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

Hank said:
I know you are only arguing because you like to argue. You well know it is laughable to suggest that UCLA and Colorado are similarly situated, either academically or athletically.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the yak is saying that. It’s just fair to say that both football teams haven’t been marquee programs for the past 20 years. Ucla is the clear leader in academics. I think it’s also fair to say cu has a more storied football history than Utah, but the utes have been the far better program since ~2002.
 
See response from Wilner below in the following link about Cal and Stanford about this possibly being the beginning of the end of major college football for both Stanford and Cal. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07...d-valuing-the-arizona-schools-and-loads-more/

I personally think CU may be closer to dropping football altogether than being invited to the Big 10. CU's administrators and faculty are so captivated and enthralled to be in the same room with administrators of Stanford and UC Berkeley that they think they are one of them. Thus they have adopted the Cal model of not taking football seriously. If Cal or Stanford were to withdraw from major college football, I think there would be a push to do the same within CU.

CU really just wants to suck-up to the academics reputation and similar political alignment of Stanford, Cal, UCLA (already gone) and UW (soon to be gone). Athletics don't matter in the slightest to most at CU, and I think there is a real chance they will decline both an invitation from the Big 12 (wouldn't want to associate with the non-progressive heathens at BYU and in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Florida, and West Virgina), or the MWC (below the self-appointed Harvard of the West label). Net result might to to swallow hard and eat the huge one-time costs necessary to shut the program down.
 
Jens1893 said:
Maybe as an intermediate step, but I think this is bound to get to a point where the elite will be among itself.

And I don't see them ever touching the NFL's income. We're talking 10 billion a year here.
Click to expand...
Could be. Do you think fox and espn (who are really driving this) would view that is revenue limiting only having the elites though? I think a major appeal to college football is the Purdue fans packing the stadium/couches at home to beat Ohio state that one time. If you don’t include schools like that it seems like a massive missed revenue opportunity. It almost dilutes the brand of the blue bloods if they don’t have schools like cu to abuse regularly.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Right, but I think an NFL-Lite setup where it’s “AFC vs NFC” with a playoff on each side and a super bowl could easily get to $4-5B as a collective. Of course, for it all to matter, it would need an NFL-style governing system
Click to expand...

Which we cannot get with the current conference set up. I think a merger is massively unlikely also because they'll want direct ownership of it. They'll do their own thing at one point and use that as a threat and leverage to push through rule and regulation changes that primarily benefit them and serve their needs in the meantime. But I think it's inevitable that it'll come and when they do it I think they'll kick some schools to the curb and decide who they take and who they won't.
 
Hank said:
Irrelevant means not relevant. I think you mean less relevant. You can’t be less irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you see it as a dichotomous thing or not. I think both are fine. You can measure relevance with a simple yes/no question or a likert scale.
 
This gets richer the more thought you put into it. I don't care for Bill Walton (I mute games he calls). The homer that he is it'll be hilarious when he calls a UCLA game in the B1...assuming Walton will get a better contract from the B1.
 
CUAviator said:
Thing is - Houston, UCF, Cincy have done pretty well WITHOUT “p5” money/TV and recruiting inroads. Give them even what being in the B12 offers, plus OSU, ISU, Baylor, TCU, TT (who tend to make some noise year in and year out), you could have a pretty competitive conference.
Click to expand...
I think the Big 12 gets better with these new teams, even after Texas and Oklahoma leave. The concern is what happens with the next media deal. The conference has been hanging not far behind the Big Ten and SEC in media revenue per school, but the next round may not look so good.

In football it has been very competitive, but hasn't had a team capable of a national championship. The new teams being added are good. Cincinnati was just in the playoffs, but really wasn't much different than Oklahoma. Good enough to make it. Not good enough to win.

In basketball the conference has been as good as I've ever seen it in over thirty years. The last two national champions and three different teams in the finals of the last four tournaments. That's impressive when you consider there are only ten teams in the league. And none of those teams in basketball were Texas or Oklahoma. But that success may not translate into media revenue unless it's sustained.
 
Jens1893 said:
Depends on whether you see it as a dichotomous thing or not. I think both are fine. You can measure relevance with a simple yes/no question or a likert scale.
Click to expand...
Maybe in Germany.

Re-read your post. Relevance can be measured. Whether something is irrelevant is a yes or no by definition.
 
Last edited:
HudsonBuff said:
Could be. Do you think fox and espn (who are really driving this) would view that is revenue limiting only having the elites though? I think a major appeal to college football is the Purdue fans packing the stadium/couches at home to beat Ohio state that one time. If you don’t include schools like that it seems like a massive missed revenue opportunity. It almost dilutes the brand of the blue bloods if they don’t have schools like cu to abuse regularly.
Click to expand...

You could see it either way, I guess, but I think you still get say 12 Ohio State games. But instead of playing Purdue, Indiana or Rutgers they'll be facing Oklahoma, USC or Georgia. I think it's clear which games are more attractive and I'd argue that the main reason why the networks pay the money they do right now are the marquee matchups and not the Indiana v Rutgers games or even the Ohio State v Purdue games. Indiana v Rutgers is a total filler, which also has some value as it fills TV slots and gives you content to show, but I think they're fine with the tradeoff of getting fewer games if they get way better matchups, on paper purely looking at the brands, in return (which they will). One potential issue I see, however, is that some of those games are marquee matchups because they don't happen every year and if they do it's usually with quite a bit on the line. From my point of view I think they lose attractiveness if they happen all the time and may also come with less importance in the grand scheme of things, but I am not sure I am in the majority here.

We also need to realise that we need to be thinking 20 years into the future here and consider the interests of the younger generations and not just ours. But I think that might be going too far here as that it'd also involve speculating on the future of football and some sports in the context of their place in the entertainment industry in general. In addition to the CTE/health issues I could also see football getting a problem due to the length of the game and the time investment you need to make, especially compared to other forms of entertainment
 
Jens1893 said:
You could see it either way, I guess, but I think you still get say 12 Ohio State games. But instead of playing Purdue, Indiana or Rutgers they'll be facing Oklahoma, USC or Georgia. I think it's clear which games are more attractive and I'd argue that the main reason why the networks pay the money they do right now are the marquee matchups and not the Indiana v Rutgers games or even the Ohio State v Purdue games. Indiana v Rutgers is a total filler, which also has some value as it fills TV slots and gives you content to show, but I think they're fine with the tradeoff of getting fewer games if they get way better matchups, on paper purely looking at the brands, in return (which they will). One potential issue I see, however, is that some of those games are marquee matchups because they don't happen every year and if they do it's usually with quite a bit on the line. From my point of view I think they lose attractiveness if they happen all the time and may also come with less importance in the grand scheme of things, but I am not sure I am in the majority here.

We also need to realise that we need to be thinking 20 years into the future here and consider the interests of the younger generations and not just ours. But I think that might be going too far here as that it'd also involve speculating on the future of football and some sports in the context of their place in the entertainment industry in general. In addition to the CTE/health issues I could also see football getting a problem due to the length of the game and the time investment you need to make, especially compared to other forms of entertainment
Click to expand...
Good points here. I hadn’t considered the cte angle.
 
Psyclone said:
I think the Big 12 gets better with these new teams, even after Texas and Oklahoma leave. The concern is what happens with the next media deal. The conference has been hanging not far behind the Big Ten and SEC in media revenue per school, but the next round may not look so good.

In football it has been very competitive, but hasn't had a team capable of a national championship. The new teams being added are good. Cincinnati was just in the playoffs, but really wasn't much different than Oklahoma. Good enough to make it. Not good enough to win.

In basketball the conference has been as good as I've ever seen it in over thirty years. The last two national champions and three different teams in the finals of the last four tournaments. That's impressive when you consider there are only ten teams in the league. And none of those teams in basketball were Texas or Oklahoma. But that success may not translate into media revenue unless it's sustained.
Click to expand...

Not in the overall perception of people. They want brands and big names. They don't particularly care that UT has been garbage since Mack retired. They want OU v UT even if TCU v Baylor might be a better game that year.
 
HudsonBuff said:
Please elaborate on this evidence. Just that they haven’t been included so far? Or that fox and Disney aren’t interested in constant growth? And man, you might be right and we might be in a new big 12. That has its benefits too. I guess I’m excited because this gives us an opportunity to change and reinvent ourselves a bit, which we might mess up as well. Our situation a week ago hadn’t been working though.
Click to expand...
The programs that are being wooed to these larger conferences have administrative support for football. Colorado does not have the admin backing that these other programs possess.

further edit: these major conferences are looking for the complete package when considering expansion at this stage. They want the money, the on field competitiveness, and the buyin from the school. If that school, for instance, has chosen not to make getting the best players via NIL alongside creative admissions for athletes, that program won’t make the grade. Colorado is way down the line. The ONLY thing we have is the TV market. We have NOTHING else.
 
Last edited:
The lack of leadership at this university for the last 15 years has just been devastating on multiple fronts. Not a time to have empty suits without vision or people who are just trying to milk things into retirement. The administration seems to be completely out of touch with their alumni. Seeing some chatter that ASU and Stanford may also have the golden ticket if Notre Dame goes. The refusal to prioritize football is going to cost the school a ton of money in the long term.
 
buffs233 said:
See response from Wilner below in the following link about Cal and Stanford about this possibly being the beginning of the end of major college football for both Stanford and Cal. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07...d-valuing-the-arizona-schools-and-loads-more/

I personally think CU may be closer to dropping football altogether than being invited to the Big 10. CU's administrators and faculty are so captivated and enthralled to be in the same room with administrators of Stanford and UC Berkeley that they think they are one of them. Thus they have adopted the Cal model of not taking football seriously. If Cal or Stanford were to withdraw from major college football, I think there would be a push to do the same within CU.

CU really just wants to suck-up to the academics reputation and similar political alignment of Stanford, Cal, UCLA (already gone) and UW (soon to be gone). Athletics don't matter in the slightest to most at CU, and I think there is a real chance they will decline both an invitation from the Big 12 (wouldn't want to associate with the non-progressive heathens at BYU and in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Florida, and West Virgina), or the MWC (below the self-appointed Harvard of the West label). Net result might to to swallow hard and eat the huge one-time costs necessary to shut the program down.
Click to expand...
I don't have to agree with everything you've posted in order to see there's a truth element in it.
I believe there's a direct correlation when you consider CU football & what led to the pinnacle vs today's version?
At the time CU was in dire need to succeed on the FB field, 71 was a distant memory by 89-90 similar to where it is now.
Us old timers we talk and the one thing we all agree on is CU needs another Eddie Crowder.
 
Jens1893 said:
Not in the overall perception of people. They want brands and big names. They don't particularly care that UT has been garbage since Mack retired. They want OU v UT even if TCU v Baylor might be a better game that year.
Click to expand...
Keep adding more seasons like the one we saw last year from UT and their asshat of a coach and they're not going to matter either.



Who exactly is this guy? A booster who actually knows something or a ****poster who plays himself off as somebody important?
 
Last edited:
manhattanbuff said:
24 each?! That’s a lot of mouths to feed and unnecessarily so.
Click to expand...
Both are already at 16 and it’s hard to imagine the likes of Oregon, Washington, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, UVA, VT, Utah, etc being left out.

Of course, the B1G and SEC could certainly kick out Rutgers, Illinois, Maryland, Vanderbilt, Miss State, etc, to stay at 16 each.

What’s the total number? 16 each? 20? 24?
 
Last edited:
manhattanbuff said:
The programs that are being wooed to these larger conferences have administrative support for football. Colorado does not have the admin backing that these other programs possess.

further edit: these major conferences are looking for the complete package when considering expansion at this stage. They want the money, the on field competitiveness, and the buyin from the school. If that school, for instance, has chosen not to make getting the best players via NIL alongside creative admissions for athletes, that program won’t make the grade. Colorado is way down the line. The ONLY thing we have is the TV market. We have NOTHING else.
Click to expand...
Largely agree with you here. I think tv market is the most important so I’m glad we have that.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Are the blue blood fanbases interested in a setup that sees their teams routinely going 9-3 in a given year because they have left behind all the have nots and are forced to play 2-3 more “good” teams? Are the current 8-9 win programs ready to routinely go 5-7/6-6 every year because they are now in that lower tier of program in the super conferences?
Click to expand...
The blue blood fan basis care about winning equally they care about the level of competition because that's the issue that energizes the base.
If you were say Vandy the money haul every year and going 6-6 in fb and win a natty in baseball...being the dreg isn't a bad deal.
Pack a conference with high profile fb teams someone is going to lose, we lost to nu at least 3 times in the 90's when we shoulda coulda won, the next season after each loss...I wanted to beat them even more.
 
I’m enjoying the dialogue here much more than I enjoy watching the Buffs play football.

I guess I’m the minority though. A move to the Big 12 is an admission that you screwed up and I don’t really have much interest in it. It’s also raising a white flag and saying, “we’ve been relegated to the new 2nd tier of College football and this is the best we can do.”

It’s honestly just depressing.
 
Psyclone said:
I think the Big 12 gets better with these new teams, even after Texas and Oklahoma leave. The concern is what happens with the next media deal. The conference has been hanging not far behind the Big Ten and SEC in media revenue per school, but the next round may not look so good.

In football it has been very competitive, but hasn't had a team capable of a national championship. The new teams being added are good. Cincinnati was just in the playoffs, but really wasn't much different than Oklahoma. Good enough to make it. Not good enough to win.

In basketball the conference has been as good as I've ever seen it in over thirty years. The last two national champions and three different teams in the finals of the last four tournaments. That's impressive when you consider there are only ten teams in the league. And none of those teams in basketball were Texas or Oklahoma. But that success may not translate into media revenue unless it's sustained.
Click to expand...
This is where I stand, as well. I don't really think that we could go to the Big10 and get to Ohio State or Michigan levels. Not with the NIL. At the point I think we could settle back in with our old conference mates and be competitive more quickly. I don't expect another national championship, and frankly the teams that play for it are not amateurs.
 
I listened to an interview this am on ESPN U radio on Sirius/XM with Jon Wilner. He fully believes Oregon and Washington aren't getting a Big10 invite anytime soon.

I still think if the Big 12 comes calling you seriously consider unless somehow you can get the ACC to merge with the PAC 10 to form a Coastal Athletic Conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top