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!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

HudsonBuff said:
As we have all discussed capitalism is driving 95% of this. Not history, not geography, etc. Capitalism also requires constant growth. Cu offers access to the mountain time zone and one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country. Is that as attractive as Los Angeles? Of course not. But there isn’t another market like LA to sustain your constant growth. I think places like Seattle and Denver might be your next best options. If media markets don’t matter anymore, like I’ve seen debated on here, then why take UCLA? Like CU, they haven’t been relevant on the national stage in decades. Nobody goes to their games. It’s because it gives fox the entire LA market. I’m not sure when the next batch of growth happens, but I think cu will be a part of it. That’s my line of thinking anyway.
Click to expand...
I think your replies express a lack of understanding about these movements and are clouded by your optimism. UCLA is still a major brand and an outstanding school. That’s why they were invited. Colorado doesn’t offer the Big 10 anything that they don’t already have in other options.
 
Last edited:
Duff Man said:
Been said in one way or another, but jumping back to the Big 12 with Zona/ASU/Utah is a good match for both sides. Expands the conference in a way that is not totally crazy and both sides enter the arrangement knowing everyone truly needs everyone else. The Big 8 tradition is a nice little bonus.
Click to expand...
The inclusion of WVA in the conference still freaks me out though.
 
manhattanbuff said:
I think your replies express a lack of understanding about these movements and are clouded by your optimism. UCLA is still a major brand and an outstanding school. That’s why they were invited. Colorado doesn’t offer the Big 10 anything that they don’t already have in other options.
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert on this, very true. Of course ucla is a more attractive add than cu. The only comparison I ever made was both universities have had irrelevant football programs for the last few decades, which is objectively true. I just think two major conferences seems inevitable. Next week or 10 years from now I expect the sec and B1G to be larger than they are now, and I am optimistic cu, and other pac/big 12 teams will be involved due to revenue growth fox and disney shareholders will demand. But who really knows? Anything could happen.
 
HudsonBuff said:
I’m not an expert on this, very true. Of course ucla is a more attractive add than cu. The only comparison I ever made was both universities have had irrelevant football programs for the last few decades, which is objectively true. I just think two major conferences seems inevitable. Next week or 10 years from now I expect the sec and B1G to be larger than they are now, and I am optimistic cu, and other pac/big 12 teams will be involved due to revenue growth fox and disney shareholders will demand. But who really knows? Anything could happen.
Click to expand...
Your concept that Colorado would be included goes against evidence.
 
manhattanbuff said:
Your concept that Colorado would be included goes against evidence.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate on this evidence. Just that they haven’t been included so far? Or that fox and Disney aren’t interested in constant growth? And man, you might be right and we might be in a new big 12. That has its benefits too. I guess I’m excited because this gives us an opportunity to change and reinvent ourselves a bit, which we might mess up as well. Our situation a week ago hadn’t been working though.
 
1989Buff said:
Well, as usual, if a longtime lurker like me is posting, it ain't because good things are happening.

I too hold out hope for the BIG (Nebraska rivalry is a key factor for me...having no REAL rivals in the Pac-12 mattered more than most of us probably thought. The recent out-of-conference NU games have shown that even the fumes of that rivalry, at least on the CU side of things, was a bigger deal even after years of not playing that anything in the Pac). Even as a doormat in the BIG we'd have that to look forward to.

But when I was at CU we were in the BIg-8. Believe me, we saw that as more than competitive enough for our situation. The key difference between now and then though might be that someone from our conference back then could still somehow compete with anyone else in the sport (If you ended the season top-5 in the polls, that's what mattered in a national championship sense. If you beat everyone in the Big-8 you were probably going to be in that position).

So to me the question is can you still see a way to a great outcome if you are in a bad (bad is subjective) conference if you have a great year (or put together a few special seasons)? Even recently teams in less prestigious conferences have at least been in the national conversation when they've had very good seasons.

Now in this new world in which we are heading is something like that going to be possible? I don't know. But if it IS (even if we are looking at long shot situations here) how different is this from how things were in the BIG 8? And I only probably need remind the younguns on this site that the Big 8 era was the best in CU history (again, probably a subjective statement...but I think defensible).

Let's also remember that the Pac itself is/was falling behind. We were going to find ourselves in a less important conference just staying in the Pac-12. So even if the LA schools stay the big boys in the sport were pulling away from us. But, just like in the Big 8, if you managed to catch lighting in a bottle one season, there was a road open for you to do special things.

I guess my point is that if you remember CU as the liberal Western Edge of a conservative south-midwestern college football conference then ending up playing all those "flyover state" schools just seems like returning to tradition...not ditching it.

Sorry for the wall of text.
Click to expand...
The issue is money. And money comes from TV deals. And unless we land in a conference with a huge media payout, we will never have the money to compete. And there are only two conferences remaining that will land mega media deals.
 
Hank said:
Conference records since 2003:

UCLA: 82-84
CU: 50-108

Yeah. Those are totally the same.
Click to expand...
Those are two below .500 conference records. Again, both irrelevant. Cu or Arizona has probably been the most irrelevant. Maybe throw Oregon state in there.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Different levels of irrelevancy but both irrelevant nonetheless

Also, that’s only 1.6 more wins per season for UCLA, on average over that time frame. Not the star you think it is
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way:

UCLA was ranked in 10 of those seasons. Highest ranking was 7 in three separate years.

Colorado was ranked in 5 of those seasons. Highest ranking was 9 in 2016 - otherwise they were at the bottom of the top 25.

I guess we have different definitions of irrelevant.
 
DBT said:
The issue is money. And money comes from TV deals. And unless we land in a conference with a huge media payout, we will never have the money to compete. And there are only two conferences remaining that will land mega media deals.
Click to expand...
Well, when i was in school schools like OKlahoma weren't playing by the rules (and in a real sense had way more money and support than CU) and yet we still had our good (sometimes magical) seasons.

How does Boise state do it? Or UCF? Etc. Etc.

(and we have an equal payout in the Pac-12 now and look at us).

Maybe you are right and money determines all...but even in politics the much less funded candidate still pulls out the victory now and again.
 
Hank said:
Let's put it this way:

UCLA was ranked in 10 of those seasons. Highest ranking was 7 in three separate years.

Colorado was ranked in 5 of those seasons. Highest ranking was 9 in 2016 - otherwise they were at the bottom of the top 25.

I guess we have different definitions of irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Again, different levels of irrelevant and I love the irony of you including the Karl Dorrell years of UCLA to help strengthen your point.

Let’s look at the last decade since there’s not much relevant in todays landscape beyond that?

A couple solid years to start the Mora era and then completely irrelevant since
 
SBP said:
The reason I like the Big 12 move it that, while there are many solid football brands, there is no established blue bloods.

The move gives us an opportunity to reset and it will be exciting to see who establishes themselves as the team to beat in the new conference.

It is kinda like the beginning of a horse race.
Click to expand...
Great point, no more OU or TX..OSU & ISU will be the remaining members who have excelled since we departed (didn't think I'd ever write that) ..screw Baylor.
The most even field CU can hope for on a competitive level B12.
Every day that goes by is a day lost towards the future... wait for an invite or crash a party and I'll go so far as to say crash the party even if it means giving up some revenue for a few years...worked for Utah it can work for us.
 
Last edited:
1989Buff said:
Well, when i was in school schools like OKlahoma weren't playing by the rules (and in a real sense had way more money and support than CU) and yet we still had our good (sometimes magical) seasons.

How does Boise state do it? Or UCF? Etc. Etc.

(and we have an equal payout in the Pac-12 now and look at us).

Maybe you are right and money determines all...but even in politics the much less funded candidate still pulls out the victory now and again.
Click to expand...

There will always be outliers. But they have already gotten far and few between and it'll get worse.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
It entirely depends on if they think they can eventually get NFL TV money for an NFL style setup and will want to bring along lesser programs to help fill out the schedule.
Click to expand...
Maybe as an intermediate step, but I think this is bound to get to a point where the elite will be among itself.

And I don't see them ever touching the NFL's income. We're talking 10 billion a year here.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Again, different levels of irrelevant and I love the irony of you including the Karl Dorrell years of UCLA to help strengthen your point.

Let’s look at the last decade since there’s not much relevant in todays landscape beyond that?

A couple solid years to start the Mora era and then completely irrelevant since
Click to expand...
I know you are only arguing because you like to argue. You well know it is laughable to suggest that UCLA and Colorado are similarly situated, either academically or athletically.
 
Are the blue blood fanbases interested in a setup that sees their teams routinely going 9-3 in a given year because they have left behind all the have nots and are forced to play 2-3 more “good” teams? Are the current 8-9 win programs ready to routinely go 5-7/6-6 every year because they are now in that lower tier of program in the super conferences?
 
Jens1893 said:
Maybe as an intermediate step, but I think this is bound to get to a point where the elite will be among itself.

And I don't see them ever touching the NFL's income. We're talking 10 billion a year here.
Click to expand...
Right, but I think an NFL-Lite setup where it’s “AFC vs NFC” with a playoff on each side and a super bowl could easily get to $4-5B as a collective. Of course, for it all to matter, it would need an NFL-style governing system
 
I think a super league would have to be one conference or league under its own umbrella. You have too many competing interests otherwise.

I used to think we're talking 15 or so max, I now think we could be talking just over 20. I could also see them incorporating some sort of promotion or relegation system.
 
Hank said:
I know you are only arguing because you like to argue. You well know it is laughable to suggest that UCLA and Colorado are similarly situated, either academically or athletically.
Click to expand...
I have already said I think it’s most likely that UCLA was included because FOX didn’t want to share the LA market with what probably would have been ESPN/SEC.

UCLA is a nationally irrelevant football program, though. CU is more irrelevant. Both are true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top