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!

ESPN gives Colorado an "F" on move to Pac-12

pWaldorf

New Member
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ri-top-realignment-scorecard-colorado-suffers

Not trying to troll here. I think this is a great topic for discussion on this board.

I'm not sure what this article is trying to prove -- it's way too early to make a judgment as far as won-loss record and recruiting.

Colorado would not have been better off staying in the Big XII. Very few, if any, of you on this board would want to remain associated with Texas. CU in the Pac is a better fit culturally.

I'd give ESPN an "F" for a confused commentary.
 
Its based on success (we have had none in the Pac 12 as a football school) and on how they see the future. The conference is so loaded they see us having no movement upwards, so the F is actually pretty well deserved.

I personally think we will move up...but ESPN has a different take.
 
Can't believe people still watch ESPN unless a bowl game or a CU game is on. Just one big Brady/Heat/Lakers/etc. suck off
 
I read that article when it first came out and I was confused. The Big XII is dying a slow death and CU should have jumped ship when they were first offered way back in '94. Not only is it a much better cultural fit for CU but recruiting in Cali has improved despite what they say. That's a very odd report indeed.
 
As much as I'd like to kick Trotter in the juevos, it's kind of hard to put up an effective defense. What I would use as a defense is that, though things look bleak from the outside, we are slowly beginning to see a change in philosophy at the higher levels and there seems to be a rekindled focus on becoming a competitive program again. Things like facility improvements and improved recruiting philosophy will begin to turn this thing around.
 
I love that one of the positives they cite for Utah is that the move to the Pac made it possible for them to hire Dennis Erickson as OC. The same Dennis Erickson they just demoted to RB coach to hire former MWC coach Dave Christensen as OC.
 
DBT said:
As much as I'd like to kick Trotter in the juevos, it's kind of hard to put up an effective defense. What I would use as a defense is that, though things look bleak from the outside, we are slowly beginning to see a change in philosophy at the higher levels and there seems to be a rekindled focus on becoming a competitive program again. Things like facility improvements and improved recruiting philosophy will begin to turn this thing around.
Click to expand...
Simple: Conference moves aren't just about football so why would you grade the conference switches based on one factor alone?
 
It was football only. Team would have sucked in the Big 12, too, but probably not so epically bad that it forced the changes. Also, $20+ million is better than $8-10 million.
 
I thought this had already been posted as I also read it several days ago. I also felt that the analysis was skewed for several things-it didn't account for other sports (like MBB), it didn't address medium-long-term financial gains, and perhaps most importantly did not discuss on-field progress and the increased expenditures on key staff for the AD beginning with the new AD who has big time credentials and a new FB coaching staff and increased resources for them, and the recently announced facilities upgrades. All of those later points emerged from the move to the Pac 12.
 
I'd take a few years of sucking given the money difference. Without it the AD would never be able to get into the black, never add additional sports nor would CU be able to keep up with the Joneses of the Big XII (Okie Light, UT, OU).

Now if we still suck in 10 years and our revenue is shorter than expected it ok to say it was a failure.
 
'Tini said:
Can't believe people still watch ESPN unless a bowl game or a CU game is on. Just one big Brady/Heat/Lakers/etc. suck off
Click to expand...
Yeah ESPN televises what is going to get the best ratings and generally speaking covering the Sacramento Kings, Miami Marlins, and Wake Forest won't be that.
 
'Tini said:
Simple: Conference moves aren't just about football so why would you grade the conference switches based on one factor alone?
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's largely the reason teams move, football is what drives college sports and the university perception for a BCS conference. They did not move because of basketball as that brings in a fraction of the revenue. The other major reason is geography, but that's not big as used to be with Missouri in the SEC, Maryland/Rutgers in the Big 10. Simply put the Pac-12 needed two teams, CU/Utah made the most sense.
 
cubuffs85 said:
Yeah but that's largely the reason teams move, football is what drives college sports and the university perception for a BCS conference. They did not move because of basketball as that brings in a fraction of the revenue. The other major reason is geography, but that's not big as used to be with Missouri in the SEC, Maryland/Rutgers in the Big 10. Simply put the Pac-12 needed two teams, CU/Utah made the most sense.
Click to expand...

I think the #1 reason for moving was $$$$$$$$. Football may generate the lions share of that money, but from CU's perspective that isn't as relevant as which conference could provide the biggest checks. The Pac-12 still looks like the best bet there.

If CU can be competitive in football in the Pac-12, that's the ideal of course, and what we really give a **** about the most. But a CU with more money is also a CU with a better chance to be competitive, if we can just keep from ****ing it up as we've become expert at doing.
 
Junction said:
I think the #1 reason for moving was $$$$$$$$. Football may generate the lions share of that money, but from CU's perspective that isn't as relevant as which conference could provide the biggest checks. The Pac-12 still looks like the best bet there.

If CU can be competitive in football in the Pac-12, that's the ideal of course, and what we really give a **** about the most. But a CU with more money is also a CU with a better chance to be competitive, if we can just keep from ****ing it up as we've become expert at doing.
Click to expand...
Well that's always the #1 reason and football generating the most money like you said.
 
Junction said:
I think the #1 reason for moving was $$$$$$$$. Football may generate the lions share of that money, but from CU's perspective that isn't as relevant as which conference could provide the biggest checks. The Pac-12 still looks like the best bet there.

If CU can be competitive in football in the Pac-12, that's the ideal of course, and what we really give a **** about the most. But a CU with more money is also a CU with a better chance to be competitive, if we can just keep from ****ing it up as we've become expert at doing.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think the number one reason was that it was a better fit academically and sports wise and it's where our biggest base is. Of course money played a big part, but that was going to come even had we stayed not knowing then what we know now.
 
boydbuff said:
I thought this had already been posted as I also read it several days ago. I also felt that the analysis was skewed for several things-it didn't account for other sports (like MBB), it didn't address medium-long-term financial gains, and perhaps most importantly did not discuss on-field progress and the increased expenditures on key staff for the AD beginning with the new AD who has big time credentials and a new FB coaching staff and increased resources for them, and the recently announced facilities upgrades. All of those later points emerged from the move to the Pac 12.
Click to expand...
That was a football related article, the author was only focusing on that. ESPN employs different cfb and cbb writers. All the teams mentioned in the article don't regret moving, CU has just performed the worst of any of them.
 
DBT said:
Honestly, I think the number one reason was that it was a better fit academically and sports wise and it's where our biggest base is. Of course money played a big part, but that was going to come even had we stayed not knowing then what we know now.
Click to expand...
If CU could make more money staying in the Big 12 it would've stayed.
 
CU would have been terrible in football in the B12 just like the PAC.

ESPN has a vested interest. They think that CU should have stayed around to continue to let Texas run their conference. CU also abandoned the opportunity to be the designated opponent on the LHN instead of being on the PAC12 network.

No reason for CU to go to the PAC other than an equal share of conference money instead of being on the short end of an unequal distribution. Why would CU care about a few million dollars a year more. Of course they also don't care about being in a conference with a a group of schools that are much more similar academically and culturally. It also wouldn't matter that CU has much more success recruiting California and has a large alumni base there.

ESPN has a vested interest in maintaining the idea that the B12 is a significant player rather than the conference that is losing schools to other conferences. The conference tied to their LHN investment has lost CU, Nebraska, aTm, Missouri and more would leave if they could. Granted that they also have big money invested in the SEC but it is still important to them to have the B12 viable and interesting.
 
cubuffs85 said:
Well that's always the #1 reason and football generating the most money like you said.
Click to expand...

But whether CU football gets more competitive in the Pac-12 doesn't really change the money equation that much more than whether CU basketball gets more competitive in the Pac-12. Sure, there are benefits, but the fact that the Pac-12 is generating more money from football than basketball doesn't automatically mean that the performance of football is more important in terms of financials than the performance of other sports. Of course it does in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, etc., where revenue is generated in house but compared to the conference money pot that money is far less crucial.
 
Staying in the big xii to get banged every year by that gold digger Texas was not an option

FUT! FtB12! And FESPN!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top