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!

Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)

Shldr2Shldr said:
Much cheaper for folks to fly into Vegas typically, than the bay area. Obviously if you are trying to return home on Sunday or you are flying during a convention that can change. Vegas also has a HUGE variety of lodging options from reasonable to outrageous. It may not have as many tourist attractions per say, it has more access to stage performances. Whether that be music, comedy, dance, drama, dance, etc.

I get the complain that it is a party town. Just think the ease in which people in our conference could get to Vegas makes it an ideal location. It is why the basketball tournament works so well.
Click to expand...

Having the game in Santa Clara just isn't working.

 
The university presidents and chancellors need to do what they're best at: delegate and use that as political cover for themselves.

The AD Group needs to take over most of the management & oversight for the Pac-12 so that the commissioner is accountable to them.
 
My wife and I are going to write and co-sign a letter to RG and Bernard Muir stating that if there isn't some steps taken to rectify these issues (revenue gap, spending gap by the AD, interference with on field calls, etc.) our support for CU and Stanford football will go from donating, buying tickets and attending games to watching whenever it happens to be convenient. We've both been pretty incensed by Canzano's series, which compounded an already present feeling that the Pac-12 was falling behind and that Larry Scott, as someone else pithily put it earlier "thinks playing pebble beach with some guys from Alibaba is good leadership for this conference". The potential for meddling with actual on field calls is the most heinous to me.

My great-grandfather played on the "wonder teams" at Cal in the 1920s, and my wife's grandfather player at Stanford in the 50s. I went to law school at CU, she went to graduate school at Stanford. We both feel deeply connected to the Pac-12/10/8. We block out our Saturdays to watch both program's games, and have for years. But if the conference is run by a cabal of leaders who spend like Caesar and have managed the conference as such that it seems closer to being cemented as a distant fifth among Power Conferences (if it isn't already) rather than ever produce a national champion in football or basketball again.... then, well, there's really not much reason to follow as passionately, nor to donate as much, go to games as frequently, or raise or children to be passionate Pac-12 fans.

I was recently emboldened in my support for CU by the willingness to move on from MacIntyre, despite the cost, to try to get from good to great. It showed to me that CU was willing to "play ball" to be competitive in football. But if that move is made within a Pac-12 context that has become so ill-positioned to make the playoff, then what is it worth? What is it worth if the reward for being more a more compelling football product is perplexingly late kick-offs on networks that many Americans cannot even see the game if they were to choose to stay up? What's hiring a world-class recruiting assistant coach worth if the conference in general is losing star Southern California recruits to other leagues because the Pac-12 is no longer a place to win an NC and be guaranteed an ability to showcase your skills in prime time? What Neuheisel said about the Pac-12 lines being appreciably smaller amongst the Pac bluebloods is deeply concerning from a competitive standpoint.

No one is better positioned to be a meaningful advocate for Pac-12 football than the Pac-12 itself. If they are unwilling to do so, no one will. These trends are going to be very challenging to overcome. My family's support of Pac-12 football isn't worth much in isolation, but when structural conference issues begin to turn off West-coast rooted, deeply loyal Pac-12 fans to the product, ADs must take notice and make a better case to the University Presidents and Chancellors about what needs to happen (and happen quickly).
 
HighlandsBuff said:
My wife and I are going to write and co-sign a letter to RG and Bernard Muir stating that if there isn't some steps taken to rectify these issues (revenue gap, spending gap by the AD, interference with on field calls, etc.) our support for CU and Stanford football will go from donating, buying tickets and attending games to watching whenever it happens to be convenient. We've both been pretty incensed by Canzano's series, which compounded an already present feeling that the Pac-12 was falling behind and that Larry Scott, as someone else pithily put it earlier "thinks playing pebble beach with some guys from Alibaba is good leadership for this conference". The potential for meddling with actual on field calls is the most heinous to me.

My great-grandfather played on the "wonder teams" at Cal in the 1920s, and my wife's grandfather player at Stanford in the 50s. I went to law school at CU, she went to graduate school at Stanford. We both feel deeply connected to the Pac-12/10/8. We block out our Saturdays to watch both program's games, and have for years. But if the conference is run by a cabal of leaders who spend like Caesar and have managed the conference as such that it seems closer to being cemented as a distant fifth among Power Conferences (if it isn't already) rather than ever produce a national champion in football or basketball again.... then, well, there's really not much reason to follow as passionately, nor to donate as much, go to games as frequently, or raise or children to be passionate Pac-12 fans.

I was recently emboldened in my support for CU by the willingness to move on from MacIntyre, despite the cost, to try to get from good to great. It showed to me that CU was willing to "play ball" to be competitive in football. But if that move is made within a Pac-12 context that has become so ill-positioned to make the playoff, then what is it worth? What is it worth if the reward for being more a more compelling football product is perplexingly late kick-offs on networks that many Americans cannot even see the game if they were to choose to stay up? What's hiring a world-class recruiting assistant coach worth if the conference in general is losing star Southern California recruits to other leagues because the Pac-12 is no longer a place to win an NC and be guaranteed an ability to showcase your skills in prime time? What Neuheisel said about the Pac-12 lines being appreciably smaller amongst the Pac bluebloods is deeply concerning from a competitive standpoint.

No one is better positioned to be a meaningful advocate for Pac-12 football than the Pac-12 itself. If they are unwilling to do so, no one will. These trends are going to be very challenging to overcome. My family's support of Pac-12 football isn't worth much in isolation, but when structural conference issues begin to turn off West-coast rooted, deeply loyal Pac-12 fans to the product, ADs must take notice and make a better case to the University Presidents and Chancellors about what needs to happen (and happen quickly).
Click to expand...

The letter needs to be written to Bruce Benson and Marc Tessier-Lavigne. They are the ones that have any say over the leadership of the Pac-12. The AD's have no control.
 
I don't know what it would cost to fire Larry Scott, but there is the alternative that the CEO group could hire or assign someone, like a high ranking foundation administrator, to act in their stead as a direct oversee-er of Larry Scott. That person could start by overruling almost every single decision and expenditure. Force Larry to submit in writing every expense for approval, curb his luxuries, force a change in the conference hq location, etc. Basically make it so painful and demeaning that he would resign to take another job.
 
lawdogg said:
That’s actually a pretty good question. Would you all?
Click to expand...
The move to the B1G has been good for academics (allegedly) not so good for the fans.... save men's basketball, women's volleyball.
The loss of the rivalries honestly, sucks. It's a shame TX got the power. Personally, I think Osborne did it hoping the B12 would dismantle.... It almost did. You can't just make rivals from teams you laughed at your whole life growing up.


Example of the disdain for TX here if you read the replies.
 
Last edited:
TSchekler said:
Siap, this is pathetic. Move it to Vegas ASAP and fire Larry Scott. The gap is growing a lot faster than people believe, IMO.
Click to expand...

Do they actually think that covering the upper deck seats makes it look less empty?

Actually, they probably just don't want to waste any opportunity to get the corporate name and logo in the shot even if few are watching.
 
I just read the entire series. Scott is a dilettante and a self-important dabbler who spends/wastes money like a drunken sorority princess. Worse, he's a pathetic businessman.

Mr. Canzanzo should win a sports reporting award for this series.

I hope everyone noticed that while the PAC12 will be distributing $31MM to each of its member schools, the B1G's payout to each of its schools will soon exceed $50MM. Maybe all those donations from the Tesla Crowd west coast CU alums can help bridge that gap. Jesus, are these PAC12 schools getting played for suckers by this ex-Harvard tennis player.

And the in-game replay stuff is too disgusting to even merit a comment.

Thanks very much to Manti's Woman for the links.
 
Can we just contract all the commissioner office roles to the Big Ten and Jim Delaney? We could probably cut costs 65% and increase revenue and distribution.

And I'm not even half-kidding. How much leverage would a combined Big Ten/Pac-12 have at the negotiating table for media rights, etc? You would still operate as separate conferences for competition purposes, but eliminate the overlapping positions and bureaucracy. Why have two "Directors of Officiating" you would just need one, etc. Why have two commissioners when you need just one; maybe an additional "Associate Commissioner", but at a much reduced salary compared to Larry Scott.

The biggest media markets from the east coast to the west coast including the top three (NY, Chicago, and LA).

When the Pac-12 lost Kevin Weiberg as their "football czar" things went downhill quickly with amateurs thinking they knew better than everyone else.
 
regarding CCG turnstile attendance (vs announced attendance), I think there are two huge factors:
1. proximity of the CCG to the campuses of the schools involved. SF is an expensive trip for UW and UU fans, especially on short notice.
2. whether there are playoff implications on the CCG. any year where a given P5 conference has no influence on the "playoffs", the corresponding CCG has suffered.

the ACCCG was originally in Jacksonville (the conference put it there assuming either FSU or Miami would be playing most years) and I attended in 2007 when it was VT vs BC. I had purchased upper deck tix (because I was poor at the time, and I'm a cheap bastard. well, really more that I'm a cheap bastard), and when we arrived they gave us a "free upgrade" to lower level seats and had the upper deck seats covered. we couldn't have sat in our purchased seats if we had wanted to.
 
hokiehead said:
regarding CCG turnstile attendance (vs announced attendance), I think there are two huge factors:
1. proximity of the CCG to the campuses of the schools involved. SF is an expensive trip for UW and UU fans, especially on short notice.
2. whether there are playoff implications on the CCG. any year where a given P5 conference has no influence on the "playoffs", the corresponding CCG has suffered.

the ACCCG was originally in Jacksonville (the conference put it there assuming either FSU or Miami would be playing most years) and I attended in 2007 when it was VT vs BC. I had purchased upper deck tix (because I was poor at the time, and I'm a cheap bastard. well, really more that I'm a cheap bastard), and when we arrived they gave us a "free upgrade" to lower level seats and had the upper deck seats covered. we couldn't have sat in our purchased seats if we had wanted to.
Click to expand...

Yeah the neutral site works great if you are the SEC and have nearly every school with a diehard football mentality that travels and attends every game. I do wonder though what a Vanderbilt vs Mississippi State CCG would look like for them (probably still better attended than the Pac12).

The Pac-12 is much more of a comparison in a football sense to the ACC. There are a few "high profile" programs and if they aren't in the national conversation then interest wanes. Although in 7 out of 8 years since moving to Charlotte they have averaged nearly 70k+; where the Pac-12 is around 46k.

All the more reason to have it on campus. It would produce a better product, improve the higher ranked teams chances at a playoff, and be less expensive. Even though Las Vegas will be a better option than San Francisco I still don't think they should do that. However, their reasons are not for football atmosphere; so not sure how you convince them.

When the attendance and atmosphere of the CCG is weaker than the American Athletic and on par with the Mountain West and Sun-Belt CCG then you know there is a big problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top