Just like DFW viewership is owned by UT & OU. But those markets being in-footprint is worth a sh!t load more than anything else the Big 12 has to offer.
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
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I'm aware that some rando put that on Twitter, I'm just saying it's not an actual concern
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Houston and TCU are both in better situations than any Pac 12 school is right now.
Can we stop arguing for pulling teams out of the Big 12? Its not happening.
I'm not arguing for pulling teams out of the B12, btw.
Possibly, but I'd point out that the only member of the "new" B12 (i.e. no OU or UT) that has made the playoff will join the league next year, whereas the present PAC12 has 2.
If you want to go a little further back, 7 of 10 members of the "new" P12 have made at least one BCS bowl whereas 9 of 12 members of the "new" Big12 have; although those P12 teams made a total of 14 BCS games combined whereas the B12 teams made 13 combined.
If you want to go even further back, the "new" P12 schools claim a combined 15 National Championships split among 6 schools, whereas the "new" B12 claims 7 spread across 4 schools.
I just saw the Gonzaga rumor being on ice. I assume you're right and KU would only do it if things fell apart. They're a super rich AD, mostly driven by hoops. I assume that like Duke they'll wait it out and milk the football media revenue share as long as they can.
Realistic level setting... The PAC keeps the bottom feeders minus Oregon and Wash, adding SDSU, UNLV level schools. The PAC leadership is trash and the CU brass is garbage - wishing is one thing. If PS and RG are playing checkers instead of chess, CU is now a G5 level school. The only hope for relevancy is the BIG 12 expansion.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Never said you were. Just think that's a pointless argument right now. They are more stable than we are and (based off the projections I've seen) going to making much more than we are.
Vic Victory
Well-Known Member
I don’t know either. It’s intriguing though.
If we can dangle an ACC contractual agreement (without it nothing happens imho, it’s the only legit path to anything worthwhile and I put this at 1%) it could get Ok St to move. I think any inclusion has to start with Ok St, then TCU. Possibly Baylor. Then decide between Houston and Kansas. Or remove Baylor and take Houston and Kansas.
If we come up with an ACC deal (brokered by ESPN), it could work.
Where are Oregon and UW going?
LOL - no clue, but they seem to have more interest from conferences than Cal, CU, Stanford. I don't see those schools staying in a lower level conference (they have $ and don't have PS and RG)
Why don't you just go root for csu instead
Vic Victory
Well-Known Member
5:30pm. Meeting time. Got to go. 
The thouht that any of the current or future Big 12 schools would leave for the Pac12 at this point in time is comical
That was Mizzou guy. You meant, “show me your power towel!”
As a merger with restructuring network and revenue? I think the most logical thing for both is to look at forming the best possible conference from who is out there. When you had 22 combined teams and just lost UT, OU, USC and UCLA nobody left is in a strong enough position to simply add some teams to its current lineup & draw competitive revenue. The only path that has a chance of surviving is to form something new with the 12-16 best assets based on brand + market strength.
The music stops. CU stands pat in PAC10, which also stands pat after -2.I wonder why you have that feeling, when has CU ever ****ed anything up?
That’s a huge lose. Just **** fitting.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
That isn't happening either. They're not doing anything that would open them up to a possible raid from the SEC.
Seeing way too much garbage from clowns like Wilner and Canzano (both of whom have vested interests in seeing the Pac 12 continue as a functional college conference) in this thread. Most of what's coming from them probably shouldn't be taken seriously right now. They're grasping at straws.
Most of the ACC doesn't have a good chance at a seat at the big boy (B1G/SEC) table so the majority of votes will be to stand pat and hope the GoR holds.
Not gonna work, though. No way in hell that the schools who have an opportunity are going to see another 10 years of ACCN contract revenues at half the big boy peer rate. It can't hold.
Nobody is taking them right now is the point. A Pac 10 is a non starter, so there either needs to be some expansion of the Big 12, or the Pac 10 can maybe expand with some of the Big 12, but for that to happen, I have imagine it would be because ESPN decides to buy the P12N and make the Pac12+ more lucrative than the Big12+ would be
If all we do is stay in the Pac and backfill a couple mountain west schools, I’m gonna be so sad
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
If I'm........BC, I'll take 14 more years of what I'm getting now rather than doing this, opening the door for Clemson and company to leave, and seeing them get poached by the SEC.
If we stay in the Pac, I'm out. Had enough of this conference and its dog**** leadership-and Kliavkoff is a part of that.
It would just mean that the remaining schools would be committed to a slow death in athletics.
PRIOR to our foray into the P12, it was the top conference (or competing with the $EC). Larry Scott’s mismanagement cannot be overstated.Even at the time we came.
A visionary would have figured out Longhorn Network, unequal revenue sharing and an unbalanced cross-division schedule to give the top dogs what they needed to be happy.
We'd have had a Pac-16 which added UT, OU, TTU, OSU, CU and Utah with those schools Plus UA & ASU in the Eastern Division. That conference would have lasted and been an absolute power broker.
HighlandsBuff
Well-Known Member
Ah, if Michael Dyer's knee had actually been down, Auburn wouldn't have got into field-goal range, Oregon would have won a title and perhaps things would have played out differently (i.e., if Oregon had gone on to win multiple titles, could it have changed perceptions?).
I still think P12 leadership considered the core teams immutable and is shell shocked.
BlackNGold
Club Member
The ideas of forming a conference with 22 teams is ridiculous. The dilution of TV revenues would put schools at a MWC level. Right now you have to look at what the media deal you can get and talk with media partners about what increases or decreases value - adding teams to get back to 12 is not the right path. Adding teams that get you a better cut of revenue is what CU and others should be looking at. That is the one reason the Big 12 would be interested in adding some of the PAC schools. One big problem is the perception of the PAC fan base of being less than enthusiastic regarding sports. That is why no one wants WSU, OSU and possible Cal.