I'm not taking Fresno State in that scenario. What kind of wager do you want to put down that CU beats OSU in the 2012 regular season?
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!
Rebuilding the Buffs...
- Thread starter BlackNGold
- Start date
I'm not taking Fresno State in that scenario. What kind of wager do you want to put down that CU beats OSU in the 2012 regular season?
Comparing Fresno State to Montana State? Really?
Fresno State has one major advantage that helps them when playing BCS schools (think K-State).
Same bet. No way we'll beat Ohio State in the 2012 regular season.
Fresno's always got talent. They put a lot of guys in the NFL. Their problem is that it's not enough talent to overwhelm teams and they're not going to be able to win on scheme with the players they get.
We should beat both teams. I understand the advantage you're referring to. It shouldn't make a difference. Honestly. We're CU, damnit. We should beat Fresno. Always. I don't care what kind of advantage they have in getting kids in. We should be better. I'm not saying we'll always win that game. Far from it. History shows that we lose those games. Drake, Montana State, Toledo, Fresno, etc.
We *should* always win that game. That's what the comparison is based on. It's freaking FRESNO. C'mon.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
For the same reason that UCS, OSU, Michigan and the like most years should beat CU. They have better donor support, bigger and better facilities, and recruit better. So unless we play them when we are up and they are down or we just get lucky with a hell of a coach, then most times those teams should beat CU. CU is not the top of the dog heap. We hope they will become that, but most of the time, even when good, we are a level down. But levels above Fresno, Montana State, Toledo, and so on. Most years we SHOULD beat those type of teams. JMO.
We should expect to beat them every time we play them, but more often than not, it will be a dog fight. That is where I think your comparisons to Montana State are off-base. We should blast Montana State by 5-6 TDs every time we play them. OTOH, Fresno always has decent talent and they generally pour their heart and soul into OOC games against BCS games (they usually collapse in conference play).
The school has the academics at the graduate level. It is also within the conference geography. That could work for FSU or against them. If the strategy is to own the Mountain and Pacific time zones, then schools like FSU, SDSU, UNM, BSU and UNLV are on the table. If the assumption is that the Pac-12 already has the Fresno-Visalia market and FSU doesn't add to revenue, then the conference will look to expand its geography and KU, KSU, OU, OSU, and Texas schools are in the mix for a push into the central time zone.
MrFrumpylane
Well-Known Member
What are ya gonna bitch at me for saying now?
MrFrumpylane
Well-Known Member
Well, since you asked.. I suppose the only thing I can bitch at you for right now is that you're still a lil bitch.
Uh huh....go on.
MrFrumpylane
Well-Known Member
Okay. The fact that you automatically assumed (while falsely so) that I disapproved of your post makes you a little bitch. I replied to answer your question, but saw Nik's post after posting mine and thought he had written a much better answer, so I voided my post that was just a mere weak echo (kinda like how your mom's vajayjay makes one too).
somebody
Well-Known Member
I think you forgot head coaching experience.
You understand that "nm" means "never mind", right?
Sexton Hardcastle
Club Member
Naw Mean?
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I think when it is used to respond to 'Tini's posts, it means "nut-muncher". Or maybe that is BCS. Not sure.
The Guest
Guest
face.palm.
This. The next conference realignment, like those before, are driven primarily by increasing tv revenue. If (When) the Pac-12 expands, I fully expect Texas/OU (and probably one or two of their little brothers) to be part of that.
Kill this idea with fire. Nuke it from orbit. Just say no to UT in the Pac. We get a veto and I'll personally be calling Mike Bohn every day telling him to veto any plan that would include inclusion of Texass in the Pac if the issue even begins to gain legs. OU and KU are fine. Even OSU. But we'd be commiting conference suicide if we allowed UT into the Pac.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't see any reason to believe it won't happen. The Pac-12 has tried, at least twice, to get Texas. And when this thing eventually goes to 4 "super" conferences of 16 teams in a couple of years, I have to believe that they'll ask again. Some at Texas have designs on being independant, but I don't think that is viable for them.
Let's assume that the Pac-12 wants to add UT at some future date.
Let's also assume that UT wants to be a Pac-12 member at that future date.
I still think that it will be impossible to make the deal happen unless one side moves off of a core position. The Pac-12 is firmly married to the idea of equal sharing of conference revenue and equal power in decision making among the member institutions. UT is firmly married to the idea that it brings more value to a conference than any of the other members and should have more money and power commiserate with that. Further, there's the issue of the Longhorn Network. If it succeeds, UT would not give it up. But the Pac-12 does not allow for its members to have independent deals for this tier of media rights.
I simply don't see UT joining the Pac-12 on our terms and I don't see the conference members accepting UT on its terms. And I don't see a middle ground.
If there's ever a Pac-16, my ideal scenario would be to add Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech.
We'd have 4 Pods and 2 Divisions.
The Eastern Division would be:
Midwest Pod: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU/TTU (could also end up with MU going to Big 10 expansion and the Pac-12 taking both OSU and TTU)
Mountain Pod: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
The Western Division would be:
California Pod: Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Northwest Pod: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Conference football schedule would be 9 games:
3 games against teams in your own pod.
2 games each against teams in the other 3 pods.
Playoffs would be 2 rounds (would require NCAA rules change):
Eastern Division Pod Semi-Final at home site of higher seeded team
Western Division Pod Semi-Final at home site of higher seeded team
Championship Game:
Home site of higher seeded team
somebody
Well-Known Member
...not that you like to get ahead of yourself or anything. :wow:
I think you correctly hit the two biggest stumbling blocks (revenue sharing and independent network deals). But I would say there is always a middle ground, and where it is, depends on the relative strength of each partner at that time. Don't get me wrong, I have no interest in seeing Texas crash our party, but I think the next conference expansion will have us looking for schools geographic locations that add tv value to our deal.