I wouldn't say irrelevant. The chances of a conference team winning a national title will shrink though and in turn so will the conference prestige. Eventually even big boys in this conference will feel the hurt of the competitive disadvantage.
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
I wouldn't say irrelevant. The chances of a conference team winning a national title will shrink though and in turn so will the conference prestige. Eventually even big boys in this conference will feel the hurt of the competitive disadvantage.
Randy.Watson
Well-Known Member
Not to the member schools, alumni, and students. I could care less if some guy walking thru a wal-mart in Florida wants to buy a CU shirt.
Too much emphasis being put on the health of the AD vs the institution as a whole. This may not be popular but I donate more to the academic side of CU than I do to the AD. I realize I am in the minority on this site in regard to the topic and I'm not trying to convert anyone. Just sharing my opinion.
I think the emphasis is in the right place because this is an athletic conference. Therefore, the fits need to be based foremost on what makes sense from an athletic standpoint.
I'm ok with the university presidents blackballing certain options because they don't fit in with research focus or academic integrity, since that could compromise the prestige of the entire conference or simply make for bad cultural fits. But is the arrogance so high that we wouldn't take a Kansas State or an Oklahoma State? Because what we've heard in the past is that it's a "no" for non-AAU schools with their academic ranks.
I put that in the category of things they say they care about but really don't give a **** about.
It's about $$$, recruiting, $$$, ability to win national championships, and $$$. Anything else that might get mentioned is irrelevant.
Randy.Watson
Well-Known Member
I understand your argument but I believe we just differ in the direction we would like to see CU and the PAC 12 go. In my opinion this perpetual college football arms race is unsustainable and will eventually lead to the dissolution of multiple conferences and storied programs. The creation of a minor league NFL, less in name than practice, is the direction this is headed and I am not a proponent of that structure.
I would rather CU downsize and remain a stable and sustainable AD and University, with great rivalries in multiple sports and sharing the conference with like minded institutions, than participate in this game of musical chairs that will have many left standing holding nothing but debt and no way to foot the bill.
They would also have 3 conference games each year with a few hours drive (or possibly home) and then could add 3 non-conference games within the state borders if they really wanted to.
While it makes for a great argument, I'm pretty sure there were not a lot of UT fans travelling to Ames, Manhattan, Lawrence, Morgantown, or Stillwater in the recent past - and with the exception of Stillwater, none of those are really driving distance either - unless you want to get home at, well, 4 or 5am in the morning.
Same applies to the student-athlete. If they are busing to those places, you are getting home before 4-5am. If you are flying, it isn't wildly different once you wait on the tarmac, check luggage, etc. The extra flight time is trivial.
Last edited:
The talking pepper was referring to the athletes. The schools tend to save on hotel costs by flying everyone home immediately following a game.
No, but it would be nice if a recruit east of Denver could watch CU's games.
I was trying to get ahead of the second argument (our fans don't like our games to be farther than driving distance) while still being inclusive of the first argument. I failed - but fixed it.
BuffHerd
Club Member
I respect your opinion and agree to an extent.
However, Downsizing and sustainability Don't coexist in Colorado. We don't fund our University well enough as a state to take that stance. Personally, I don't want to see the PAC expand to other "less rigorous" academic institutions, but also realize that the revenues of a relevant superconference afford us a robust AD that also serves as the front porch of CU.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: bringing in teams in the Central Time Zone will have little effect on when Pac 12 games are televised. The fact of the matter is the networks need late games and the Pac is the only major conference playing on the West Coast. Adding teams in the Central Time Zone won't change this, the networks will still need those late games and will be willing to pay for them. The Pac is the only conference that can give them that, nobody is gonna kick off at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. in the Central or Eastern zones.
My comment was more geared toward the fact that no one carries the network east of Denver, not about adding central teams.
As Nik said, be bold. Make a bold move and set the tone for the rest of the expansion talks across conferences. Right now, we are at a disadvantage but could change that overnight if they went hard after OU, UT and two others in the Big 12. Raid them and use it to force new TV contracts and you get the right teams and Direct TV will fall in line. Keep the Pac 12 networks and the original programming production difference vs other conferences. Will be a huge advantage in the longer term. I really do not think you want to be in a situation where you are trying to catch up with the SEC, ACC, and B1G after the dominos fall. That will be a tough situation to try and survive in from a revenue growth standpoint. I am very fearful they will fall further behind if we do not change the dynamic.
But the games played in the Central Time Zone will be played in the current Big 12 & B1G time slots. That would become 25% of the conference's inventory. We already have seen with basketball games in particular that the Mountain Time Zone games are an hour earlier for tv. This stuff helps bring value to a media deal.
Could even structure a deal with ESPN to take LHN off its hands and make that the PACN Regional for Texas (if, as is possible, all 4 additions came from Texas -- UT, TTU, UH, TCU).
I would not disagree at all but would really rather have OU join with UT. Take UH and TCU or OSU as well and I would be happy. Not a fan of TTU but could live with all of them if OU would not come. Needs to get done
you realize that T-shirt guy, or rather 20k of them, is one of the big differences between having athletic funds like UCLA vs having funds like Colorado, right?
Really depends on what the B1G and SEC decide to do. I could see both of them going after OU hard. B1G would target KU + OU while the SEC would target OU + OSU. Advantage SEC on the politics there and continued ties to the state of Texas for recruiting with Texas A&M being in the conference. I think it will be hard for the PAC to top that, especially since the SEC offer includes drivable road games to Mizzou and Arkansas.
I agree that advantage would go to SEC if we wait. We need to approach both OU and UT and make a package offer. They may want to shop it around but get it done and let UT help in closing OU. The other 2 will be gravy. Make it OSU with OU and let UT pick the Texas partner to come with them as long as it is one of the three you mentioned above.
That's definitely the ideal scenario. Really, it's OU & UT (2 hyper elite programs) being told, "You're invited... and you guys work it out to decide which 2 non-Baylor schools you want to come with you."
Do you think the 75% of the current conference members who play most of the football season in a timezone equivalent to "GMT-7 hours" see the value in having 25% their games kickoff at 10AM PDT? Maybe, but sounds like a helluva hard sell to the West coast and 'Zona schools.
With pod scheduling, it wouldn't be that.
Every team plays 9 conference games. That would continue.
But for the 12 teams outside the TX Pod, there would only be 1 road game to the CTZ per year. And there'd be no guarantee that it would kickoff at noon local time. So, basically, we're talking about 1/9th of the inventory for current members (11%) potentially being a 10am or 11am kickoff on tv for the home audience. Not much of a sacrifice. However, 25% of the media inventory the conference sold would be within the CTZ opening up a new time slot. That's a lot of bang.
And if they did a more simple approach: old Pac-8 is the "West" and new Pac members the "East"... we'd have a setup with 7 games against our own division and 2 games against the other division. That puts all the MTZ and CTZ in one division and each PTZ team making 0 or 1 CTZ trip a year. Again, very little sacrifice for the bang we'd get.
You are scaring me with that division talk - pods FTMFW!
I'm also scared of the division talk.
Don't think there is going to be much support for the division arrangement as it doesn't guarantee everyone yearly access to cali or TX, depending on division.
That's my hope.
Pod scheduling works best for everyone (even if we organize by Division to determine who makes conf championship).
It is the only way to make it so every team travels to and hosts from every region of the conference every year. It also emphasizes regional rivalries, which boosts attendance.
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
I'm completely with you. I love college sports, as all of us on these boards do. However, it is hard to ignore the ethical questions raised with major college sports. The older I get, the more annoyed I am with it, as well as my hypocrisy for tuning in all the time. Fwiw - I also donate much more to the academic side than the AD.
From a fan perspective the pods are a very exciting scheduling option. If there is a negative at the competitive level, I have yet to find it.
I'll bite here...if we went with pods here and rotated them every two years, I'd be all in. We'd play every Pac-16 school round robin at least once in a six year period.
Instead of two Texas and two Oklahoma schoools, why not include KU and Missouri? Missouri is not tied to a GOR in the SEC. I'd prefer to get Nebraska instead of Missouri but Nebraska is probably locked up with a new GOR that goes into the 2030s. Or if we got New Mexico, CU could be in the UT, OU, and KU pod. Those assholes in Austin & Norman will make sure we don't go against the Utah-AZ-NM pod that often.
If we got Mizzou, Okie State can take their spot in the SEC.
Instead of two Texas and two Oklahoma schoools, why not include KU and Missouri? Missouri is not tied to a GOR in the SEC. I'd prefer to get Nebraska instead of Missouri but Nebraska is probably locked up with a new GOR that goes into the 2030s. Or if we got New Mexico, CU could be in the UT, OU, and KU pod. Those assholes in Austin & Norman will make sure we don't go against the Utah-AZ-NM pod that often.
If we got Mizzou, Okie State can take their spot in the SEC.