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!

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

The Alabaster Yak said:
It's all football-driven, though, and KU is arguably the worst football brand in the country. Maybe a basketball only invite is possible, but taking KU football solely because it's basketball brand is elite is a net negative.
Click to expand...
But I think having KU in the Big 10 raises the entire conference's hoops profile considerably... plus KU is absolutely no worse than Rutgers and yet Big 10 still sold out for them (I know media market but that was the only thing going for Rutgers other than decent academics).
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
He acknowledges that it could be the 4 CA programs + Oregon and UW

Click to expand...

And this is my fear…saw on another board that supposedly any move Involving UCLA would require approval from the larger University of California system, so it may be doubtful they would let Cal stay behind given the copious debt level of their AD, at that point it may be between us and Stanford or Washington. Washington or Oregon might run into a little brother problem, or Fox may balk at Stanford, but our inclusion probably gets a lot less likely if all 4 Cal schools are included.
 
Last edited:
BTW, are Florida, Texas and California still the top 3 recruiting states or has Georgia supplanted California?

What would the general top 10 be right now?
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
But where have those deep silicon valley pockets been the last 20+ years? Why would that all of the sudden become relevant? Also, have you considered the Stanford and Cal alums who have deep pockets because they go work for Google likely aren't the type who are chomping at the bit to donate bigly to football? Those fanbases are far more apathetic than CUs.

Re ASU... I've been told there are standards for the BIG.
Click to expand...
How do you know it isn’t relevant now? It may be very relevant to Pac12 partners, researchers, faculty, administrators, media partners who would love access to tech companies, etc. just because Larry Scott is a moron doesn’t mean those relationships aren’t relevant now.

And re: ASU, I’ve been told very clearly this is entirely about football and there are no other standards. Their AD is significantly bigger than ours.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Geography seems to be irrelevant based on the schools being discussed. The only negative with Stanford I can think of is that it probably means taking Cal also and taking the 2nd Bay Area school maybe isn’t all that accretive, whereas Colorado wouldn’t need to be added with a partner. But that’s a thin argument.
Click to expand...
Nobody watches Stanford do anything.
 
cowe6453 said:
I mean that's an easy one... Come on now. Other than Pheonix market, ASU doesn't really have much to offer IMO. Big one being poor academic reputation (possibly overblown) and not AAU which has been a deal breaker in the past (****braska lost AAU status after being admitted). If you are a Big 10 bureaucrat Boulder >>>
Click to expand...
Those things don’t matter apparently. Also worth noting, I’m pretty sure Notre Dame is not an AAU school - would the BIG turn them away because of it? No.
 
cowe6453 said:
But I think having KU in the Big 10 raises the entire conference's hoops profile considerably... plus KU is absolutely no worse than Rutgers and yet Big 10 still sold out for them (I know media market but that was the only thing going for Rutgers other than decent academics).
Click to expand...
Eh, BIG already has Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, etc. Pretty prestigious hoops conference as it is, and adding KU, while bolstering it even more, doesn't do anything for football, which again, is what these decisions will be based on.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Those things don’t matter apparently. Also worth noting, I’m pretty sure Notre Dame is not an AAU school - would the BIG turn them away because of it? No.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame would have to give up their NBC deal like Texas had to give up LHN. Are they willing to do that and split revenue equally?
 
SINKRATZ said:
Those things don’t matter apparently. Also worth noting, I’m pretty sure Notre Dame is not an AAU school - would the BIG turn them away because of it? No.
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't. But let's not pretend Notre Dame is somehow comparable to ASU academically. Big 10 cares about academics, with AAU being easy gauge and seemingly the metric in the past. That obviously would not come into play with Notre Dame so its a moot point.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Notre Dame would have to give up their NBC deal like Texas had to give up LHN. Are they willing to do that and split revenue equally?
Click to expand...
Don’t know, but their NBC deal expires in 2025 (I think) and they make less money than they would in a P5 conference. They just happen to be one of the only schools that can actually pull off independence.
"There is no financial advantage to Notre Dame being independent in terms of operations,” Notre Dame athletics director Jack Swarbrick told The Athletic last year. "It costs us money. We would be much better off all in with the ACC or any Power 5 conference.
Click to expand...
 
SINKRATZ said:
CU only draws about 2,000 more people to home football games than Stanford despite the fact that our enrollment and alumni base is twice that of Stanford. CU has more alumni living in Colorado than Stanford has total. So, glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...
All while Stanford has been pretty good for the last decade and CU has been pretty bad. 2016 showed what a good CU football program will draw
 
SINKRATZ said:
Those things don’t matter apparently. Also worth noting, I’m pretty sure Notre Dame is not an AAU school - would the BIG turn them away because of it? No.
Click to expand...
You're correct, they're not. Primarily because they don't have a med school.
 
SINKRATZ said:
CU only draws about 2,000 more people to home football games than Stanford despite the fact that our enrollment and alumni base is twice that of Stanford. CU has more alumni living in Colorado than Stanford has total. So, glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...
Meh, that’s only half the story. Our program has been ****, yet we still fill over 90% of the stadium over the last five years; whereas Stanford had been good-to-competitive over that time and didn’t reach 90% (86ish). And that also doesn’t include the fact that our largest game was played in an NFL stadium during that time, which didn’t count toward our stadium numbers. Final note - all CA cable companies carry P12N. I’m assuming CO, and a lot of other places CU fans live (TX, FL) don’t.
 
SINKRATZ said:
CU only draws about 2,000 more people to home football games than Stanford despite the fact that our enrollment and alumni base is twice that of Stanford. CU has more alumni living in Colorado than Stanford has total. So, glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...
CU has been at a historic low the last 15 years while Stanford has largely at a historic high.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
All while Stanford has been pretty good for the last decade and CU has been pretty bad. 2016 showed what a good CU football program will draw
Click to expand...
So programs draw better when they win, of course they do, that’s not surprising. If I’m the BIG, I’m much more concerned with CU’s willingness and ability to field a decent program than their marginal advantage in home attendance.
 
SINKRATZ said:
So programs draw better when they win, of course they do, that’s not surprising. If I’m the BIG, I’m much more concerned with CU’s willingness and ability to field a decent program than their marginal advantage in home attendance.
Click to expand...
That should rule out the likes of KU and Cal then, right?
 
CUAviator said:
Meh, that’s only half the story. Our program has been ****, yet we still fill over 90% of the stadium over the last five years; whereas Stanford had been good-to-competitive over that time and didn’t reach 90% (86ish). And that also doesn’t include the fact that our largest game was played in an NFL stadium during that time, which didn’t count toward our stadium numbers. Final note - all CA cable companies carry P12N. I’m assuming CO, and a lot of other places CU fans live (TX, FL) don’t.
Click to expand...
Do you think 90% versus 86% attendance is a meaningful distinction?
 
CUAviator said:
Meh, that’s only half the story. Our program has been ****, yet we still fill over 90% of the stadium over the last five years; whereas Stanford had been good-to-competitive over that time and didn’t reach 90% (86ish). And that also doesn’t include the fact that our largest game was played in an NFL stadium during that time, which didn’t count toward our stadium numbers. Final note - all CA cable companies carry P12N. I’m assuming CO, and a lot of other places CU fans live (TX, FL) don’t.
Click to expand...
1. Not last five years, but maybe 2014-2019 we hit 90% for announced attendance. I haven't crunched the numbers, but will assume you're right given the ammended time span.

1a. Worth noting that the start of that period corresponds to CU reducing Folsom's capacity.

2. 90% of 50k is 45k. That's not an attendance number any big time program should feel proud of.

3. Everyone whose attended more than two games a year over that time knows our turnstile attendance count is severely short of the announced attendance (based on distributed tickets).
 
nolabuff said:
This is starting to feel like the Euro super league talk from a few months ago imo. Alot of this ignores what people actually like about college football, which is tradition, rivalries, the chance for upset. This also leaves all other college sports just dangling in the wind.

When I combine those factors together, I struggle to see how this actually increases the popularity of CFB. These mergers would leave out about half of the existing P5 teams, there’s also going to be significant opposition within some of the schools that will be included, not to mention the state political fights that will arise from it. Sure there will be a short-term revenue windfall for the included schools and that’s obviously why we’re seeing the jockeying right now. In the face of declining attendance, tv ratings, the popularity of football as a whole, and college football fandom, especially in younger generations, does that hold in the long run?
Click to expand...

I miss that feeling of awesomeness after a win over Nebraska. I have had about 5% of that feeling when CU beats either AZ school or Utah. Other P12 schools...not so much. Even if the Pac-12 survives as the Pac-14 or Pac-16 and CU is still part of that conference with no real rival, the appeal of being a Buff football fan will continue fading away. Family is full of OU fans and watching the Sooners in the SEC is very intriguing to me so I most likely would just head that way for my football fix. I have zero interest in PAC football and that interest in CU football is on its very last threads. I will still follow & root for CU MBB though.

College football very well could end up being like NASCAR which is a very regional sport instead of a national sport. It will be popular east of the Rockies and perhaps soccer will take its place out west. I have been saying for years that CU needs to add men's lacrosse to fill a gap in spring male team sports for CU but I think it might be time to start talking about men's soccer which is a fall sport while women's soccer is a spring sport. Just do some work at Folsom Field to widen the field for soccer & lacrosse and be done with it.
 
hokiehead said:
1. Not last five years, but maybe 2014-2019 we hit 90% for announced attendance. I haven't crunched the numbers, but will assume you're right given the ammended time span.

1a. Worth noting that the start of that period corresponds to CU reducing Folsom's capacity.

2. 90% of 50k is 45k. That's not an attendance number any big time program should feel proud of.

3. Everyone whose attended more than two games a year over that time knows our turnstile attendance count is severely short of the announced attendance (based on distributed tickets).
Click to expand...
CU is a team that allowed a road team to take over more than half its stadium 2 years ago because season ticket holders would rather turn a profit on their cheap tickets than attend a marquee game (for this program). That’s a bad look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top