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!

FWIW the TAMU boards have lit up with more realignment threads the last couple of day

It would not be a good thing for us if the Big12 loses anyone because it may push that conference to the edge of collapse which would open the door to the possibility of UT and their bitches coming to the PAC. We dodged a bullet last year when they stopped at 12. The last thing I want is to see TTech, Baylor, and UT in our conference again.
 
Timbuff10 said:
It would not be a good thing for us if the Big12 loses anyone because it may push that conference to the edge of collapse which would open the door to the possibility of UT and their bitches coming to the PAC. We dodged a bullet last year when they stopped at 12. The last thing I want is to see TTech, Baylor, and UT in our conference again.
Click to expand...

Baylor doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Even if UT made an issue of it.
 
ScottyBuff said:
The article never said that. That was my own musings that you can discredit all you want to.
Click to expand...
Well, I tend to think you are dead wrong on that one...my old man is an Arky alum, and a lot of my relatives live there. My take on it is that there is zero interest in leaving the SEC, and probably a lynch mob would form is there was a suggestion of going back to a SWC-like conference. IMO it won't happen.
 
Timbuff10 said:
It would not be a good thing for us if the Big12 loses anyone because it may push that conference to the edge of collapse which would open the door to the possibility of UT and their bitches coming to the PAC. We dodged a bullet last year when they stopped at 12. The last thing I want is to see TTech, Baylor, and UT in our conference again.
Click to expand...
I recall that expansion requires a unanimous vote. I don't see CU ever voting to include Uterus.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
I recall that expansion requires a unanimous vote. I don't see CU ever voting to include Uterus.
Click to expand...

Do CU and Utah have a probation-type period before they are allowed to vote on potential new conference members? If so I'm guessing it's not more than 1 or 2 years.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Do CU and Utah have a probation-type period before they are allowed to vote on potential new conference members? If so I'm guessing it's not more than 1 or 2 years.
Click to expand...
I think only Utah is on a two-year probationary period. From what I remember, we came w/"full privleges w/exception of paying back loans on our B12-2 wexit fee.
 
navybuff96 said:
I think only Utah is on a two-year probationary period. From what I remember, we came w/"full privleges w/exception of paying back loans on our B12-2 wexit fee.
Click to expand...

This is correct....we came have voting rights already. And you keep the SWC out no matter what. You don't need to let them ruin a 3rd conference.
 
Money talks, bull**** walks. If UT comes to the party with legitimate $$$$ in their pocket, willing to share equally with its conference brethren, CU's single vote isn't going to amount to much.

But since I doubt UT will ever agree to a 100% equal sharing of revenues (why should they) I don't think this is a scenario which CU fans have to realistically worry about.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Money talks, bull**** walks. If UT comes to the party with legitimate $$$$ in their pocket, willing to share equally with its conference brethren, CU's single vote isn't going to amount to much.

But since I doubt UT will ever agree to a 100% equal sharing of revenues (why should they) I don't think this is a scenario which CU fans have to realistically worry about.
Click to expand...
Actually, CU's vote means everything. A single vote can veto any expansion from what we have been told.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
Actually, CU's vote means everything. A single vote can veto any expansion from what we have been told.
Click to expand...


Is there a link for that information?

It is certainly possible that the bylaws changed, but according to the old Pac-10 bylaws, new members required approval of 3/4 of the conference members. Assuming that number remained the same in the new Pac-12 bylaws, it will take 9 yes votes to get a new member into the conference.

http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/1011hbv1.pdf
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Is there a link for that information?

It is certainly possible that the bylaws changed, but according to the old Pac-10 bylaws, new members required approval of 3/4 of the conference members. Assuming that number remained the same in the new Pac-12 bylaws, it will take 9 yes votes to get a new member into the conference.

http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/1011hbv1.pdf
Click to expand...

That looks pretty definitive. I did a cursory Google search and could only find anecdotal references in school fan forums (and the bleacher report).
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Is there a link for that information?

It is certainly possible that the bylaws changed, but according to the old Pac-10 bylaws, new members required approval of 3/4 of the conference members. Assuming that number remained the same in the new Pac-12 bylaws, it will take 9 yes votes to get a new member into the conference.

http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/1011hbv1.pdf
Click to expand...
Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than what was on this board last year. Looks like I was wrong.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Money talks, bull**** walks. If UT comes to the party with legitimate $$$$ in their pocket, willing to share equally with its conference brethren, CU's single vote isn't going to amount to much.

But since I doubt UT will ever agree to a 100% equal sharing of revenues (why should they) I don't think this is a scenario which CU fans have to realistically worry about.
Click to expand...

CU can keep them out. But if UT is ready to play nice, I would listen.

That said, 'playing nice' involves scuttling the Longhorn Network and receiving an equal share, so I put the odds at <1%.

EDIT: I also believe fan forums over actual bylaws and ****. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I doubt it will happen too but money can make anything happen and I am sure bringing any of those texas assholes to the party will screw this perfect (in my book) conference up.
 
Timbuff10 said:
I doubt it will happen too but money can make anything happen and I am sure bringing any of those texas assholes to the party will screw this perfect (in my book) conference up.
Click to expand...

Texass needs to do everybody a favor and either stay with their 9 dwarves or go independent.
 
If Texas would come, and IF Texas would agree to revenue sharing and IF Texas dumps it's own network than I would be thrilled to have them.

Too bad that won't happen. Even if it did, do you guys really think the Texas legislature would allow JUST Texas to switch conferences?

I would absolutely NOT accept any additional Texas teams other than Texas and maybe aTm. I can totally see CU vetoing all other schools (so I hope)
 
In my ideal scenario Texas does want to join the PAC, is willing to abandon it's network, agrees to revenue sharing but also wants to bring along Baylor. We're the deciding vote and through political backroom negotiations, we convince Texas to drop Baylor and welcome the Longhorns to the PAC sans the hyprocrite Baptist college. **** Baylor. **** Buddy Jones. **** Kenneth Starr.
 
Texas is the biggest best school ever, everyone wants us, we are respected by everyone, all players that go to other schools do so because we didn't take them, slurp, slurp, slurp, swallow. -chip brown
 
The Walrus said:
In my ideal scenario Texas does want to join the PAC, is willing to abandon it's network, agrees to revenue sharing but also wants to bring along Baylor. We're the deciding vote and through political backroom negotiations, we convince Texas to drop Baylor and welcome the Longhorns to the PAC sans the hyprocrite Baptist college. **** Baylor. **** Buddy Jones. **** Kenneth Starr.
Click to expand...

Baylor has zero chance of getting into the PAC. Outside of Colorado, there will be an additional 11 votes against them, the other institutions don't want anything to do with a religious school either.
 
buffedup said:
Baylor has zero chance of getting into the PAC. Outside of Colorado, there will be an additional 11 votes against them, the other institutions don't want anything to do with a religious school either.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you haven't listened to chip brown enough. I actually had an old college friend FB me congratulations because "you were lucky" and "Baylor was gonna be in". He failed out of CU for being a coke addict. Nice guy though. I, being the kind soul that I am, laughed at him and told him there was never a snowballs chance in hell/texas of Baylor's Waco meth addicted ass getting into the pac 12. (direct quote). His only response: (I kid you ****ing not) - "Waco is just as fun a town as Boulder". I forget what I said next, but we haven't spoken since...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top