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!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

oh nm





that's kinda interesting. Telling you, we just need to convince Wazzu and OSU to leave for the MWC and P8 might be more worthwhile
 
SBP said:
I think we are going to screw this up
Click to expand...

I worry that for purely political reasons (to be rigidly in-line with the non-compromising progressive policies of Cal and Stanford), CU stays in the same conference with them, regrdless of the negative impact on the AD and football program in particular.
 
CUAviator said:
Sweet. But implying that a school can lower acceptance rates and their rankings will increase is not a true statement.
Cause and effect, it appears that higher ranked schools end up with lower acceptance rates, it may not be the other way around. Someone is going to have to show me which happened first.
Click to expand...
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm not making the claim you say I'm making.

A simple explanation of the correlation is that schools that receive a higher number of applicants over time can become increasingly selective with who they admit. This leads to a positive feedback loop.

A successful marketing strategy leads to an increased number of applicants. I'm not saying that's the only way to improve your academic prestige but it seems to be the easiest.
 
buffs233 said:
I worry that for purely political reasons (to be rigidly in-line with the non-compromising progressive policies of Cal and Stanford), CU stays in the same conference with them, regrdless of the negative impact on the AD and football program in particular.
Click to expand...

To be clear, your reasons for wanting to join the B12 are entirely altruistic, right? Not political in nature or anything of that sort

James Franco Flirt GIF
 
Not Sure said:
Is that a serious question? They just lost their two marquee teams for one. Their media situation is every bit as tenuous as ours for another. They’re geographically spread out. None of the schools has any actual allegiance to the league and is only there because they have no other options.

hope you didn’t have to wait too long for that.
Click to expand...

1) The Pac 12 lost both LA schools.
2) The Big 12's media situation is better than the Pac 10's-FOX has told the Pac 10 they will not be a player in the new Pac 10 TV deal. I have not seen them make that kind of a move with respect to the Big 12. I'd rather be in the Big 12 and have the two biggest TV players in the sport in ESPN and FOX showing my product than in the Pac 10......where I have ESPN and who else?
3) USC and UCLA are going to the Big 10 in 2 years. The TV networks don't care about geography-so why do you?
4) If you're not in the SEC or Big 10 right now, you don't have any allegiance to your league. You bet your ass that if either the SEC/B1G offered CU, they'd be gone. That doesn't matter anymore.

Stop living in the past.
 
Last edited:
ahoelsken said:
1) The Pac 12 lost both LA schools.
2) The Big 12's media situation is better than the Pac 10's-FOX has told the Pac 10 they will not be a player in the new Pac 10 TV deal. I have not seen them make that kind of a move with respect to the Big 12. I'd rather be in the Big 12 and have the two biggest TV players in the sport in ESPN and FOX showing my product than in the Pac 10......where I have ESPN and who else?
3) USC and UCLA are going to the Big 10 in 2 years. The TV networks don't care about geography-so why do you?
4) If you're not in the SEC or Big 10 right now, you don't have any allegiance to your league. You bet your ass that if either the SEC/B1G offered CU, they'd be gone. That doesn't matter anymore.

Stop living in the past.
Click to expand...
re: #4, I think the lower value schools in the Pac (e.g. WSU, OSU) and the ACC (e.g. Wake, BC) have allegiance to their current leagues.
 
ahoelsken said:
1) The Pac 12 lost both LA schools. - has nothing to do with the stability of the B12.
2) The Big 12's media situation is better than the Pac 10's-FOX has told the Pac 10 they will not be a player in the new Pac 10 TV deal. I have not seen them make that kind of a move with respect to the Big 12. I'd rather be in the Big 12 and have the two biggest TV players in the sport in ESPN and FOX showing my product than in the Pac 10......where I have ESPN and who else? The media situation is virtually identical. They both suck.
3) USC and UCLA are going to the Big 10 in 2 years. The TV networks don't care about geography-so why do you? Again, nothing to do with the stability of the B12
4) If you're not in the SEC or Big 10 right now, you don't have any allegiance to your league. You bet your ass that if either the SEC/B1G offered CU, they'd be gone. That doesn't matter anymore. Once again, nothing to do with the stability of the B12

Stop living in the past.
Click to expand...
You need to figure out how to do this better. Three of your four points don’t address the stability of the B12 in any way. The fourth is debatable at best. I came up with four reasons the B12 is an unstable conference. You came up with straw man points. Work on it and try again.
 
Not Sure said:
You need to figure out how to do this better. Three of your four points don’t address the stability of the B12 in any way. The fourth is debatable at best. I came up with four reasons the B12 is an unstable conference. You came up with straw man points. Work on it and try again.
Click to expand...
there's plenty of valid criticism of @ahoelsken 's arguments, but none of the argument you quoted was "straw man points"
 
hokiehead said:
there's plenty of valid criticism of @ahoelsken 's arguments, but none of the argument you quoted was "straw man points"
Click to expand...
They all were. When specifically asked about what makes the B12 stable, he brought up issues with the PAC 12. I wasn’t asking him to defend what makes the PAC 12 unstable. I was asking him to defend what makes the B12 stable. He didn’t do that.
 
Not Sure said:
They all were. When specifically asked about what makes the B12 stable, he brought up issues with the PAC 12. I wasn’t asking him to defend what makes the PAC 12 unstable. I was asking him to defend what makes the B12 stable. He didn’t do that.
Click to expand...

the bolded may be 100% true, but labeling his posts as straw man points implies he took a claim made by someone else, then exaggerated or distorted it into a different claim, and then re-positioned the exaggerated claim as that made by the other person. He didn't do that.
 
hokiehead said:
the bolded may be 100% true, but labeling his posts as straw man points implies he took a claim made by someone else, then exaggerated or distorted it into a different claim, and then re-positioned the exaggerated claim as that made by the other person. He didn't do that.
Click to expand...
Ok Hokie.
 
Not Sure said:
They all were. When specifically asked about what makes the B12 stable, he brought up issues with the PAC 12. I wasn’t asking him to defend what makes the PAC 12 unstable. I was asking him to defend what makes the B12 stable. He didn’t do that.
Click to expand...
Unless you're just really stretching yourself to find something to bitch about, around 30 seconds of consideration could have easily seen that his points are completely relevant to the stability of the Big XII relative to the PAC 12 (10).
 
ahoelsken said:
1) The Pac 12 lost both LA schools.
2) The Big 12's media situation is better than the Pac 10's-FOX has told the Pac 10 they will not be a player in the new Pac 10 TV deal. I have not seen them make that kind of a move with respect to the Big 12. I'd rather be in the Big 12 and have the two biggest TV players in the sport in ESPN and FOX showing my product than in the Pac 10......where I have ESPN and who else?
3) USC and UCLA are going to the Big 10 in 2 years. The TV networks don't care about geography-so why do you?
4) If you're not in the SEC or Big 10 right now, you don't have any allegiance to your league. You bet your ass that if either the SEC/B1G offered CU, they'd be gone. That doesn't matter anymore.

Stop living in the past.
Click to expand...

Another wildcard in all this is how interested NBC is in picking up Big 12 games to partner with their ND games and also give them content for when ND is on the road. This would certainly enhance the value of the Big 12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top