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!

The eyes of Texas are a P.I.T.A

hokiehead said:
that is true, and the Pac can survive, if not thrive, quite well without playing the same game as the other conferences. However, I don't think this situation is far fetched:
  1. BIG grabs ND and Oklahoma
  2. ACC grabs Texas and UConn
  3. SEC grabs Oklahoma and Kansas
  4. the rest of the XII flee to whatever G5 conferences will take them
  5. B1G, ACC and SEC put pressure on the Pac to expand, because, you know, if the Pac only has 12 and they all have 16, it's not fair.
  6. Pac holds out, because as a conference they've collectively adopted Sacky's attitude
  7. other conferences force a vote by the CFP Board of Managers to exclude any conference with < 16 members from their playoff party. vote goes 9 - 1 in favor, with the USC guy threatening a lawsuit on his way out the door.
Click to expand...

First off, "CFP board of managers"? Is there really such a thing?
Secondly, that all works just fine until a #1 ranked Oregon or USC gets left out of a playoff. No "board of managers" is willing to take that chance.
 
sackman said:
First off, "CFP board of managers"? Is there really such a thing?
Secondly, that all works just fine until a #1 ranked Oregon or USC gets left out of a playoff. No "board of managers" is willing to take that chance.
Click to expand...

Unless #1 Oregon or #1 USC are not ranked by the CFP Governing Body because they aren't a member, and therefore not considered for a spot in the playoff to begin with.
 
sackman said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...

That is the point of this discussion.

As the system exists right now, you are right there is no incentive for the Pac-12 to expand. The fear is what happens if the P5 continue to consolidate power at the top. It is not a stretch to see a 64 team elite division of CFB. In that division, 4 Conferences with 16 teams each makes logical and logistical sense. Now the Pac-12 with its history and with the teams in it will likely not be left out, but they will likely be asked and probably forced to expand to 16 teams by this Elite Division governing body. In that scenario would it be better for the Pac to pick the best of the best or get stuck with the left overs?

All of this is a big IF. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that is where this heading.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
That is the point of this discussion.

As the system exists right now, you are right there is no incentive for the Pac-12 to expand. The fear is what happens if the P5 continue to consolidate power at the top. It is not a stretch to see a 64 team elite division of CFB. In that division, 4 Conferences with 16 teams each makes logical and logistical sense. Now the Pac-12 with its history and with the teams in it will likely not be left out, but they will likely be asked and probably forced to expand to 16 teams by this Elite Division governing body. In that scenario would it be better for the Pac to pick the best of the best or get stuck with the left overs?

All of this is a big IF. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that is where this heading.
Click to expand...

The exact same thing can be accomplished with the existing 5 conferences and a wildcard.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
The exact same thing can be accomplished with the existing 5 conferences and a wildcard.
Click to expand...


True but I think the playoffs are going to be bigger than that. Envision this:

Pac-16

Northwest (UO, OSU, UW, WSU)
Cali (USC, UCLA, Stan, Cal)
Mountain (Utah, CU, ASU, UofA)
MidWest (UO, OSU, UT, TTU)


Example CU Schedule would look like:

1 @ Big 16
1 @ SEC 16
1 ACC 16
UO
@UCLA
@Utah
ASU
Cal
@UW
@OU
TTU
UofA


Winner of each pod would be in the CFB Playoffs, leading to a seeded 16 team playoff.

I think that is about as big as the CFB playoffs could get and I think there is a ton of money being thrown at the situation to get it to this point.
 
sackman said:
First off, "CFP board of managers"? Is there really such a thing?
Secondly, that all works just fine until a #1 ranked Oregon or USC gets left out of a playoff. No "board of managers" is willing to take that chance.
Click to expand...

1. of course -- do you think the playoffs happened without leadership? link.
2. a. in your hypothetical, the Pac would already be excluded from the playoffs before Oregon finishes the regular season ranked #1. additionally, (cue conspiracy theorists), if the Pac is the lone hold-out and pissing everyone else off, the sports writers and coaches could let that influence thier voting which might make it more difficult for a Pac team to finish ranked that high. so yeah, it could happen
2. b. it happened under the Bowl Coalition (West Virginia) and it happened under the Bowl Alliance (Penn State, Ohio State) and it happened under the BCS (Oklahoma, Auburn). I see no reason it couldn't happen under the CFP; it's not like the governance structure is significantly different.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
True but I think the playoffs are going to be bigger than that. Envision this:

Pac-16

Northwest (UO, OSU, UW, WSU)
Cali (USC, UCLA, Stan, Cal)
Mountain (Utah, CU, ASU, UofA)
MidWest (UO, OSU, UT, TTU)


Example CU Schedule would look like:

1 @ Big 16
1 @ SEC 16
1 ACC 16
UO
@UCLA
@Utah
ASU
Cal
@UW
@OU
TTU
UofA


Winner of each pod would be in the CFB Playoffs, leading to a seeded 16 team playoff.

I think that is about as big as the CFB playoffs could get and I think there is a ton of money being thrown at the situation to get it to this point.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing would be years and years away, but I do like the idea.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
True but I think the playoffs are going to be bigger than that. Envision this:

Pac-16

Northwest (UO, OSU, UW, WSU)
Cali (USC, UCLA, Stan, Cal)
Mountain (Utah, CU, ASU, UofA)
MidWest (UO, OSU, UT, TTU)


Example CU Schedule would look like:

1 @ Big 16
1 @ SEC 16
1 ACC 16
UO
@UCLA
@Utah
ASU
Cal
@UW
@OU
TTU
UofA


Winner of each pod would be in the CFB Playoffs, leading to a seeded 16 team playoff.

I think that is about as big as the CFB playoffs could get and I think there is a ton of money being thrown at the situation to get it to this point.
Click to expand...

It will happen with 5 conferences and more wildcards utilizing something similar to the BCS rating system.
 
Every time this subject comes up, we get the same hypotheticals thrown out there as some kind of iron clad scenario. It's ridiculous. There are so many reasons not to expand, and virtually zero reasons we should, and yet the conversation continues.
triple_facepalm.png
 
sackman said:
Every time this subject comes up, we get the same hypotheticals thrown out there as some kind of iron clad scenario. It's ridiculous. There are so many reasons not to expand, and virtually zero reasons we should, and yet the conversation continues.
triple_facepalm.png
Click to expand...
Pac10 members probably posted the same thing in 2009

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
J.R. Ewing said:
False. 12 teams gets you a championship game.
Click to expand...

You're implying that every member of the Pac10 was so stoked over the idea of a CCG that they supported expansion on the merits of this alone -- is that correct? You're suggesting the lure of the CCG was enough to compel Oregon and Washington fans to willingly give up annual games with USC-W and UCLA -- I find that hard to believe.

Given the lackluster fan support of the Pac12 CCG, that seems a stretch.

I don't peruse message boards of other teams, but quick google searching shows that not everyone was on-board. I suspect that if we mined Pac10 message boards in 2009 we'd find eveb more Sackman like "I don't want to expand. we don't need to expand. none of the schools mentioned add anything...".

Stanford
UW-West
CFN link, with 5 of 6 contributors recommending against it (including the USC-West guy)
SB Nation article from 2009 - author is pro-expansion, 50% of the comments are anti
 
I'd really like to hear the original statement Cowherd made to know if it was just speculation or if he said he was "hearing things", i.e. from sources.
 
hokiehead said:
Is CSU really in "the" discussion? I follow conference realignment closely and only see the Rams even mentioned here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Buffnik said:
I've seen CSU mentioned.

From the mountain and pacific time zones, we usually see BYU, SDSU and Boise State listed as the most valuable G5s. That next tier is usually some order of Fresno State, CSU, New Mexico, UNLV and Nevada.

From there analysis usually comes down to whether the geography and politics work.

My suspicion is that at least one of the new Big 12 teams if they expand will be located on EST to pair as a travel partner with WVU. They might go that direction for both teams (Cincy and UCF would be my guess) in order to have something to offer the networks in the early time slot every week.
Click to expand...

buffedup said:
Gotta agree with Hokie here. Outside of Buff and Ram boards and an occasional outlier article, CSU is not mentioned in any of the major discussions on national Sports sites and in Big 12 country. They are on the outside looking in at this point.
Click to expand...

since posting this, I've now seen CSU mentioned as a XII candidate all over the place (espn, techsideline, landthieves). honestly though, the notion that CSU brings the Denver market seems as absurd as Rutgers bringing the NYC market (pro-sports towns, those cities are).
 
hokiehead said:
since posting this, I've now seen CSU mentioned as a XII candidate all over the place (espn, techsideline, landthieves). honestly though, the notion that CSU brings the Denver market seems as absurd as Rutgers bringing the NYC market (pro-sports towns, those cities are).
Click to expand...

Links?

Haven't seen anywhere where CSU has a legit chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top