way back last year, when this whole conference re-alignment thing was underway, CU was PRAYING for a p10 invitation. in fact, when it was revealed that the pac wanted to go to 16 by tearing apart the b12, we were on pins and needles, hoping to be included. baylor was working evil behind the scenes to try to take our spot on the re-alignment train. our football program was (and is) at a near historical low. our athletic budget was a mess.
so, when the texas cabal slowed down, scott went bold. he invited CU to see if it would rattle the others. he took a risk in doing that. CU should be very grateful.
the texas cabal ultimately decided they'd get a better deal ****ing over the lesser remnants of the b12 so they didn't move. at that point, scott got some criticism for jumping too early and inviting CU. the view was that CU would be there, waiting for the pac, later as well as sooner. that's hard to argue with, imho. so, scott went out and had to take another risk by adding utah to round out the 12 teams (to get a conf. champ. game). this was not a first-choice for scott. utah is moving up in class and despite their very significant recent success, they are not anywhere near as big a name as ou or ut and they don't add the texas market. adding the texas market was a huge part of the pac's strategy in order to get a good tv deal.
then, scott was able to get a really epic deal for the new pac 12. everyone is thrilled. CU is rewarded for being the first to jump by being placed in with the socal teams. the other schools are cooperative because the money is so big.
now, we sit here, popping off because scott may or may not be able to pull together the 16 team conference the pac originally wanted to build. we like that we got in the door first. we want to close the door behind us. yet, when push comes to shove, usc, ucla, cal, and stanford have a much stronger argument to be allowed to stay together than any argument we could make that we shouldn't be sent east (as was the original plan).
i know this will not be a popular opinion. but, this is the "other" side of this thing. i hate texas. i hope they get ****ed and i don't want them anywhere near our conference. i like the current conference setup and i don't want it to change. but, we hardly have the moral high ground on this. everyone, including the ****ers from texas, is looking out for their self interest. scott's job is to protect and promote the collective interests of the conference, not the individual interests of any particular school, including CU.
if this train leaves the station again and the pac goes to 16, we are merely a passenger and we're not going to be able to change the destination.
just my 2 cents.
Liver, you ignorant slut.
CU to the Pac-10 was a business deal, not a charitable donation from Larry Scott. It needs to be treated as such.
The Pac-10 was locked into bad geography as far as time zones and expansion potential. In order to realize the dream of a conference championship game, a major television network of its own, and time-zone friendly games for eastern audiences it needed to go east and at least into the mountain time zone. It could not expand profitably within its existing footprint.
Further, the Pac-10 was antiquated from a revenue perspective. College sports is no longer a regional enterprise. The Pac-10 was set up as 5 sets of local rivalries banded together. The result of this is that it was only in 5 markets with its 10 teams. The conference needed to make some significant moves and changes. Larry Scott recognized this, explained it to conference members, laid out a vision, and went about implementing it.
The best bridge to the central time zone was CU. Culturally, it was a Pac-10 fit. Academically, it was a Pac-10 fit. Athletically as the "conference of champions", it was a Pac-10 fit. Beyond all that, it commanded a top 20 media market that is growing at one of the fastest national rates. CU was an integral piece of the Pac-10 expansion vision. The Pac-10 needed CU.
From the CU side, the Big 12 had become a less desirable situation. With the UT maneuvering, it wasn't a good place to be any more. Further, the CU fan base preferred the idea of joining the Pac-10. Added to that, CU's biggest challenge is fundraising and the move would put it together with its largest out-of-state alumni base in California. Further, CU saw the academic and cultural fit that didn't exist in the Big 12, so it made a lot of sense to make the move.
Of course, the money had to work from both sides.
In the midst of this, the Pac-10 vision was to go to 16 teams. Ideally, it would be through a CU bridge into the Big 12. The targets beyond CU were OU, UT and aTm. Those 4 were so beneficial to the Pac-10 that it was willing to accept OSU and TTU in the bargain and go to 16. Then, UT reared its ugly head again with its demands. Baylor started piping up about how they needed to be included and it should just be the Big 12 South that got added to the Pac-10. Larry Scott and the Pac-10 needed to nip this in the bud and regain control of the situation.
Scott's plan was to get CU to join the Pac-10 and then bring in UU with us. Not only would that give the championship game and the media leverage to get a great deal, but it would also force Baylor out of the discussion and possibly force out TTU too (thus greatly reducing the Texas influence on the conference).
In order to make that happen, CU had to step up and take a huge financial hit. CU, because it believed in this vision for the conference, made the move. CU gave up its 2010 conference revenue from the Big 12. CU agreed to go through 2011 with its only conference revenue coming from a 1/12 split of the new money from the Pac-12 conference championship game and the 9 extra conference games available for broadcast.
CU went above and beyond the call of duty to be a good conference partner and show good faith from the beginning.
After that, should CU sit idly by while there is talk of putting CU into an eastern division that would give it 1 game every 7 years in southern California? Should CU sit idly by and not concern itself with the money it lost in the transition that was distributed among Big 12 members who are looking to come into the Pac-12 as an equal partner without having to pay it back to CU? Should CU sit idly by when it is suggested it should be in a UT-focused division of the Pac-16 or maybe, with no UT, see CU be estranged from both its Texas and California alumni once the dust settles? Sit idly by while we're seen from the academic research side as being aligned with a group of schools highlighted by our friends in Arizona?
**** that!
Kudos to Bruch Benson for sticking up for CU and making it clear that we have serious interests at stake and that our voice will be heard.
just my 3 cents
