well, you see, err, ummm, fify
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 part we want want to sweep under the rug
- Thread starter Liver
- Start date
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
You aren't wrong. Just focused on the side of the debate that we all sit on. My point is that beyond our black and gold vision there are other factors and agendas. When push comes to shove we will see which agendas go to the top of the list. Hopefully somehow Texas gets ****ed.
BlackNGold
Club Member
It does not make any difference what was in Play a year ago...everything has changed. Last year Larry Scott wanted to expand so he could go to the networks and say they had this to offer - and negotiate a greater deal. Now they have negotiated the better deal so now they are focused on building their network. Texas does not have the same leverage they had last year.
I really think the PAC will end up with OU and OSU. Then they will see what makes sense as far as other teams. I really think Texas is totally out of the Picture.
I really think the PAC will end up with OU and OSU. Then they will see what makes sense as far as other teams. I really think Texas is totally out of the Picture.
ximianKernel
Member
I also concur that if we do decide to expand again and OU decide to head west and Texas does not follow. We will stop at 14 and wait for the next wave of events that will happen
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I am not disagreeing with you....everyone says that Texas is the big prize. But does the big prize bring OSU and TT, which lessens the impact. UT without TT is much better IMO. No UT at all is best. I like OU, so they are ok. I hate how we lost to MU with hawk in the drivers seat, but would like them to come along.
LTbuff
New Member
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
Like a warm cup of coffee on a cool fall morning. Refreshing, soothing. Complete.
LTbuff
New Member
This is all becoming a bit ridiculous, in any case. OU in the Pac? Really?
I generally don't like where college football is headed. College football was built on regional rivalries that students and other fans could travel to. It was built on love for the game and tradition. Not huge mega-conferences spread across the country just for the sake of generating a few more tv dollars. We already have the NFL.
Personally, as a fan of the game, I'd prefer to see OU play in a conference with UT, TT, A&M, OSU, Mizzou, KU... because that's what fits. Those are games hundreds - or thousands - of OU students can travel to. Those are games played among two teams with alumni who bump into one another on a daily basis. Those are the type of games that made college football great.
Sigh.
Random rant.
I generally don't like where college football is headed. College football was built on regional rivalries that students and other fans could travel to. It was built on love for the game and tradition. Not huge mega-conferences spread across the country just for the sake of generating a few more tv dollars. We already have the NFL.
Personally, as a fan of the game, I'd prefer to see OU play in a conference with UT, TT, A&M, OSU, Mizzou, KU... because that's what fits. Those are games hundreds - or thousands - of OU students can travel to. Those are games played among two teams with alumni who bump into one another on a daily basis. Those are the type of games that made college football great.
Sigh.
Random rant.
I miss the pre-BCS days of having an incredible New Year's Day of bowl games that were all interesting, too. Growing up in the east, I also loved having a bunch of strong independents in the region (Penn State, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, Florida State, Boston College, etc.) that didn't have conference affiliations. Time moves on and things change. Seems weird that my 3 year old son may grow up and only have memories of college football as an NFL-like alliance of superconferences with a playoff for a national champion. But it seems to be the direction we're headed.
LTbuff
New Member
I think it's unfortunate. Regional rivalries built the love for college football that we have. The average student at OU will always be more interested in a game with Ut, A&M, OSU, Mizzou, etc than they ever will be in a game with UCLA, Stanford, Oregon St, etc. The OSU, etc alumni are the people they live with and joke with and argue with every day. Jokes and arguments born out of a real connection to the team - four years spent loving that school, that campus, that stadium, that fanbase. It's not the NFL. But college football is becoming that - an affiliation of far-flung teams who play each other for big-time money and great tv exposure while generating much less passion from the fans of the game. Just my opinion. There's reasons the B1G and SEC are still as relatively "pure" as they are. At least in some respects. Another random rant, but I love college football and I'm getting more and more annoyed with the destruction of what makes it great.
Sexton Hardcastle
Club Member
White_Rabbit
Well-Known Member
Solid rant. I definitely agree as well, it's too bad that it seems inevitable we're headed to 16 team conferences. Living in Socal, I'm sure I can look forward to never seeing the Buffs play here in that scenario. Yay.
I can't remember exactly, but I think the talk was "OMG! With UT in the Pac we'll be able to get like 20 million per school!" Well, we got 21-22 million per without UT, so **** them.
Rep to Liver for having an objective view on all this.
The Guest
Guest
Neg rep to Liver for having an objective view on all this.
To be honest, I think joining the Pac 12 would be a very big mistake for OU/OSU. They don't fit culturally or regionally. Long term, I think we would see a decline in their football programs because of this.
NashBuff
CSU Knob-Slobberer
What's so bad about that when it comes to CU?
Deleted member 807
Guest
I'm finding no sympathy for OU.
Being geographically isolated from B8 and B12 has been CU's situation forever.
Nebraska, CU's closest former conference member was 500 miles away. That's a long roadtrip from Boulder.
OU was within 500 miles of everyone in the B12 except CU. If you are an OU fan living in Norman, you could wake up on game day in your own bed and drive to TTU, OSU, UT(RRS-Dallas) or BU for the game, and be back in your own house later that evening. A sooner driving to KSU, KU, MU, A&M or ISU has it alot easier than a CU fan driving to our closest conference mate.
Screw em. Let them appreciate CU's lot in life, where a road trip means driving to the airport.