yep, this may very well happen. No chance the progressives at CU-Boulder are going to be willing to live with academics and politics in the Big 12. Like any good organization with progressives as leaders, they are rigidly inflexible and absoutely and thoroughly intolerant to points-of-view which which they disagree.
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
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
yep, this may very well happen. No chance the progressives at CU-Boulder are going to be willing to live with academics and politics in the Big 12. Like any good organization with progressives as leaders, they are rigidly inflexible and absoutely and thoroughly intolerant to points-of-view which which they disagree.
Tell me more about intolerance.
It's so obvious that I don't think an explanation is even needed. But for example, I have no doubt, that if CU were theoretically in the Big 12 (which I don't think will ever happren), there would be public outrage from the faculty and certain administrators to not play games in the states of Texas or Oklahoma, due to things like rigidly, hardline progressive views on abortion rights, climate change, etc.
I feel like there was a warning about bringing politics into this thread.
Sure feels that way, unless the B12 is trying to make everyone sign some beefy GOR
In this case, it's highly relevant and will certainly impact whether CU is or is not willing to be a member of a particular conference. I wish politics were completely irrelevant for CU's conference affiliation, but that's not the case.
Its not relevant at all. The only thing that matters is money. You are just looking to bring in your bull**** political beliefs.
i think this is not completely without merit.
there are indeed a lot of faculty and admins and some regents that would prefer we did not have sports at all at the d1 level, especially football.
but, at the end of the day, here is the card that beats all that: without football, there are very very few scholarships for women's sports. full.stop. so, if you want achieve some form of equality in terms of athletic scholarships you need a money engine to drive it.
so far, that has protected CU football (to a very minimal extent) from total annihilation.
and, yes, please let's try (i am guilty too) to keep the political stuff out of this forum. a lot of folks are likely to disagree. if you love CU football and i think the majority of folks here do, then figure out what we can all do to help.
last, we have had a lot of conservative admins and pols **** us over too. it isn't based on political affiliation.
They have been an independent, available for any network to sign similar to Notre Dame and willing to play almost any time slot that a network would want other than Sundays which nobody would want them to play.
The best they could do was a deal with ESPN that the Sports Business Daily estimated at about $6 million a season, not exactly Notre Dame or P5 conference type of money including about $1.2 million per home game against P5 opponents and $800,000 per home game against G5 opponents.
Exact numbers are not public knowledge because as a private school BYU has no requirement to disclose their financial details.
If I could like this twice I would. very spot on.
There is a strong element in the school in Boulder that includes both administration and faculty members and even extends to some donors/alumni that are negative towards big time or top level revenue college sports.
I would not be shocked in any way if as the top programs in college football move farther away from student athlete based models and more towards professional athletics we see a strong push in Boulder to downscale our football and basketball programs (and women's basketball and volleyball which are most likely to be negatively impacted by other schools moving NIL and Title IX driven funds to them as well.
Very likely that many of the current BCS level programs are playing something closer to FCS in the future.
CU was theoretically, and actually, in the Big12 at one point.
B12 doesn't even rent Texas, let alone own it.
Have it your way - we’ll have to agree to disagree.
If those things mattered UCLA and USC wouldn't have joined the conference that has Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio and Indiana. Give me a break.
No. No there wouldn’t be. That’s just absurd.
How much time have you spent in-and-around spent around CU in recent years? I will be absolutely shocked if CU joins the Big 12, under any circumstances.
The big 12 academics are progressive too.
The thing that makes our leadership different is that they are elitist snobs who actually believe that they are good at their jobs.
BYU has a very wealthy fan base and could be very powerful at the P5 level in the NIL era.
You're really going out on a limb there. Can't wait to hear you say you called it.
Our leadership is not interested in the money that football can bring in. That is obvious
Right. I think that is the essence of the problem.
It sure would be great if they realized how valuable that BIG money is and had made football a priority over the last 20 years
Just let me know when CU joins the Big 12. I contend they won’t do it under any circumstances. CU will stick with Cal and Stanford like Velcro - feeds the need to be associated with similar politics and academically elite institutions. USC and UCLA aren't that small-minded and insecure.
Nothing more pathetic than a wannabe
ok, first. that is enough of the politics.
second, you are dead wrong about the politics at the california schools. stanford is not particularly "liberal" and never has been. cal is probably a bit more "liberal" than boulder. usc is not "liberal" and ucla is a huge public school somewhere in the middle.
you have a point of view. it is polarizing and unnecessary in this forum. if you would like to opine more about how the commies are ruining america, please take it to the pol forum where folks can ignore, argue, whatever as they see fit.
I agree. I don’t think tha politics has anything to do with the fact that the CU leadership is a bunch of incompetent, elitist, wannabe, snobs whose results are at best mediocre.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
You just explained why we shouldn't stay in the Pac 10 with the bolded. If the Pac 10 had set their arrogance aside and taken the Big 12 last year, we're not here.
Don't blame USC for that. I would guarantee you Stanford and Cal (neither of whom understand the importance of athletics to a successful university) were right there with SC last year.
I agree with what you are saying about the CU administration in general but I'd also like to remind you that former Republican Bruce Benson did disregard OSU and TT by saying they offered "cinch" classes.
More of the CU mentality than politics in this case and that has been exacerbated while CU has been in the PAC.
Colorado Wary About Potential Pac 16 Expansion
When Colorado left the Big 12, administrators pictured Napa and Pebble Beach. They thought their days of backwater Applebees and cornfields were over. They may have thought wrong.
www.thebiglead.com