What's new
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!

Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
I don’t think there will be anything left of the B12 if OU and UT leave. KU and WVU might find landing spots in the BiG and ACC, and the rest will either join the PAC or will form a smaller, far less influential conference. Might see something like TCU, ISU, KSU, SMU, Houston, Baylor, Tulsa, Tulane, maybe CSU and UNM all form up a new G5 conference. They could call it the Southwest Conference. I don’t think that name is being used anymore.
I’m saying the other schools would just vote no as kind of a **** you to then.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
I’m saying the other schools would just vote no as kind of a **** you to then.
Maybe, but money drives the bus these days. Schools won’t vote no unless they feel they will lose money if they don’t. Just voting no out of spite is unlikely, IMO.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
Maybe, but money drives the bus these days. Schools won’t vote no unless they feel they will lose money if they don’t. Just voting no out of spite is unlikely, IMO.
What is more money when you are still going to be way behind the SEC? It doesn’t matter if you can’t compete with them so it could go south. There was already chatter at ACC media days about players not liking the expanded playoff because it adds more games for them to potentially get hurt. What I’m saying it could be a good place for other schools to keep the sec from ruining/heavily regionalizing the sport past a point it can be fixed. I understand the super conference thing from a National standpoint, if the top team from across the country wanted to break off into a conference of about 30 schools but letting the SEC run these things and probably rig their schedules so they always land 5-6 teams in the playoff sounds like a pretty ****ty way to go about things.
 

SuperD

Club Member
Club Member
I think folks are kidding themselves if they think this isn't being orchestrated by ESPN behind the scenes, which means OU and Texas eventually landing in the P12 is probably a pipedream. Last time there was realignment ESPN literally gave Texas their own network to prevent them from moving to a P16 where they didn't have their media rights locked down. This is happening now as a preventative move so that those schools don't get frisky in a couple years when they are closer to when the B12's Grant of Rights expires since both the B1G and P12 have their tv renegotiations coming up and are much less tied at the hip to ESPN. This may actually be aimed more against them having conversations with the B1G.

I think the only way this blows up is if State legislatures get involved and I don't think Texas Tech has that kind of pull anymore, and there will be just as much interest in Texas in having UT and the Aggies playing again every year. The P12's only real advantage in this is they have more room to take additional teams so they could accommodate a little brother for each school.
 
Last edited:

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
Why would the SEC and the B1G want to do that. Each would end up carrying a bunch of schools that would drain money away from them without contributing similar value.

I could see the SEC offering to pick up Clemson, Notre Dame, and maybe (but no guarantee) a Florida State or Miami. The B1G similarly might consider picking up USC, Oregon, Washington, and maybe one of UCLA, Stanford, or CU.

Each of those moves may also involve dropping a couple of schools that aren't interested in playing at the budgets that will be required.

Net result is that we see 32-40 teams playing at the highest level and everyone else on the outside looking in.
They do it because it puts a lot of territory under one or two conferences. That leads to better payouts across the board.
It’s NFL lite. Think NFC/AFC. There are bottom feeders in the NFL, too.
 

CULifer

Well-Known Member
If Kliavkoff feels beholden to USC, then I think we need to make a play to get into the B1G. We will still get our Texas and SoCal recruits, and we will have more money to attract better coaches and recruiters. We don't have A&M money and branding and tradition and support, but I cant stand USC having the kind of say they do without backing it up with actual results. In the B1G we will have money, rivalries that are real, better recruits, and ... money. And if the future is 2 super-conferences and 12 playoff spots, I want CU to be a part of it.
 
Last edited:

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
If Kliavkoff feels beholden to USC, then I think we need to make a play to get into the B1G. We will still get our Texas and SoCal recruits, and we will have more money to attract better coaches and recruiters. We don't have A&M money and branding and tradition and support, but I cant stand USC having the kind of say they do without backing it up with actual results. In the B1G we will have money, rivalries that are real, and ... money. And if the future is 2 super-conferences and 12 playoff spots, I want CU to be a part of it.

Does CU?
 

BuffsNYC

Captain Jazz Ass
Club Member
If Kliavkoff feels beholden to USC, then I think we need to make a play to get into the B1G. We will still get our Texas and SoCal recruits, and we will have more money to attract better coaches and recruiters. We don't have A&M money and branding and tradition and support, but I cant stand USC having the kind of say they do without backing it up with actual results. In the B1G we will have money, rivalries that are real, and ... money. And if the future is 2 super-conferences and 12 playoff spots, I want CU to be a part of it.

Meh. I like the Pac 12 myself, but I guess I'd hump my ass to Piscataway if necessary.
 

Jalapeno

SUN BOWL OR BUST
Club Member
You know, prior to this, the conventional wisdom was that conferences were tending away from divisions. Do we think that is changing?

I think the SEC would keep the divisions and I'm intrigued by having the Alabama schools in the East because that would be more of the old SEC before 1992. I have seen the same kind of talk from the Pac-8 schools for a potential Pac-16 so it would be important that CU has at least two Texas schools in a Pac-16 East Division. The ACC if they get Norte Dame & West Virigina, they would want one division to reflect the old ACC which would be UVA, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF, GT, Clemson, and either Florida State or VT. The other division would be more like a revived Big East. The Big Ten can just add Kansas and KSU or Iowa State and push Purude and Illinois/Northwestern to the Big Ten East.

Having said all of that, I don't think divisions are going away. It was something more for conferences contracting where it would be reasonable to just pick the two best teams in that case.
 

CULifer

Well-Known Member
If Kliavkoff feels beholden to USC, then I think we need to make a play to get into the B1G. We will still get our Texas and SoCal recruits, and we will have more money to attract better coaches and recruiters. We don't have A&M money and branding and tradition and support, but I cant stand USC having the kind of say they do without backing it up with actual results. In the B1G we will have money, rivalries that are real, and ... money. And if the future is 2 super-conferences and 12 playoff spots, I want CU to be a part of it.
 

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member


If Kliavkoff feels beholden to USC, then I think we need to make a play to get into the B1G. We will still get our Texas and SoCal recruits, and we will have more money to attract better coaches and recruiters. We don't have A&M money and branding and tradition and support, but I cant stand USC having the kind of say they do without backing it up with actual results. In the B1G we will have money, rivalries that are real, better recruits, and ... money. And if the future is 2 super-conferences and 12 playoff spots, I want CU to be a part of it.

Does CU?
 

Jalapeno

SUN BOWL OR BUST
Club Member
If Kliavkoff feels beholden to USC, then I think we need to make a play to get into the B1G. We will still get our Texas and SoCal recruits, and we will have more money to attract better coaches and recruiters. We don't have A&M money and branding and tradition and support, but I cant stand USC having the kind of say they do without backing it up with actual results. In the B1G we will have money, rivalries that are real, and ... money. And if the future is 2 super-conferences and 12 playoff spots, I want CU to be a part of it.

I don't believe USC has behaved like Texas while the Buffs have been in the Pac-12 but USC does have a lot of leverage.

Like Jens implied, I am not sure if CU has the desire to have a high budget sports team. I will root for CU regardless of level.
 

skibum

Did not pee on the Alamo.
Club Member
Q: How do you kick a team out of a conference?
A: It's pretty hard to borderline impossible

The only way to effectively do it is for a critical mass of schools to leave the conference and create a new one - essentially what the MWC did to the WAC.

The above comments are merely a parameter to keep in mind when thinking about the following:

What, if anything, does the B1G do in response to this (presuming it happens)?

1. Nothing (note: never discount this as a possible course of action)
2. Go after... someone?

Other than KU, I don't think there's another obvious "fit" for the B1G in what would be left of the B12.
Could they try and swing for a disgruntled Mizzou? (KU + MU could be a reasonable add)
Would they swallow their pride and slum it with ISU?
Would they pitch CU? (CU + KU could also be a reasonable add from their perspective - but, I think we'd have to give up on CU football ever being relevant again as we'd be so cut off from our recruiting grounds that we'd be well and truly ****ed)

The power move would be for a large fraction of the B1G to join with a large fraction of the Pac-12 and create a new super conference, leaving several of the other schools behind. (Note: this won't happen.)

Or, just rethink the whole thing, merge with the P12 and instead of even trying to create "fair" pods or divisions or whatever, create a tiered relegation system within the conference. There are Champions West and Champions East divisions and Also Rans West and East divisions, the two lower division "champions" move up the next season, and the bottom dwellers drop down. You want intense interest in games between non-ranked teams late in the season? Imagine Michigan and Northwestern meeting with relegation on the line, or... CU and NU meeting with promotion on the line? (Note: this won't happen either)
 

BuffsNYC

Captain Jazz Ass
Club Member
Q: How do you kick a team out of a conference?
A: It's pretty hard to borderline impossible

The only way to effectively do it is for a critical mass of schools to leave the conference and create a new one - essentially what the MWC did to the WAC.

The above comments are merely a parameter to keep in mind when thinking about the following:

What, if anything, does the B1G do in response to this (presuming it happens)?

1. Nothing (note: never discount this as a possible course of action)
2. Go after... someone?

Other than KU, I don't think there's another obvious "fit" for the B1G in what would be left of the B12.
Could they try and swing for a disgruntled Mizzou? (KU + MU could be a reasonable add)
Would they swallow their pride and slum it with ISU?
Would they pitch CU? (CU + KU could also be a reasonable add from their perspective - but, I think we'd have to give up on CU football ever being relevant again as we'd be so cut off from our recruiting grounds that we'd be well and truly ****ed)

The power move would be for a large fraction of the B1G to join with a large fraction of the Pac-12 and create a new super conference, leaving several of the other schools behind. (Note: this won't happen.)

Or, just rethink the whole thing, merge with the P12 and instead of even trying to create "fair" pods or divisions or whatever, create a tiered relegation system within the conference. There are Champions West and Champions East divisions and Also Rans West and East divisions, the two lower division "champions" move up the next season, and the bottom dwellers drop down. You want intense interest in games between non-ranked teams late in the season? Imagine Michigan and Northwestern meeting with relegation on the line, or... CU and NU meeting with promotion on the line? (Note: this won't happen either)

How is ISU slumming? AAU member since 1958. It's not like they're ****braska.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
You say that you want Colorado to be part of it if the future is 2 conferences with 12 playoff spots and I am asking if Colorado wants that as well.
I think so. Not to answer for CU Lifer, but I think RG still has expectations that we are somewhere in the top group of programs. By “top group”, I mean somewhere in the top 40-50 programs nationally.
And while football definitely still rules, I think basketball is a contributing factor going forward. CU has elevated its hoops program to be one of the top 40 in the country. It’s a lot harder to be top 40 in hoops than top 50 in football.
 

CULifer

Well-Known Member
You say that you want Colorado to be part of it if the future is 2 conferences with 12 playoff spots and I am asking if Colorado wants that as well.
Good point.
What I will not understand is that we are struggling financially to stay above board, and also struggling financially in comparison to our conference peers, and yet somehow money isn't driving as much of our conference affiliation discussions. Its not all about money, and yet it all is. That doesn't mean I disagree with the other important factors when it comes to alumni footprint, culture fit, etc, but I don't understand why money isn't the 80-85% driving force in it all... and in our discussed preferences.
 
Last edited:

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
I think so. Not to answer for CU Lifer, but I think RG still has expectations that we are somewhere in the top group of programs. By “top group”, I mean somewhere in the top 40-50 programs nationally.
And while football definitely still rules, I think basketball is a contributing factor going forward. CU has elevated its hoops program to be one of the top 40 in the country. It’s a lot harder to be top 40 in hoops than top 50 in football.

If CU wants it, is it willing to undertake the necessary steps to get there? Is it willing to commit to it?

Because I don't get the vibe CU has any ambition that exceeds not embarrassing itself off the field and having enough players show up for the games.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
If CU wants it, is it willing to undertake the necessary steps to get there? Is it willing to commit to it?

Because I don't get the vibe CU has any ambition that exceeds not embarrassing itself off the field and having enough players show up for the games.
It really depends on where the line is drawn. If the line to make is top 50 in the country football, then yes, they’re willing. If the line is top ten, then no, they aren’t. If the line is somewhere in between, then I think it’s a good question. Problem is, we don’t know where that line is right now.
 

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
It really depends on where the line is drawn. If the line to make is top 50 in the country football, then yes, they’re willing. If the line is top ten, then no, they aren’t. If the line is somewhere in between, then I think it’s a good question. Problem is, we don’t know where that line is right now.

Top 50 probably means top half P12 team and between our coaching hires, recruiting and on-field results I do not see that commitment at CU.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
Top 50 probably means top half P12 team and between our coaching hires, recruiting and on-field results I do not see that commitment at CU.
Not really. In the current environment, there’s 64 +/- P5 teams. It’s a pretty low bar to be better than 14 other schools. I see the commitment to be there, but not a whole lot better.
 

Jens1893

Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
Not really. In the current environment, there’s 64 +/- P5 teams. It’s a pretty low bar to be better than 14 other schools. I see the commitment to be there, but not a whole lot better.

I think there're a bunch of G5 teams that are better than the P5 bottom dwellers.
 

Jalapeno

SUN BOWL OR BUST
Club Member
Top 50 probably means top half P12 team and between our coaching hires, recruiting and on-field results I do not see that commitment at CU.

Maybe CU is going to be one to lean more on the transfer market for players as being more NFL-like. I think it's best to see how CU fares with transfers in this new world of college football. Given that, I don't disagree with you about CU's commitment to football.
 
Top