With the SEC and BigTen firmly rooted in Texas, Pac12 recruiting will suffer as well. CU in particular.
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!
Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable
- Thread starter Duff Man
- Start date
OK, I'm smelling what your cooking, thanks.
and that hurts CU more than the other Pac schools, I'm guessing (i.e. I'm speculating that we have more recruiting presence in Texas than the other 11). if Texas recruiting dries up for CU, we have to compete more with the Cali schools for those kids and we're already at a disadvantage
Is that clear brown gravy in JR's glass in your avi?
Remind me to share my gray based Bloody Mary recipe sometime.
Exactly. CU recruiting will be at its best positioned if our conference is tied to both California and Texas.
My biggest concern with a Pac-16 is with scheduling. Pod scheduling makes the most sense for building/maintaining rivals while getting equal trips to and from each conference region. 3 games against your pod with 2 games against each of the other 3 pods, for a total of 9 conference games. I'd hope that is what the conference would go for.
It works for basketball, too. 6 games (home & away) vs the 3 teams from your pod and then 1 game against everyone else (12 games) that rotate home/away on a year-to-year basis. 18 conference games total, which is the current norm.
It is such a logical scheduling set up that of course they won't do it... Also think it would set us up to dominate our pod. (CU, UU, UA, ASU)
I'm okay with that.
The assumption that 16 teams brings in significantly more money than 12 teams is pure speculation. They have to be the right teams, and the "right" teams are so very wrong for a lot of reasons.
I went to an open concept elementary school, one giant room with 8 separate classes going on at the same time. The giant room was called the pod. 1st grade pod, 2d grade pod etc. I cannot tell you how much I hated that. For that reason alone, I am against anything with the word pod....
The problem with pods, and with dominating our pod, is if they can happen without a conference championship semi-final.
If you have a pod schedule, and you go straight to a championship game... then the most logical way to choose the teams in the championship game is to pick your two highest ranked pod winners - which would put us at a permanent disadvantage compared to the other pods.
If you have a pod schedule, and you go straight to a championship game... then the most logical way to choose the teams in the championship game is to pick your two highest ranked pod winners - which would put us at a permanent disadvantage compared to the other pods.
I think in a pod system you would end up with conference championships coming down to the Pod winners. Post season IMO should be; Conference Semi-Finals, Conference Finals, National Semi-Finals, National Finals.
Would still be the Pac-8 if you'd been in charge.
Honestly, I'm not sure what we have is better than Pac-8, Big 8, SWC, Big 10, ACC, SEC and Eastern Independents (which could have formed a nice all sports conference). But the ship has sailed.
Do you acknowledge at all that non-expansion might end up being very bad for the Pac-12?
@sackman -- keep yelling at clouds and tilting at windmills. the move to 16 is coming nationally. and the p12 is already a bit disadvantaged as others have noted due to timezone/geography. you can hate all you want, but if the p12(16) wants a seat at the big boy table (and you can be assured that it does), then it will take the NECESSARY steps to remain in the big time. the reason that there is all this speculation about the b12 right now is because they are, by far, the most vulnerable p5 conference. they are quite literally going to be gone if they don't expand and they don't have good options for expansion.
I can acknowledge that doing nothing might not be the correct course and might be bad for the conference. However, what I believe is that we are better off doing nothing rather than including UT and OU.
I don't believe the sky is falling if we don't expand. I don't believe the one and only way to increase revenue is to expand. I don't believe expansion is automatically a good thing. I see all kinds of problems with 14 and 16 team leagues. I don't accept as God given fact that if the SEC or B1G goes to 16 teams that we must do the same lest we be "left behind". I can see a scenario where there are four conferences, three of which have 16 teams and the PAC 12 has 12 and that's totally fine.
Expansion is sort of like a WalMart instead of a locally run hardware store to me. I can get more, for less, but I hate the experience. Add UT and or OU, and the P12 becomes another Wal Mart.
It may be inevitable, and the almighty dollar may force UT down our throats, but nobody said we had to like it.
It may be inevitable, and the almighty dollar may force UT down our throats, but nobody said we had to like it.
I'm comforted by the fact that OU and UT find the idea of their playing in the PAC 12 as repugnant as I do.
If expansion is truly inevitable, we better start getting used to the idea of a conference with UNLV, SDSU, UNM, BYU, UNR and maybe, just maybe CSU.
OU and UT want nothing to do with us, and have better options in the event the Big 12 collapses.
If expansion is truly inevitable, we better start getting used to the idea of a conference with UNLV, SDSU, UNM, BYU, UNR and maybe, just maybe CSU.
OU and UT want nothing to do with us, and have better options in the event the Big 12 collapses.
In the scenario you lay out, the best Big 12 teams (and presumably Notre Dame to the ACC), which will bring those conferences a bigger footprint, both for TV and recruiting. Additionally, a bigger league likely brings more content (including conference games) for various media to bid on. More exposure than the Pac-12 and more money than the Pac-12. The likelihood of more tourney bids in pretty much every sport, which also brings more money to those conferences. And meanwhile, the Pac-12 will stay at 12 and at a clear competitive disadvantage in many facets. If that "fine," what in the hell do you consider bad?
Do you have any references for your alleged "fact" that UT and OU have no interest whatsoever in joining the P12?
No. Do you have any references that say otherwise?
I'm not the one constantly repeating what their intentions are and calling that a fact with nothing to back it up.
Oklahoma trying to join the conference once before.
If they wanted in, they'd already be in.
Additionally...
When the Pac-10 expanded, didn't Larry Scott look first to CU-OU-UT-aTm and enter discussions? And going back to when the Big 12 formed, didn't CU & UT flirt with joining the Pac-10 instead?
Apparently, OU/OSU was rejected by the Pac-12 Presidents and never got to OU/OSU for consideration. May have been a timing thing. May have been OSU's academic reputation.
This has probably been discussed, but I would hope if 4 big 12 schools came into the PAC - Texas, Tech, and the Okies? That they would be in their own pod and the Buffs would go with Utah and the Arizonas. Traveling to any of those places besides Austin every year or so would suck.
Let's flip this around. What does the PAC 12 have to offer that is better than what the ACC/SEC/B1G can offer? Why would either of those schools choose the PAC when they have better options?
Now let's think about what we would have to offer in order to make it worth their while. So do we really want to be giving incentives to any schools, much less THOSE schools? Because, you know, letting one or two schools play by a separate set of rules than the rest of the conference is kind of a bad idea. Or didn't we learn that?
Now let's think about what we would have to offer in order to make it worth their while. So do we really want to be giving incentives to any schools, much less THOSE schools? Because, you know, letting one or two schools play by a separate set of rules than the rest of the conference is kind of a bad idea. Or didn't we learn that?