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

buffs233 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Remind me who ran CU when we left the Big12 to join those academic elite progressives in the Pac10? Bruce Benson? GTFOH with this.
 
buffs233 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are obsessed with making this political.

You will be shocked to know that CU works with those schools already, and even has employees in some of them!
 
SBP said:
Our leadership is not interested in the money that football can bring in. That is obvious
Click to expand...
I remember listening to Beano Cook speaking years ago on his old podcast with Ivan Maisel saying that, in the sense of net dollars, football doesn’t ”bring in“ money to a university at all. His point, which is consistent with my observations, is that universities will spend every new dollar that comes in on their football program to stay competitive with every other university which is doing the same thing.
 
tsarbomba said:
I remember listening to Beano Cook speaking years ago on his old podcast with Ivan Maisel saying that, in the sense of net dollars, football doesn’t ”bring in“ money to a university at all. His point, which is consistent with my observations, is that universities will spend every new dollar that comes in on their football program to stay competitive with every other university which is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
Right. It’s all just constantly reinvesting in the program. No profits to distribute, owner to be enriched, just coaches (and now recruits) to pay and facilities to renovate every 3-4 years.

Part of the reason I’ve suggested a program like CU trying to partner with a VC or PE firm to invest in the program, but actually have a profit sharing model set up so the firm can get an actual ROI.
 
ahoelsken said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cal and Stanford don’t need athletics to publicize their universities like “normal” schools. Without big time athletics, how many of us would know anything about schools like Alabama, FSU, Auburn, Ohio State, and I could go on for quite a while. But Stanford and Cal would be famous universities with much sought after admissions if they cut all sports, simply by virtue of their academic reputation, like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cal Tech, and schools with a similar reputation, but without big time football (although 110 years ago the Ivy League WAS football). Without football, few people would know much about CU outside of Colorado and neighboring states, with the exception of the 70s and 80s when it had a national rep as an elite party school based on the Playboy ratings, and its rep as kind of a hippy school, plus maybe the opening credits to Mork and Mindy.
 
tsarbomba said:
I remember listening to Beano Cook speaking years ago on his old podcast with Ivan Maisel saying that, in the sense of net dollars, football doesn’t ”bring in“ money to a university at all. His point, which is consistent with my observations, is that universities will spend every new dollar that comes in on their football program to stay competitive with every other university which is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
I read, not long ago, that the president of the University of Alabama said that the investment in the football team is worth another 100 Million in revenue in the form of increased applications, donations, merchandise etc.

I’m not sure who to believe, but if what the U of Alabama president says is true, it is staggering to think the amount of revenue CU could have brought in if the values of the Gordon Gee era continued.
 
dio said:
You are obsessed with making this political.

You will be shocked to know that CU works with those schools already, and even has employees in some of them!
Click to expand...
I know that - just let me know when CU joins the Big 12.
 
Liver said:
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.
Click to expand...
You say enough of the politics then proceed to profile the political leanings of many schools - which are grossly incorrect btw
 
ahoelsken said:

Dodd on Friday said the offer the conference gets from ESPN could be as low as $21M per. Ceiling could be $30M per. That's the Big 12's floor according to Dodd. I read something like that and think there's no way in hell CU can stay in this league.
Click to expand...

The B12 is going to be a minimum $10M more per school. We need to get moving and start resurrecting our fball program
 
hokiehead said:
What roles are you referencing here?
Click to expand...

I think Dio is referring to the visiting faculty program that is in the Big 12 and CU brought to the Pac-12. CU would send some faculty to the other Pac-12 schools in this case and the other Pac-12 schools would do the same in return. I am not sure if CU is still doing the same thing with the Big 12 although the Buffs left back in 2011. CU also does joint research projects with other schools and it's safe to assume that CU is still doing those with some Big 12 schools.
 
SBP said:
BYU has a very wealthy fan base and could be very powerful at the P5 level in the NIL era.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's always been true even without NIL. The easiest way to pay players has always been for religiously affiliated schools to direct "family assistance" charitable giving to the parents & other stakeholders of a recruit. fwiw, that's the main reason Baylor was able to become good at sports.
 
Buffnik said:
Yeah, but that's always been true even without NIL. The easiest way to pay players has always been for religiously affiliated schools to direct "family assistance" charitable giving to the parents & other stakeholders of a recruit. fwiw, that's the main reason Baylor was able to become good at sports.
Click to expand...
I think those LDSers are going to step up big time at the P5 level. Look for Baylorian like $ participation.
 
PAC MAN said:
I think Dio is referring to the visiting faculty program that is in the Big 12 and CU brought to the Pac-12. CU would send some faculty to the other Pac-12 schools in this case and the other Pac-12 schools would do the same in return. I am not sure if CU is still doing the same thing with the Big 12 although the Buffs left back in 2011. CU also does joint research projects with other schools and it's safe to assume that CU is still doing those with some Big 12 schools.
Click to expand...
Lol, no. I'm saying that CU faculty go to conferences, perform research with, and otherwise collaborate with schools all over.

CU also has staff employed in remote positions around the country.

99% of faculty or staff don't give a ****, because their day-to-day is not remotely impacted by any of this.
 
tsarbomba said:
I remember listening to Beano Cook speaking years ago on his old podcast with Ivan Maisel saying that, in the sense of net dollars, football doesn’t ”bring in“ money to a university at all. His point, which is consistent with my observations, is that universities will spend every new dollar that comes in on their football program to stay competitive with every other university which is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
a case study comparison that would suggest otherwise would be comparing CU to DU once the Pioneers dropped football.
 
iWillDuYu said:
The B12 is going to be a minimum $10M more per school. We need to get moving and start resurrecting our fball program
Click to expand...
Unless we get into the BIG or SEC, it doesn’t matter where we play. Conference affiliation will be a footnote when compared to the havoc that NIL and the instant transfer rule will do to every school outside of the top 10 who can pay for players.

The fat lady already sung.
 
i can't help those that have their own heads so far up their own asses they cannot see daylight. may god have mercy on their souls; no one else will.
 
Liver said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your view of reality, and actual reality, are not the same.
 
Napper said:
Your view of reality, and actual reality, are not the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the few things you can trust Liver on is to accurately describe the political mores of wealthy, white Californians and the schools they often cheat to get their children into.

When I sent my boy away to university, he was an English major with an interest in experimental theater and a socialist. He left as a crypto-capitalist with a Master's in Computer Science. **** you, Stanford.
 
Last edited:
BuffsNYC said:
Actually, one of the few things you can trust Liver on is to accurately describe the political mores of wealthy, white Californians and the schools they often cheat to get their children into.

When I sent my boy away to university, he was an English major with an interest in experimental theater and a socialist. He left as a crypto-capitalist with a Master's in Computer Science. **** you, Stanford.
Click to expand...
You should have sent him to Cal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top