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

Not Sure said:
The point was whether CSU provides any value at all. They do. I don’t see how that is even debatable. The fact that the value they bring isn’t worth much to the PAC 12 is what will keep them on the outside looking in. That doesn’t mean they bring absolutely nothing to the table. In a perfect world, I think having them in the conference would be nice. It would be nice to have geography mean something again.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that the value CSU brings is geographical, and that "it would be nice to have geography mean something again". Those two thoughts are not compatible.
 
onealcd said:
There are outliers for sure but geographical fit is absolutely still important. 2 schools out of 32 in the power 2 conferences will be out of place.
Click to expand...
I mean, at current it's 2/32, but it's definitely going to be more than that at some point. Even so, Nebraska going to New Jersey or Maryland is ridiculous, too. Same with Iowa. Oklahoma and Texas going to Gainesville or South Carolina is out of place. What happens when Oregon and Washington join the B1G or SEC? What about Utah, ASU, UA, and CU? Stanford and Cal possibly joining the B1G at some point?

Geographical fit is not really in consideration anymore.
 
All things being equal, geographical fit still matters. Problem is that all things aren’t equal. I wouldn’t say geography is completely irrelevant, but it’s way down the list of priorities. This is, in my opinion, one of the factors that is slowly killing college football.
 
When we discuss CSU as a Power conference candidate, i always come back to them being a finalist like eight years ago for XII expansion. I'd be really interested in what criteria helped them make that cut.
 
hokiehead said:
When we discuss CSU as a Power conference candidate, i always come back to them being a finalist like eight years ago for XII expansion. I'd be really interested in what criteria helped them make that cut.
Click to expand...
Denver market, mostly. That’s not a consideration for the PAC 12, which already has that wrapped up.
 
SINKRATZ said:
The only thing that seems to whip up more passionate debate on this site than kickers, is talk about CSU who is totally, definitely not a rival.
Click to expand...
Everybody knows it's a rivalry, but most just refuse to accept it.

However, I do think it's beginning to fade away since CSU has not really been relevant in the MWC, nor have they beat CU in 8 years, but also because the students and young alumni don't really remember a time when the RMS was played between two competent programs and they simply don't harbor the animosity that older fans have.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Everybody knows it's a rivalry, but most just refuse to accept it.

However, I do think it's beginning to fade away since CSU has not really been relevant in the MWC, nor have they beat CU in 8 years, but also because the students and young alumni don't really remember a time when the RMS was played between two competent programs and they simply don't harbor the animosity that older fans have.
Click to expand...
We say that but aren’t the CU-CSU games still what generates the best attendance outside Nebraska?
 
CarolinaBuff said:
If (when) the SEC expands again the question is will they go outside their current footprint or not. If they decide to stay within their current footprint then there are some obvious choices like Clemson and FSU, maybe Miami and GT. Outside their current footprint UNC is probably their best option and maybe UVA. When Sankey was asked about expansion last summer he was specifically asked about how important contiguous states are (we would technically meet that) and he said that like-minded universities were really what they were looking for. Which makes me wonder how much the lack of a baseball program would deter the SEC from having interest in CU, unless maybe an invite came with the caveat that we have to bring back our baseball program within a certain period of time.
Click to expand...

I would be shocked --- shocked --- to see GT in the SEC.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I mean, at current it's 2/32, but it's definitely going to be more than that at some point. Even so, Nebraska going to New Jersey or Maryland is ridiculous, too. Same with Iowa. Oklahoma and Texas going to Gainesville or South Carolina is out of place. What happens when Oregon and Washington join the B1G or SEC? What about Utah, ASU, UA, and CU? Stanford and Cal possibly joining the B1G at some point?

Geographical fit is not really in consideration anymore.
Click to expand...
I think you’re making the mistake of comparing two opposite spectrums of each conference instead of looking at it as a whole. Texas is hardly some geographical outlier to Florida. It’s a two hour flight. Lincoln might not be anything like Rutgers but it is definitely similar to a bunch of other schools in the BIG and the travel time to the majority of the schools is nothing for them. Usc and UCLA in the big is currently hilarious to me but I do believe they will grab more schools to make it all manageable for them.

but as of right now 2/32 is not enough for me to say that geographical outliers is becoming the norm.
 
Not Sure said:
All things being equal, geographical fit still matters. Problem is that all things aren’t equal. I wouldn’t say geography is completely irrelevant, but it’s way down the list of priorities. This is, in my opinion, one of the factors that is slowly killing college football.
Click to expand...
Since the last batch of realignment geography's value has diminished as well as the old rivalries....and yes slowly killing college football.
ie...I'd rather see the buffs line up against anyone other than csu...it would be bad ass to play Auburn, Ark, LSU etc...
 
Buffnik said:
NFL is the unchallenged king of tv ratings, but CFB can pull a bigger audience than anything else.
Click to expand...

Which is why it makes so much sense for CFB to move toward 2 super conferences that are inclusive of the vast majority of the P5, across the entire country, and set up a playoff system that mimics what the NFL does with AFC vs NFC with the Rose Bowl being its version of the Super Bowl.
 
4BienemyTDs said:
UTSA is more valuable than CSU
North Texas is more valuable
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't notice CSU at first. I saw the attractive schools (Tulane and SMU) and I saw the attractive cities (Vegas and San Diego). I didn't even bother to look at Colorado. Hawaii should be there in of CSU. Another TV zone at a hour with no other comp with live sports is attractive for TV negotiations

I also think Fresno should replace Boise. Now looking at it. I don't like it.

Tier 1

SDSU and UNLV as you need a replacement for LA.

Tier 2

Hawaii - adding a time zone playing high level football is massive.

Tier 3

Fresno has 5.7 million people living in the central valley. A strong add.

Tier 3.5

Eastern expansion

Tulane is a better SMU but further east. How easy will Oregon State or WAZZU for non revenue sports.

SMU is a good remaining brand and it's easy to get to Dallas Airport wise. Definitely a good add.

After that, it's a lot of reaches. Boise doesn't have the market, academic profile much less sports profile outside of Football. CSU is not a P5 school at all. Same for NM and some of the others.
 
Last edited:
What needs to happen is stability for the next 8 years.

Pac-12 should do a simple add of SDSU + UNLV at this time.

Long-term, I think we need to have one unified top level of CFB.

Basically, look at the NFL format and double the number of teams from 32 to 64 - which is do-able because CFB can support major programs in states which don't have the media market to justify an NFL franchise.

Set up the schedule for regional divisions where some teams play each other every year - it's a big deal for attendance and rivalry games also draw broadcast numbers.

As I've said before, the conferences we had circa 1990 with adjustments for population shifts and some university adds/subtracts is the basic blueprint for how to group your regional divisions.

At some point I'm sure I'll geek out this offseason with a "Really ****ty CFB realignment plan".
 
I could see the Big 3 Concept slowly forming.

Let say, 3 Super Conferences 24 teams each...
  1. Big (adding teams)
  2. SEC (adding teams)
  3. Some Variation of leftovers from ACC/Big 12/ Pac 12/ND
4 pods in each conference. 6 teams each pod.

  1. 5 games in your pod (5)
  2. 1 vs each other pod (3)
  3. 4 OOC games (2 from each other conference) (4)
12 games. Could likely still keep many rivalries, etc...or put them on a rotation like the NFL does. Tradition is slowly leaving the college game as it is.

Top 4 playoff each conference play for Conference Champion.

16 team playoffs... Top 4 each conference in, plus 2 complete wildcards (based off ranking I envision) 2 from lower division.

The only reason I can see this, is each conference continues to grow. I thought 16 would be a stopping point.... it's not. I don't think the lower schools, Sun Belt, MAC, etc.. are the driving force in money in all of this. I think the college system would still want the lower tier teams, so they'd get the 2 playoff invites to keep including them. They would also remain to help fill in all the other bowl games. The Bowls would still have the same names, just tiered for the playoffs... you end with one of the big name ones.. rotate from Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, etc...
 
Sheldon said:
I could see the Big 3 Concept slowly forming.

Let say, 3 Super Conferences 24 teams each...
  1. Big (adding teams)
  2. SEC (adding teams)
  3. Some Variation of leftovers from ACC/Big 12/ Pac 12/ND
4 pods in each conference. 6 teams each pod.

  1. 5 games in your pod (5)
  2. 1 vs each other pod (3)
  3. 4 OOC games (2 from each other conference) (4)
12 games. Could likely still keep many rivalries, etc...or put them on a rotation like the NFL does. Tradition is slowly leaving the college game as it is.

Top 4 playoff each conference play for Conference Champion.

16 team playoffs... Top 4 each conference in, plus 2 complete wildcards (based off ranking I envision) 2 from lower division.

The only reason I can see this, is each conference continues to grow. I thought 16 would be a stopping point.... it's not. I don't think the lower schools, Sun Belt, MAC, etc.. are the driving force in money in all of this. I think the college system would still want the lower tier teams, so they'd get the 2 playoff invites to keep including them. They would also remain to help fill in all the other bowl games. The Bowls would still have the same names, just tiered for the playoffs... you end with one of the big name ones.. rotate from Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, etc...
Click to expand...
A point I always come back to whenever someone brings up a concept like this -- like cardinality has never been a factor in conference realignment. Never. I don't perceive that anything has changed such that it would be in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top