of Arizona: 106 (tie)

Good argument as it pertains to athletics, bro.

 

[GuySmiley]

Buffnik has been banging this gong for years now, but a Nationally relevant USC and either/or/both of Oregon and Washington is incredibly important for Pac 12 success.

USC is well off historical standards of success for an extended period. Oregon is a shadow of the juggernaut it was in the 00’s. Washington can’t seem to truly emerge.

High tide lifts all boats.

My son asked me about PAC-12 relevance Saturday. In the past, I thought conferences were more cyclical; but in this age it looks like it will be a long slog back for the PAC-12. In the past, the NCAA enforcement office seemed to have more teeth/impact , as it generally took much longer to get past the stain of being on probation/bowl bans. This was one tool. Now with these power conferences, it seems SEC/B1B & ACC really wield the power and will do so for sometime. I'm not sure that will re-balance anytime soon, especially if ND either joins the ACC or plays an ACC heavy schedule.

As I see it, although the PAC-12 will re-negotiate their TV rights, I still believe the PAC will be severely behind the 8-ball. I feel like except for a few marquee games, the conference seems pigeonholed-holed into the late afternoon/evening TV slots. I know the 9am/10am games are an option, but I'm not sure how much of an inroad the PAC will make in the early morning slot (except for USC/ASU game, I'd imagine this will be a filler for less popular PAC teams). I'm not sure the PAC-12 will make further inroads on ESPN, as they seem set with ACC/B1G/SEC on the weekends, except for the night slots. I think Fox will continue to split their coverage. ABC only typically slots one PAC-12 game. The PAC-12 Network is a disaster. Part of that was not getting that DirectTV deal done.

Another concern is the ongoing battle between cable/dish providers battle and the programmers/channels. Altitude is still keeping the Avs and Nugs off Comcast/Xfinity in Denver Metro and that does not look to break anytime soon. The programmers are kicking local networks off Dish/DirectTV, such that even NFL games are in play. @Liver can probably speak to this, but I read an article about a year ago, about the Dodgers only being on like 1 in 6 Angeleno's tv networks. They either did an exclusive with one provider, or they could not negotiate with the others. I have not delved deeply into the subject--although there are always statements by both sides about on-going good faith contract negotiations that seemingly go nowhere, I'm not convinced that this is not an exclusive play for one provider over another in certain cities. That seems to be where the business model is trending. For overall TV exposure, I think the PAC will continue to lag nationally.

I think the California High School football restrictions and the exodus of youth/high school football across the PAC-12 will diminish the overall talent/recruit pool within the Pac-12's footprint. This could be impacting attendance. Also, the PAC is just not the South or Texas, where college football is king. Same with the B1G, although other sports may compete, the loyalty, long history of the schools, and rivalries drive their exposure.

Then it is the PAC itself, in truth from a national perspective, historically it is 4 teams: USC, OU (last 25 years), UCLA (sort of down for a while) and UW (although despite many great seasons, UW always seems to be a lesser player on the national stage for some reason). Stanford does get decent exposure. To improve, I think the PAC has to gave some sustained runs by 8-9 teams (the historical 4 + 5 more) for certain periods of time. They cannot all make the runs together in one-four seasons stretches, but CU, UT, CAL, ASU, all need to have periods of some breakthroughs and gain prominence. I do like CU's chances in the South. It is sort of interesting that for all CU's struggles since joining the PAC, from a historical perspective over the past 50 CU is about on par with UCLA (the head to heads are skewed since CU joined the PAC, UCLA 191Ws, CU 187Ws 4Ts) highly ranked games; CU actually holds an edge on major bowl appearances +NC, conference titles (using CU in B12/Pac12), etc... UCLA has played in 2 PAC-12 championship games, CU 1. A CU breakout for the PAC-12 South would be a great development for the PAC.

 

[BuffsNYC]

Good argument as it pertains to athletics, bro.

It's OK, I get that you can't wrap your head around who actually makes the decisions for the university.

Carry on.

 

[Buffs35]

Arguments about cultural fit and academic prestige are about as useful as ranking our favorite road uniform combinations.

 

[BuffsNYC]

Arguments about cultural fit and academic prestige are about as useful as ranking our favorite road uniform combinations.

Except to the people in the university's hierarchy who have actual, you know, power. I agree that those arguments aren't well received by football fans on a sports-oriented message board. Go figure.

 

[GuySmiley]

Fair point.

As I pointed out before, there is a cycle to this. 1995 wasn't that long ago (an eternity for current recruits, of course, but not so long in the modern football landscape).

That year the Big 8 placed four teams in the final AP Top 10 poll. All four of those teams became part of what was to be the Big 12 North the following season. It wasn't long after that the Big 12 North was a bit of a national joke as a football division. There is a cycle.

There have been several times in the past 20 years, that I'd argue the Pac was the dominant football conference of the season. I'm not suggesting that is the current situation.

Also, I acknowledge that ESPN's affiliation with the SEC Network allows for unusual control of the narrative, and that is having an unprecedented impact on the overall landscape.

There is a cycle.

The cool West Coast vibe has served the PAC in the past, and it will again. The footprint covers some important recruiting territory, and there are some storied programs in the conference and there are some nouveau riche splashy programs too.

There is a cycle. I feel that Colorado's culture fits most with the PAC, and while it's justified to be critical of the leadership that has impacted our current situation, this sorts itself out. Patience.

There is a cycle.

List the several times over the past 20 years that the PAC has been the dominant conference of the season? USC had a run, OR has been great a few seasons, UW one playoff appearance... IMO, the PAC has pretty much been USC or bust. What year was the PAC better than the SEC over the last 20? 2005?

I discussed other factors in another post.

 

[GuySmiley]

USC sitting at 7-0 right now with a regular season game and Pac 12 Championship left would put them fully in play for the CFP.

Winning 7 conference games, and they would certainly be in the discussion!

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

It's OK, I get that you can't wrap your head around who actually makes the decisions for the university.

Carry on.

I'm fully aware of who makes the decisions. What does that have to do with the discussion in this thread?

 

[Buffs35]

Except to the people in the university's hierarchy who have actual, you know, power. I agree that those arguments aren't well received by football fans on a sports-oriented message board. Go figure.

You mean the same people that have jacked tuition rates because federal guaranteed student loans are free money to universities? The same people that tell undergrads it doesn't matter what you major in, so long as you get the degree?

Conference revenue >>> recruiting footprint >>> major donors >>> away uniforms >>> cultural fit >>> academic chops of universities 100s of miles away

 

[onealcd]

List the several times over the past 20 years that the PAC has been the dominant conference of the season? USC had a run, OR has been great a few seasons, UW one playoff appearance... IMO, the PAC has pretty much been USC or bust. What year was the PAC better than the SEC over the last 20? 2005?

I discussed other factors in another post.

Pac 10/12 was widely regarded as the second best conference in the early 2010’s.

 

[Gary Indiana]

So we joined a conference with ASU! Got it!

Those losers are just Grandfathered in.

 

[dio]

You mean the same people that have jacked tuition rates because federal guaranteed student loans are free money to universities? The same people that tell undergrads it doesn't matter what you major in, so long as you get the degree?

Conference revenue >>> recruiting footprint >>> major donors >>> away uniforms >>> cultural fit >>> academic chops of universities 100s of miles away

Yes! Another person who hates Universities but wants to participate on a message board dedicated to a University!

 

[Fight CU]

I think you meant:

That wasn't sushi!

You're welcome.

smells like fish but it tastes like chick-ennnnn

 

[BuffsNYC]

I'm fully aware of who makes the decisions. What does that have to do with the discussion in this thread?

Nothing, as long as you want to argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

OTOH, if you were interested in discussing actually viable changes to the Pac 12 athletic administration or realignment of conferences, then it matters quite a bit--some might say even more than the opinion of posters on an obscure message board. So, feel free to lament the days of CU in the Big XII and pine for our return, just know that it's like believing in Santa Claus.

 

[MtnBuff]

It is very possible that college football as we know it won't exist in 10-15 years.

With recent developments in terms of "cost of attendance" and stipends and even bigger the ability of players to be paid for their images the financial landscape at the top of college football is going to shock the current structure.

Remember the SWC, what we will see from SEC schools and some ACC and B1G schools will make that look like pocket change. Kids are going to be taking pay cuts to go into the NFL.

As that happens how long do certain states including PAC states allow football players (and basketball players) to be paid to attend a public university while women athletes are getting tuition and living expenses?

Remember that at one time the Ivy League and the service academies dominated college football. The University of Chicago was a power and the University of San Francisco was a big name on the Pacific coast. Locally the big rival for CU was the University of Denver.

A lot of schools are going to be forced into making some very hard decisions. Schools that are already putting millions of dollars into athletics will have to either find huge amounts more money or decide to scale things back to another level.

And it won't be all about money for some schools. How will schools like Stanford and Cal feel about running what is essentially a professional athletics program that has dropped much of even the appearance of being about "student-athletes?"

 

[GuySmiley]

Conference revenue >>> recruiting footprint >>> major donors >>> away uniforms >>> cultural fit >>> academic chops of universities 100s of miles away

Good list... I'd add in TV exposure, rivalries and destination away games into that list somewhere...

For rivalries, I'd say USC/UCLA is the strongest rivalry in the PAC12, but UCLA has been down--that one always has national exposure. Then it is USC-Notre Dame, or Stanford-ND. That is a difference from the SEC and B1G, some teams seem to have 2-3 rivalry games a year.

 

[Buffs35]

Yes! Another person who hates Universities but wants to participate on a message board dedicated to a University!

No, my argument would simply be that the academic prestige of a university is not tied to an athletic conference. CU would still be a fine academic institution in the mountain west or WAC. Athletics and academics are two separate books on the same bookshelf, not separate chapters in the same book.

 

[GuySmiley]

Pac 10/12 was widely regarded as the second best conference in the early 2010’s.

I could see that . . . but wasn't that generally USC & UO?? I know Stanford had some good seasons... UW was solid...

 

[onealcd]

I could see that . . . but wasn't that generally USC & UO?? I know Stanford had some good seasons... UW was solid...

Stanford, asu, oregon, usc, even arizona and Washington. It was an extremely deep conference.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Nothing, as long as you want to argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. OTOH, if you were interested in discussing actually viable changes to the Pac 12 athletic administration or realignment of conferences, then it matters quite a bit--some might say even more than the opinion of posters on an obscure message board.

All I've said is the Pac 12 is an inept athletic conference for revenue generating sports and CU has not really benefited from being a member to this point. Some people here have argued against that for some reason, which has carried on this conversation. I am under no illusion that my anonymous opinions are changing the minds of University Presidents; they are simply my opinions on the state of the conference that my favorite team and alma mater resides in.

 

[dio]

No, my argument would simply be that the academic prestige of a university is not tied to an athletic conference. CU would still be a fine academic institution in the mountain west or WAC. Athletics and academics are two separate books on the same bookshelf, not separate chapters in the same book.

Yep - that was definitely clear when you made a bunch of stupid and unrelated claims to that point:

You mean the same people that have jacked tuition rates because federal guaranteed student loans are free money to universities? The same people that tell undergrads it doesn't matter what you major in, so long as you get the degree?

Conference revenue >>> recruiting footprint >>> major donors >>> away uniforms >>> cultural fit >>> academic chops of universities 100s of miles away

 

[GuySmiley]

It is very possible that college football as we know it won't exist in 10-15 years.

With recent developments in terms of "cost of attendance" and stipends and even bigger the ability of players to be paid for their images the financial landscape at the top of college football is going to shock the current structure.

Remember the SWC, what we will see from SEC schools and some ACC and B1G schools will make that look like pocket change. Kids are going to be taking pay cuts to go into the NFL.

As that happens how long do certain states including PAC states allow football players (and basketball players) to be paid to attend a public university while women athletes are getting tuition and living expenses?

Remember that at one time the Ivy League and the service academies dominated college football. The University of Chicago was a power and the University of San Francisco was a big name on the Pacific coast. Locally the big rival for CU was the University of Denver.

A lot of schools are going to be forced into making some very hard decisions. Schools that are already putting millions of dollars into athletics will have to either find huge amounts more money or decide to scale things back to another level.

And it won't be all about money for some schools. How will schools like Stanford and Cal feel about running what is essentially a professional athletics program that has dropped much of even the appearance of being about "student-athletes?"

I think you forgot to mention the rising and future medical costs (CTE)... as well.

 

[BuffsNYC]

No, my argument would simply be that the academic prestige of a university is not tied to an athletic conference. CU would still be a fine academic institution in the mountain west or WAC. Athletics and academics are two separate books on the same bookshelf, not separate chapters in the same book.

This is false. Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth are just generic New England/Mid-Atlantic universities like Tufts without the Ivy League designation. Sure it may all be perception, but that matters quite a lot. Tell me, what's the best academic university in the Mountain West--you can't because nobody cares.

 

[GuySmiley]

Good argument, bro. I don't think a conference where the second highest ranked university doesn't believe in evolution is the right fit for CU--and neither does CU's administration.

• University of Texas—Austin: 48 (tie)
• Baylor University: 79 (tie)
• Texas Christian University: 97 (tie)
• Iowa State University: 121 (tie)
• University of Kansas: 130 (tie)
• University of Oklahoma: 132 (tie)
• Kansas State University: 162 (tie)
• Oklahoma State University: 192 (tie)

• Stanford University: 7.
• University of California—Los Angeles: 19 (tie)
• University of California—Berkeley: 22 (tie)
• University of Southern California: 22 (tie)
• University of Washington: 59 (tie)
• University of Colorado—Boulder: 96 (tie)
• University of Oregon: 102 (tie)
• University of Arizona: 106 (tie)

I don't know where you got your numbers, but I use USNews rankings for National Universities. Harvard, Yale are all towards the top. TRUE: The PAC-12 is a better academic conference than the B12. But anyone using a Pac-12 is better academically than the rest of the P5 conferences is using out of date material. Just looking at the Top 60 schools: ACC--8, B1G--8, PAC-12--5, SEC--4. CU is #103, tied with Arizona State and Oregon; behind Arizona. I think we have TABOR to thank for CU no longer having the perception of being "CAL-Berkley" of the Rockies.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Unless, you school is sniffing the Top-50 (that is why I used the Top-60 schools), I would not call it excellent academically. The California Schools are a bit odd, they have quite a few state schools in the Top-60-- Davis, Irvine, San Diego. Plus Santa Clara and Pepperdine.

For large universities, I believe Football and Academics is a two way street and they both need each other. Football is the #1 national exposure vehicle. I believe if your team is good, with increased positive exposure, then the pool of highly qualified applicants goes up and out-of-state students have more interest driving academics and revenue up. With winning, there is more outside and alumni participation, thus more donations to both the AD and the University for academics.