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!
If the Pac-12 could do it over again, should it have taken Okie & Okie Lite?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
No and **** no.
WEST
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. Cal
6. Stanford
7. UW
8. WSU
EAST
1. CU
2. Texas
3. OU
4. Utah
5. Zona
6. ASU
7. Oklahoma State
8. Baylor
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. Cal
6. Stanford
7. UW
8. WSU
EAST
1. CU
2. Texas
3. OU
4. Utah
5. Zona
6. ASU
7. Oklahoma State
8. Baylor
The Pac is extremely interested in UT - and so is the Big 10. Neither team will accept UT's terms of the Longhorn Network. Things change overtime. If UT would give up the LHN, I would expect an invite within days.
On the flip side, Big 12 seems to be doing just fine, so what would be their impetus for wanting to leave now? The moment of instability seems to have passed, and UT received just crazy terms from their peers in the process. I don't see them interested in leaving regardless of other conferences interest in them.
**** you
ok, i'll change it up if you don't like that:
1. Texas
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas Tech
4. Baylor
5. SMU
6. Rice
7. TCU
8. Arkansas
9. Houston
10. Colorado
I'm just kidding. Why be subtle?
Wasn't the talk in the days of the Pac-16 that there would be pods? Northwest, Cali, Mountain, and Southwest?
I think I remember talk of that, and that 16-team conferences would petition the NCAA for two-tier championships - pod champs face off in division championships, division champs face off in conference championships. Frankly, when the megaconferences seemed likely, that's how I thought we were going to get to a 16-team playoff. Division playoffs, CCGs, national semis, title game. It would have worked perfectly from a playoff perspective, but the Big 12 and ACC pulled off some master strokes and
delayed the megaconference. Which is fine with me, because it would **** us.
Anyway, looking at the landscape now, with the Big 12 stabilized, I don't think it's a concern for the foreseeable future. What I'd like to see happen is the Big 12 find a couple of decent mid-majors to pick up and get up to 12 and a CCG again. I think that would even further cement the Big 12 and keep OU and UT firmly entrenched where they are.
I think I remember talk of that, and that 16-team conferences would petition the NCAA for two-tier championships - pod champs face off in division championships, division champs face off in conference championships. Frankly, when the megaconferences seemed likely, that's how I thought we were going to get to a 16-team playoff. Division playoffs, CCGs, national semis, title game. It would have worked perfectly from a playoff perspective, but the Big 12 and ACC pulled off some master strokes and
delayed the megaconference. Which is fine with me, because it would **** us.
Anyway, looking at the landscape now, with the Big 12 stabilized, I don't think it's a concern for the foreseeable future. What I'd like to see happen is the Big 12 find a couple of decent mid-majors to pick up and get up to 12 and a CCG again. I think that would even further cement the Big 12 and keep OU and UT firmly entrenched where they are.
Larry Scott never liked the idea of Pods.
I love it, though. Although it looks like it won't ever happen, here's what it would have looked like if we had a Pod setup in a Pac-16 with the addition of UT, TTU, OU and OSU:
Cali Pod
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
NW Pod
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Mountain Pod
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Utah
SW Pod
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Annual scheduling would be: 3 games against the other members of your Pod, 2 games (Home/Away) against members of each of the other 3 Pods. Total of 9 conference games with everyone playing their regional rivals every year and everyone getting one road trip to each of the conference's recruiting/alumni regions every year.
Conference championship would have to be worked out. Either the 4 highest-ranked teams or the winner of each Pod or something else. But probably a 2-round playoff.
I thought this was pure genius - loved it.
Craziest thing about this is that the national perception would be that the Mountain Pod would be the weakest.
However...
Cali Pod - 1 team currently in Top 25
NW Pod - 1 team
SW Pod - 0 teams
Mountain Pod - 3 teams
FLounder
Think Positive and life will be Positive.
Fify
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Sacky just declared jihad on CTF.
I'm with him.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I didn't take CTF too seriously as he likes to stir the pot, but I could almost see the vein throbbing on Sacky's forehead (fivehead really) as he read it.
LOL - that's nuts. But further proof that we would have been killed if it would have happened a few years ago.
Mr. Babar
I have no elephant books
I really liked the pod format and think CFB would be better off if most conferences were 16 teams with 9 conference games. Would have preserved rivalries and created a balanced rotation of schedules. At the time, I was happy to get away from Texas and the 'arrogance''; however, in retrospect maintaining a presence in the CST zone would have greatly benefited the perception of the conference. Would still jump at the chance to expand if given the chance, but would swap TCU for Texas Tech.
Hell no.
Mr. Babar
I have no elephant books
You make an interesting point...
help out an un-hip transplant. What's the genesis of "Okie lite"? Why is OSU "Okie lite" but KSU not "Kansas lite" or CSU not "Colorado lite"? is there a beer name that sounds like "Okie" this refers to? or is it a Sooner dig that other Big 8 teams adopted back in the day?
Not sure. Everyone from the Big 8 / Big 12 called them that. They were doormats.
With KU and KSU, both were doormats for a long time.
Wish CSU, they were just irrelevant to anyone.
In case you were wondering about the Big 8 thing about doing NU, KU, OU, MU and CU while all being the University of X...
As I understand it, that was a way of saying that CU is Colorado's University because there's no way that a sheep-****ing agg school represents the vast majority of people from this state.