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 obligatory offseason Pac-10 poll

Are you happy that CU joined to Pac-10 (now 12)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 90.0%

  • No, I wish we had stayed in the Big 12

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • I lost interest once my CU to the MWC dreams were killed

    Votes: 8 8.9%
  • Total voters
    90
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Every year, we killed some time in the offseason debating whether Colorado should leave the Big 12 for the Pac-10. That baby's been put to bed and most of us got what we wanted. Also, those in favor of the hypothetical move was growing every year so there was definitely momentum in that direction.

So I guess this year's poll is about whether you're happy with the move.
 
With the way things have shaken out over the last year, you'd have to be nuts to think CU would have been better off staying in the Big 12. You'd have to be full retard to think they should have gone to the MWC. That's just absurd. The money, the prestige, the roadies, the academic partnerships, the money, the recruiting potential, the um... money - are all reasons that we're way better off having made the move.
 
the academic partnerships thing is a joke. it doesn't really exist. no researchers at CU base their stuff on athletic conference affiliation. it sounds nice as PR, but it's not real.

just saying. it's the kind of stuff that makes admins and boosters feel good by association but isn't a real thing. in ten years of working at CU, i've never heard the idea of athletic conference mentioned once in terms of research, funding, etc.

the idea that "oooh, we used to partner up with Iowa State and now it's Stanford"....is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Mick Ronson said:
the academic partnerships thing is a joke. it doesn't really exist. no researchers at CU base their stuff on athletic conference affiliation. it sounds nice as PR, but it's not real.

just saying. it's the kind of stuff that makes admins and boosters feel good by association but isn't a real thing. in ten years of working at CU, i've never heard the idea of athletic conference mentioned once in terms of research, funding, etc.
Click to expand...

I would think, though, that the athletic conference affiliation would result in the university presidents and chancellors interacting more. Be nice if the Pac-12 set up something like the Big 10 has with the CIC.
 
Mick Ronson said:
the academic partnerships thing is a joke. it doesn't really exist. no researchers at CU base their stuff on athletic conference affiliation. it sounds nice as PR, but it's not real.

just saying. it's the kind of stuff that makes admins and boosters feel good by association but isn't a real thing. in ten years of working at CU, i've never heard the idea of athletic conference mentioned once in terms of research, funding, etc.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It doesn't really matter, though. Even if it's just for PR, associating ourselves with the likes of Cal, Stanford and USC is better than associating ourselves with A&M and Missouri.
 
sackman said:
Fair enough. It doesn't really matter, though. Even if it's just for PR, associating ourselves with the likes of Cal, Stanford and USC is better than associating ourselves with A&M and Missouri.
Click to expand...

ATM and Missouri are not bad schools. better than half the Pac, as is ISU. but, you are right....for the message CU wants to sell....and we've always wanted this...the Pac is better than ag school in Kansas or Oklahoma by association.

but, boots on the ground academics....no faculty give a shizz really.
 
Mick Ronson said:
ATM and Missouri are not bad schools. better than half the Pac, as is ISU. but, you are right....for the message CU wants to sell....and we've always wanted this...the Pac is better than ag school in Kansas or Oklahoma by association.

but, boots on the ground academics....no faculty give a shizz really.
Click to expand...

I was attempting to compare the top level of the Pac with the top level of the Big 12, minus UT. I suppose you could still throw UT in that mix if you wanted to. I just didn't figure it would be appropriate to compare Stanford to Kansas State.

And I know you know this, but I'll point it out anyway - this wasn't done for the benefit of the faculty. As you point out, it's a PR move.
 
Buffnik said:
I would think, though, that the athletic conference affiliation would result in the university presidents and chancellors interacting more. Be nice if the Pac-12 set up something like the Big 10 has with the CIC.
Click to expand...

maybe. nice, how? academic research or writing doens't have anything to do with athletic affiliation. there is no incentive for an "academic" to pursue a course of research with a fellow at an athletic conference level. it's apples and oranges and donkeys. this is a scholar's (quotes) career and keeping his kids in Pampers....doesn't matter if i'm talking with some cat from Cal or Middle Tennessee State. the evaluation of her/him as a scholar has NOTHING to do with sports.

edit: i'm just saying. i read a lot of NU stuff about hoo-ha and being in the Big Ten and all the academic pluses. it's BS.
 
Mick Ronson said:
maybe. nice, how? academic research or writing doens't have anything to do with athletic affiliation. there is no incentive for an "academic" to pursue a course of research with a fellow at an athletic conference level. it's apples and oranges and donkeys. this is a scholar's (quotes) career and keeping his kids in Pampers....doesn't matter if i'm talking with some cat from Cal or Middle Tennessee State. the evaluation of her/him as a scholar has NOTHING to do with sports.

edit: i'm just saying. i read a lot of NU stuff about hoo-ha and being in the Big Ten and all the academic pluses. it's BS.
Click to expand...

Those pluses the Nubs are talking about related to CIC membership, not Big 10 membership. Big 10 was an avenue into CIC. Of course, most NU fans don't put it that way and probably don't understand the relationship.
 
sackman said:
I was attempting to compare the top level of the Pac with the top level of the Big 12, minus UT. I suppose you could still throw UT in that mix if you wanted to. I just didn't figure it would be appropriate to compare Stanford to Kansas State.

And I know you know this, but I'll point it out anyway - this wasn't done for the benefit of the faculty. As you point out, it's a PR move.
Click to expand...

great PR for CU. in the long run it probably exacerbates the out of state tuition dependence and the overall staggering inefficiency of CU's admin....but, we'll mos def be cooler.
 
Mick Ronson said:
the academic partnerships thing is a joke. it doesn't really exist. no researchers at CU base their stuff on athletic conference affiliation. it sounds nice as PR, but it's not real.

just saying. it's the kind of stuff that makes admins and boosters feel good by association but isn't a real thing. in ten years of working at CU, i've never heard the idea of athletic conference mentioned once in terms of research, funding, etc.

the idea that "oooh, we used to partner up with Iowa State and now it's Stanford"....is absurd.[/QUOTE

Academic conference affiliation is B.S. what in the world do Tennessee and Vanderbilt have in common academically?
Probably 85% of Tennessee students would not be accepted by Vandy, not to mention it's one of the most expensive universities in the country to attend. Same thing with Nebraska and Northwestern, and CU and Stanford.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, for grins, our favorite conferences to talk about, rankings from USN&WR. Hard to find their actual criteria, though. And talk about dragging down a conference average, the entire Big 10 beats half the PAC-12, until the nubs joined.

[FONT=&quot]PAC-12[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#5 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Stanford University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of California--Berkeley[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Southern California[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#25 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of California--Los Angeles[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#41 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Washington[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#86 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Colorado--Boulder[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#111 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Oregon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#111 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Washington State University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#120 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Arizona[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#129 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Utah[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#139 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Oregon State University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#143 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Arizona State University[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Big 12[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#45 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Texas--Austin[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#63 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Texas A&M University--College Station[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#79 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Baylor University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#94 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Iowa State University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#94 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Missouri[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#104 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Kansas[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#111 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Oklahoma[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#132 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Kansas State University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#132 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Oklahoma State University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#159 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Texas Tech University[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Big 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#12 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Northwestern University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Michigan--Ann Arbor[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#45 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Wisconsin--Madison[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#47 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pennsylvania State University--University Park[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#47 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#56 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ohio State University--Columbus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#56 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Purdue University--West Lafayette[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#64 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Minnesota--Twin Cities[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#72 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Iowa[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#75 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Indiana University--Bloomington[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#79 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Michigan State University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#104 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Nebraska--Lincoln[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]SEC[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#17 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Vanderbilt University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]#53 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Florida[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#56 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Georgia[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#79 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Alabama[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#85 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Auburn University[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#104 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Tennessee[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#111 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of South Carolina[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#124 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Louisiana State University--Baton Rouge[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#129 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Kentucky[/FONT]
#132 University of Arkansas
[FONT=&quot]#143 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University of Mississippi[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]#151 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mississippi State University[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
sackman said:
Fair enough. It doesn't really matter, though. Even if it's just for PR, associating ourselves with the likes of Cal, Stanford and USC is better than associating ourselves with Baylor and Kansas State.
Click to expand...

FIFY. Of all the B12 schools, A&M and Mizzou aren't bad. Probably better than Utah and Wazzou.
 
buff4bcs1985 said:
seriously who is the asshole who voted no
Click to expand...
I'm the asshole who voted no because I live in the KC area and got to see CU play 2 times every year with just a short drive to Lawrence, Manhattan, Lincoln or Columbia. I liked the old Big 12 the way it was - just being honest.
 
77buff said:
I'm the asshole who voted no because I live in the KC area and got to see CU play 2 times every year with just a short drive to Lawrence, Manhattan, Lincoln or Columbia. I liked the old Big 12 the way it was - just being honest.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're being so selfish. It's so much better now that I have shorter drives (in town, Tucson, southern California) or combine games with trips to see the kids/grandkids in Oregon. :smile2:
 
77buff said:
I'm the asshole who voted no because I live in the KC area and got to see CU play 2 times every year with just a short drive to Lawrence, Manhattan, Lincoln or Columbia. I liked the old Big 12 the way it was - just being honest.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see us replace CSU with KU and include an annual basketball game as part of the deal. Could be a nice bridge until the Jayhawks join the Pac-14 or Pac-16.
 
Buffnik said:
I'd love to see us replace CSU with KU and include an annual basketball game as part of the deal. Could be a nice bridge until the Jayhawks join the Pac-14 or Pac-16.
Click to expand...

I love this idea except for the part about KU joining the Pac-14/16.
 
Nuggets4 said:
I love this idea except for the part about KU joining the Pac-14/16.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that part either. But if things change and we end up moving toward the superconferences, KU is on my short-short list of schools I'd like to see join the Pac.
 
Buffnik said:
I'd love to see us replace CSU with KU and include an annual basketball game as part of the deal. Could be a nice bridge until the Jayhawks join the Pac-14 or Pac-16.
Click to expand...

Great idea. I concur. If our basketball team could just figure out a way to beat KU, we'd have something special. They've been our Achilles' heel for as long as I can remember.

Nuggets4 said:
I love this idea except for the part about KU joining the Pac-14/16.
Click to expand...

I think KU to the Pac would be a great move. Instant basketball respectability and the added benefit of the KC television market. Let's face it, KU is dying on the vine in the Big 12. They'll really want to leave pretty soon.
 
It's the part about having to deal with KU fans again that I'm dreading. I'm really hoping we stick at 12 for a while.
 
Nuggets4 said:
It's the part about having to deal with KU fans again that I'm dreading. I'm really hoping we stick at 12 for a while.
Click to expand...

We'll stick at 12 until the next round of media contract discussions. That's what, 8 years? After that, I wouldn't be surprised if we're not looking at another expansion. If Larry Scott is still in charge (a big IF), he'll want to take over a bigger chunk of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top