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!

Conference Expansion - Big 12 is a tire fire

If the pod schedule I posted were adopted, the central time zone schools would play two games a year in the Pacific time zone. No big deal.

As for Kansas as a preference vs. Tech or Lite. Basketball. I don't care about tech or lite in football, regardless of their recent history.

From phone
 
Kansas, while certainly not another Stanford academically, is a better match culturally for the PAC. It is a school with a decent academic reputation and some good research.

Kansas would also help bring in some interest in midwest TV markets and their basketball history is certain not a negative. Unless I am mistaken KU also has decent number of alums in a lot of the PAC footprint states.
 
CUFan said:
Maybe adding TX and such will help with the horrible left coast time zone stuff. If we and they are in some sort of Eastern division, I presume we wouldn't have to accommodate PT nearly as much.
Click to expand...

Now explain the plan to get Texas their seven home games they expect?
 
Why do you guys think Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are tied together? Or Kansas and KSU? Are there elected officials pulling strings?
 
tante said:
Why do you guys think Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are tied together? Or Kansas and KSU? Are there elected officials pulling strings?
Click to expand...

Both of those states actually have significant state funding for higher ed and yes elected officials pull strings. Behind those elected officials are some big money donors.

T. Boone wouldn't be a happy man if OU left OSU behind.
 
Both OU and KU fans are convinced leaving Lite or KjSU wouldn't be an issue when push came to shove.
 
The only reason we would need to expand is if the P5 conferences decide to go to a 14 game schedule. If that happens, you add UNLV and UNM and call it good. There is not now, nor will there ever be a compelling reason to invite Texas to this conference.
 
MtnBuff said:
Both of those states actually have significant state funding for higher ed and yes elected officials pull strings. Behind those elected officials are some big money donors.

T. Boone wouldn't be a happy man if OU left OSU behind.
Click to expand...

The closed door shenanigans could play a role, but iirc, a few years back there were whispers of the boomers getting an invite to the $ec, sans okie lite. I think OU could move without the cowboys -- it would ruffle feathers, but imho it could happen.

One other consideration that OU would face would be the pressure to keep both the okie lite and red river rivalry games in tact if the boomers jumped. That seriously limits their ooc options, which would be very unattractive to the folks in Norman.

Not sure about the squawks and kjucost situation. I imagine politics could play a part there, too.
 
SD Buff said:
^^ Sorry man, you just gave me all the reason I need.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly saying you'd prefer UT to UNM and UNLV? Think about the consequences of allowing UT in the conference. UNLV and UNM would increase the basketball profile while not exposing the conference to the death grip that is UT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
sackman said:
Are you honestly saying you'd prefer UT to UNM and UNLV? Think about the consequences of allowing UT in the conference. UNLV and UNM would increase the basketball profile while not exposing the conference to the death grip that is UT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you don't want to hold all or most of the conference championship games in the JerryDome or some other Texas venue, same goes for other sports tourney's like MBB and WBB.

You don't want somebody talking conference unity in public and trying to make their own deals in the back rooms.

There is no question that Texas is one of the few conference expansion options potentially available that would bring in more money to the conference than they would cost the conference. That said they have a long and ugly history of trying to use that fact and everything else at their disposal to push for their interest, even when those interest clearly don't reflect the interest of their conference partners.

The SWC may have officially gone into the history books but the attitudes and tactics of the SWC live on in it's former members, Texas in the lead.

I don't think that UNLV is a viable candidate. Doesn't have the paying fan support, doesn't have the academic reputation, and has a shady past.

With that in mind I do think there are better candidates if expansion were ever to be forced. The Oklahoma/Kansas would be my preference but other choices do exist as well.

UNM is consistently one of the worst football programs in the country but the potential is there given a little administrative support and a good AD/HC hire.

New Mexico doesn't have a lot of in state talent but they are close to Texas and Oklahoma to their east and Arizona to the west as well as recruiting Cali. They don't draw well but Albuquerque is a rapidly growing TV market and they have little direct competition for sports spending. A well run program with some money invested in it should be able to draw serious support in that market. Unfortunately they haven't had that in a long time.
 
Yes, I am honestly saying that. I don't give Texas that much power and don't think they would have that much power in the PAC. And texahoma 4 vs. Any other option not only raises the football profile - it would be a highly significant difference in money. That will be a consideration considering the money the SEC and B1G will be taking in

From phone
 
SD Buff said:
Yes, I am honestly saying that. I don't give Texas that much power and don't think they would have that much power in the PAC. And texahoma 4 vs. Any other option not only raises the football profile - it would be a highly significant difference in money. That will be a consideration considering the money the SEC and B1G will be taking in

From phone
Click to expand...

those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it. The Big 8 said the same thing, look what happened. Don't take the chance. The money isn't all that great. And, when you come right down to it, we don't need to expand anyway. If we get more money via the simple act of expansion, do it with schools that are already within the footprint and won't destroy the conference. I want absolutely no part of UT in the PAC. Nothing they bring is worth the baggage.
 
The Pac 12 completely owns 2 of the 4 time zones in the continental United States in some of the fastest growing markets in the country. Expansion is not necessary. All of the other scenarios that people are repeating for the 100th time (I know no harm was meant, but hokiehead almost deserves a negative rep for this thread) have been thoroughly discussed.
 
Texass addition means increase in revenues, DirecTV deals with P12 gets done in a day........ everything else equals long term headaches and dysfunction.

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

Can't grow the P12 footprint without diluting conference revenues imo. San Diego, Vegas, St Louis, Kansas City, Albuquerque are all valuable markets to capture, but will not add revenue value that a top 5 market (Dallas/Ft.Worth) and even top 10 (Houston) can. Still can't justify a run at adding UT, they will not be long term partners in the P12 structure of revenue sharing...... as we exhausted in prior posts.
 
buffedup said:
The Pac 12 completely owns 2 of the 4 time zones in the continental United States in some of the fastest growing markets in the country. Expansion is not necessary. All of the other scenarios that people are repeating for the 100th time (I know no harm was meant, but hokiehead almost deserves a negative rep for this thread) have been thoroughly discussed.
Click to expand...


REP this MAN!
 
dply said:
Texas is the hottest chick at the party but she has a pretty big puss oozing vagina.
Click to expand...

fify

It may be fun for the moment but she's gonna give you something that you don't want and that a couple trips to the doctor won't cure.
 
If access to Texas markets is really important, there are more options than UT.

SMU or N Texas for DFW and U Houston or Rice for H-town.
All the access to fertile recruiting grounds.
Each have admins who would enjoy gaining share from UT in the big metro areas.
Rice is the Stanford of Texas.
Cougar High, SMU, and North Texas all have or are building new stadiums.

Why overpay for UT when there are other valuable options available?
 
Skidmark said:
If access to Texas markets is really important, there are more options than UT.

SMU or N Texas for DFW and U Houston or Rice for H-town.
All the access to fertile recruiting grounds.
Each have admins who would enjoy gaining share from UT in the big metro areas.
Rice is the Stanford of Texas.
Cougar High, SMU, and North Texas all have or are building new stadiums.

Why overpay for UT when there are other valuable options available?
Click to expand...

lol

saying that SMU or N Texas gets you the Dallas market is kind of like saying csu will get you the Denver market....
 
I'm not sure why we want the Texas market to begin with. As has been pointed out, we already control two entire time zones (three if you throw Hawaii in to the mix). For college sports in the Mountain and Pacific time zone, we're it. Why mess with that? This whole "Texas brings money" argument is crazy. We have plenty of money, and that's going to only get better over time.

The point is moot anyway, because I really don't see UT allowing the B12 to disintegrate. If the time comes where the P5 conferences go to a 14 game regular season, and require a minimum of 14 teams for each conference, UT and OU won't be available to us anyway. So... Again, we're better off adding a couple schools that are already within our existing footprint. Las Vegas and Albuquerque are two of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the West. Las Vegas is also where we hold our basketball tournament. Academics aside, these would be decent additions. Plus, if you're going to play the academics card, you may as well go after schools like WSU, ASU and OSU, because those schools are no better than UNM and UNLV.
 
Last edited:
InTheBuff said:
lol

saying that SMU or N Texas gets you the Dallas market is kind of like saying csu will get you the Denver market....
Click to expand...

True. When it comes to college sports allegiances, Dallas is incredibly fractured. Lots of people from all over the country move in and bring existing college affiliations with them. A&M and other former SWC fan bases don't love UT, nor do the Okies. Nor do graduates from local colleges.

Keep in mind UT doesn't necessarily deliver the Dallas market any better than the Buffs deliver Denver.

SMU (or North Texas) would undoubtedly pick up market share if their games were broadcast on prime time in a big boy league. They'd not replace UT in pure size and value, but either team would make a dent. With the PAC making inroads on fertile DFW recruiting grounds, there would be lots of HS coaches and family taking interest watching local boys playing on any of the P12 teams.

either school would provide a beach head in which to develop...And it keeps big hat UT in check. Any investor knows the value in buying low. Adding UT is not buying low. And they have leverage to make the P12 pay dearly.

The schools I mention are desperate to break into the big boy cartel and break UT's grip on their back yard.

To answer sacky, Texas is valuable from a recruiting perspective. It adds to the quality of football to have better athletes interested in your program. CO would benefit from having exposure in Texas. "Come to CU. Play in California. Come back and play in front of your family." Having USC, Stanford and other P12 schools coming to recruit DFW, as well, would impact the ability for A&M and the Big Tex from locking down the players in the most football crazy state.

Of course having more households watching a P12 game instead of an SEC or LHN production is good for the value of the P12 network.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sackman said:
those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it.
Click to expand...

First, to be clear I am not advocating expansion. My preference is undeniably to stay as is at 12.

That being said. The old Big 8 desperately needed the Texas TV market for survival. Mistakes were made, but I also don't believe Texas destroyed the Big XII either. And this is coming from someone who was beating the PAC drum since 1994. IF we end up moving towards super conferences with everyone at 16, my preference is to expand with flagship universities, strengthening the conference brand and the $$$ that would come along with it. The alternative is taking a bunch of short bus schools who don't fit the academic profile of the PAC. (understanding the Texahoma 4 would bring along one or two concessions as well).

I laugh at Texas arrogance. I agree they don't play well with others and understand your point about not learning from the past. But I don't believe even Texas would have enough stroke to come into a 12 team conference and dominate the politics.

Part of me believes Texas will start looking hard the more profile aggy builds nationally and locally. But the more likely scenario is the Big XII is around to stay and are more likely to expand with Tulane and Cincinatti or some combination vs. imploding. But OU fan, KU fan - even Tech fan don't seem too happy in the Big XII and their footprint.
 
buffedup said:
The Pac 12 completely owns 2 of the 4 time zones in the continental United States in some of the fastest growing markets in the country. Expansion is not necessary. All of the other scenarios that people are repeating for the 100th time (I know no harm was meant, but hokiehead almost deserves a negative rep for this thread) have been thoroughly discussed.
Click to expand...

Quoted for accuracy. Rep
 
Obvious preference is to stay at 12, but if the B1G/SEC start pulling in $40mil/year with TV money, we may have no choice but to make some difficult decisions.
 
Good discussion -- well worth all the neg rep I've received. A few notes from what I've read here:

I don't understand the weight some of you are placing on the Pac "controlling two time zones" -- number of time zone's doesn't directly correlate to revenue; the number of TV sets and number of tickets sold does.

You guys really hate Texas. From an outsider perspective, y'all seem to hate them worse than you do Nebraska. Lot's of bitching that the Horns have historically made every attempt to exert control for their own ends. I'm a capitalist and generally don't consider self-interest as a vice. I don't have data, but from people I talk with, it seems Colorado gets more transplants from California and Texas than the other 47 states combined -- I suspect that having one or more Texas schools in the conference would help CU's recruiting more so than it would the other current Pac teams.

IMO, one thing lacking from the current Pac is rabid fan support. Oregon and Stanford are the only two Pac-12 schools with football stadium capacity > 50k that routinely sell out; even local schools in the Pac don't seem to travel to the other team's games (e.g. UCLA doesn't fill up the Coliseum when their team travels to USC and I'm not sure Stanford alumni know where the Cal campus is located). I was really surprised this year to learn how little fan support UCLA's basketball program receives. Texas will continue to fill up their football and basketball arenas and I suspect they would put butts in the seats at Folsom unlike any other Pac12 members do (not that any fan wants their stadium filled with visitors, but their money does spend).

I did a little more research on religious schools -- Syracuse was founded as a Methodist school (identified as nonsectarian in 1920 but still maintains an affiliation with the UMC), and so were USC-West, Vandy and Northwestern -- the Pac did at one time have a religious school in its membership. It is true that USC-W and NW do not have a religious charter any longer. Vandy, Duke and Wake still have divinity schools. Yes, BYU and ND are at a totally different level here.

Also, did discussion around any Canadian schools joining the Pac ever come up back around 2010? I haven't considered this before a few minutes ago, but in some ways extending North and getting the University of Toronto may be a more attractive option than going East or adding current non-BCS schools. Note: the NCAA does currently have a Canadian member, so that precedent is set (just need to teach them the correct rules for football).
 
hokiehead said:
Good discussion -- well worth all the neg rep I've received. A few notes from what I've read here:

I don't understand the weight some of you are placing on the Pac "controlling two time zones" -- number of time zone's doesn't directly correlate to revenue; the number of TV sets and number of tickets sold does.

You guys really hate Texas. From an outsider perspective, y'all seem to hate them worse than you do Nebraska. Lot's of bitching that the Horns have historically made every attempt to exert control for their own ends. I'm a capitalist and generally don't consider self-interest as a vice. I don't have data, but from people I talk with, it seems Colorado gets more transplants from California and Texas than the other 47 states combined -- I suspect that having one or more Texas schools in the conference would help CU's recruiting more so than it would the other current Pac teams.

IMO, one thing lacking from the current Pac is rabid fan support. Oregon and Stanford are the only two Pac-12 schools with football stadium capacity > 50k that routinely sell out; even local schools in the Pac don't seem to travel to the other team's games (e.g. UCLA doesn't fill up the Coliseum when their team travels to USC and I'm not sure Stanford alumni know where the Cal campus is located). I was really surprised this year to learn how little fan support UCLA's basketball program receives. Texas will continue to fill up their football and basketball arenas and I suspect they would put butts in the seats at Folsom unlike any other Pac12 members do (not that any fan wants their stadium filled with visitors, but their money does spend).

I did a little more research on religious schools -- Syracuse was founded as a Methodist school (identified as nonsectarian in 1920 but still maintains an affiliation with the UMC), and so were USC-West, Vandy and Northwestern -- the Pac did at one time have a religious school in its membership. It is true that USC-W and NW do not have a religious charter any longer. Vandy, Duke and Wake still have divinity schools. Yes, BYU and ND are at a totally different level here.

Also, did discussion around any Canadian schools joining the Pac ever come up back around 2010? I haven't considered this before a few minutes ago, but in some ways extending North and getting the University of Toronto may be a more attractive option than going East or adding current non-BCS schools. Note: the NCAA does currently have a Canadian member, so that precedent is set (just need to teach them the correct rules for football).
Click to expand...

The hatred of UT stems from their willingness to kill any conference they happen to be affiliated with in order to further their interests. The embodiment of this is the Longhorn network. While they should have been trying to put together a network for all conference members, they instead built one for their own use. The rest of the conference be damned. Nice guys, eh? They killed the SWC, and came within a hair of killing the Big 12. They suck the life out of every conference they're in. Athletic conferences are not capitalist entities. The strongest ones share their wealth evenly, so everybody has roughly the same chance at success. UT doesn't like that model. They choose the "What's good for UT is good for the conference" model. That doesn't sit well with us (Or Nebraska, Missouri, and A&M). In fact, it doesn't sit well with anybody, except maybe Baylor and OU, both of whom realize that their fortunes indeed ARE tied to those of UT. Everybody else either splits or just deals with it. Had you been around during the mid 2000's, you would have seen this phenominon. As it stands, I can understand why the anti UT rhetoric perplexes you.

CU and UU are the closest the Pac 12 has to rabid fan bases. That's just the way it is. UW has a pretty solid following, as do UA and UO (t-shirt variety). Nothing like what we saw in the Big 12, though.

Canadians? meh.
 
Canadians LOVE football. That is why I have always wondered about that, too. I figured it was a politics things and Universities/visas/bureaucracy crossing borders, but I would be very interested in the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top