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
you find a coach that can get you there--- we probably had one--- tucker-- i hate what happened too but deconstruct it for a minute-- no way does he bolt after one year to michigan state (which you have now included as a team we cannot beat) if we are in the big. we couldn't compete on dollars or other things.
when Mac came to CU (i know i am probably a lot older than you and remember this personally), we had fallen so far that no one believed we could be competitive. Mac set the goal even higher by saying we were going to make nebraska our rival. folks laughed at him. within 5 seasons, CU went from literally one of the very worst p5 teams to beating nebraska. and, within 10 we were in the national championship game 2 years in a row. the right coach with the right support is all the difference in the world.
the game has changed, the economics have changed, but you can hire well and become competitive. texas a&m was pretty much a joke before recently too. oh, and along the way, CU gave Mac a "lifetime" contract -- at the time it was unprecedented.
i understand quite well how much and how badly CU has ****ed itself since then, but tucker was a one year glimpse of what is possible. the money in the BIG would have kept it possible.
none of this probably matters because we are likely headed somewhere besides the Big...
They’ve not shown an interest in being particularly good at anything - athletics or academics.
We haven't fallen nearly as far in the academic rankings!
Thisuniversityisf’ed!
Well-Known Member
Lol okay I get your joke now.
It’s true, but we’ve m shown some interest in academics or at least our regents have.
Perhaps the next Mac isn’t far behind then. This might end up being a big wake up call to the administration but I’m not going to hold my breath on that happening.
buffinbama
Well-Known Member
Mountain West here we come.
Then tell me who the new villain of the P12 will be. The rest of the PAC-10 just lost their Nebraska-like villian. I would rather see CU head to the Big 12 with the AZ & UT schools than stay in a stale conference.
You mean a new inter mountain conference?
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
You don't get it. The Pac 12 is finished.
It's a f*cking university.
Thisuniversityisf’ed!
Well-Known Member
K. Tell that to the SEC and B1G. Oklahoma, Texas, USC, UCLA…
I dunno - looking at Wilner's tweet another way, he's basically saying that Oregon & Washington might not be accretive enough for the Big Ten, and us losers in the SW aren't accretive enough for the Big 12, so the Pac 12 is going to stay together as a happy bunch of rejects.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
I agree that it's dead as a "power" conference. But I could see Cal, Stanford, OSU, and WSU keeping it alive in some way. Those schools don't fit in the Big 12 or Big 10. Not sure where they go from here unless it some sort of Pac conference.
Actually, I think we're less than a decade away from football programs being separate entities that only lease facilities and naming rights from the actual institutions.
wilner is right and also wrong about this. he is right because the networks are driving this which means tv revenue share is driving this. he is wrong however that this is the only consideration. it is the primary consideration and right now that is all everyone is focused on. but, there are others that do matter. no combination of teams left on the reasonably available list can deliver the same dollars as the la market ( i still think notre dame is non-starter at this time).
first on the list of other things to think about is going to be impact on the student-athletes, travel time and logistics. if the big doesn't expand west then the la schools are unfairly burdened. this is a fact. the first 2 picks they are likely to make are oregon and uw (with uw basically riding along on oregon's tail). the fact that the deal is not yet done is surprising and interesting to me. there could be a few reasons--- oregon doesn't think it should have to settle for a reduced share of revenue (especially if ucla and usc didn't). or, maybe oregon is or is not tied to uw and there is some blocker coming out of that. or, maybe oregon is waiting to see what it can leverage from a very diminished pac. or go independent. etc. but, at the end of the reshuffle, there will be more western teams in the new big.
concerning dollars delivered to the b12, wilner is also wrong about CU, utah, asu, ua not being interesting to the b12. the b12's strategic need to be relevant up against the 2 monsters is going to be difficult no matter what. they would love to land the 4 pac schools AND there is always the possibility of reduced rev sharing at first to address the alleged dilution of value.
none of this is settled or certain. the big is in the driver's seat but other moves are possible.
Ahhh, finally somebody said accretive.
Thisuniversityisf’ed!
Well-Known Member
Seems that way. Oh well CU football was at least fun for the first 15 years of my life.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Damn, Jimmy Lake ****ed UW out of a Big 10 spot. 
If Petersen could just hang on for a couple more years, they would've been a no-brainer. Now they're on the bubble. I still think they end up in the Big 10 with Oregon, once ND decides to keep its football independence.
If Petersen could just hang on for a couple more years, they would've been a no-brainer. Now they're on the bubble. I still think they end up in the Big 10 with Oregon, once ND decides to keep its football independence.
But what about adding BYU?
gross
Phil Knight swung the door open and said WTF is happening here, you boys wear my jerseys and shoes
Big 12 views of the Flat Irons w/o CU = 0
Big 12 views of the Flat Irons w/ CU = 1
There, accretive.
USC and UCLA are significantly better than CU academically and so are other big 10 members.
Our academics are okay but could be significantly better if they tried. We have retirees at the helm that have been milking this cow far too long
Last edited:
gross
SIAP
I recall some pretty damn good USC teams in my youth along with some good UW teams and some decent UCLA teams. Standford had a few flashes as did Cal.These two asshole programs? Stop it. This conference is ****ed. You know why? Go back and look at the last 11 years. CU did this to themselves by joining the Pac 12. An institution that doesn't give a **** about football joining a league full of institutions who don't give a **** about football. And you people wonder why we ****ing suck?
USC AD Hinted At Independence, Later Clarified; But Pac-12 Needs USC
Would USC take its football program independent?kslsports.com
Should USC consider leaving the PAC-12 and go independent?
Should the USC athletic department consider leaving the PAC-12 conference and going independent? We hear from LA Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke and Trojan athletic director Mike Bohn on the subject.247sports.com
Hind sight is always 20/20. The look of UT, A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech joining the Big8 looked awesome. When that went to **** the look of joining the Pac12 also looked awesome.
Now, if what you are referring to is that the Pac12 didnt embrace abject greed for the sake of greed like the SEC and B1G then you are right.
Unfortunately, football started to fall out of favor in the west and 9 of the 12 programs entered into prolonged slumps of mediocrity. Recruiting and the Jimmys and Joes also began to become more concentrated in the southeast. The coaches that know they need those players also have been congregating in that footprint.
umm. ucla, usc are academically superior to CU... you can be good at both academics and athletics. it is not one or the other. the problem CU has had since they did gb dirty is that they thought, incorrectly, that reputation, tradition, and one of the best settings in college football could somehow offset a lack of investment and a lack of flexibility on the athletic side of the house.
most of the big is good at both. most of the sec is not--- but that has always been true. and, since alabama went on its epic run of greatness, their academics have improved dramatically. they are drawing students from all over the country. florida, georgia, texas, and of course poor vanderbilt are all at least as good schools as CU.