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!
UT doesn´t want Pac w/o annual game in LA
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
They don't want to go 8-4 ever year.
Bienemy4life
Member
Junction
Club Member
You see, UT is far too good and serious an academic institution to go slumming with the $EC.
Also, the $EC would tell them to shove it up their ass when they started agitating for their special allocations, scheduling, alignment and media rights that UT thinks they are entitled to...
Deleted member 807
Guest
Agree. We're going to need a zipper. Left is one division. Right is the other. Play all inside division + "Rival" pairing + each year + rotation of other non-rival.
Texas -Oklahoma
UCLA-USC
Okie Lite-Texas Tech
Arizona State - Arizona
Utah- Colorado
Stanford-Cal
Oregon-Oregon State
Wazzou- Washington
Of course with this structure Cal is not going to be satisfied without facing both UCLA and USC.
CUFan
Welcome back
Stay at 12. If we must expand, take two. OU/KU. Put them on double secret academic probation from the get go.
Nik, you seem to think UT to ACC is likely. Any chance these conversations have not just been about saving the Big 12, but also taking OU to ACC?
best possible scenario would be Texas with Texas Tech tagging along to the ACC or Big East-
Bienemy4life
Member
I spent most of the summer in Cali. I was so happy not seeing tu fans. Man, I don't want to see the virus that is tu infect the 12 Pac.
Could be. I haven't seen a single OU-ACC thing, but that doesn't mean there aren't talks going on.
ThndringHerd
Well-Known Member
Please let this happen. UT would quickly cannibalize either ACC or BE, turning them into a **** conference, giving us a chance at top-shelf TX recruits again.
Likely UT is making up an issue so that they can have a phantom issue to "negotiate" over. UT's A#1 goal is to keep their precious LHN. They may be thinking that if they stir the pot on division alignment when they know its a key issue for several schools then they can "relent" in exchange for concessions related to the LHN. The emphasis on issues like that and how the PAC is their last choice, but all the specific details on PAC issues screams to me that they are trying to gain as much leverage as possible for negotiating with the PAC.
I suppose the ACC is a possibility since they are an ESPN league, so ESPN could be brokering the marriage, but the ACC also has the worst TV of the major leagues...well the Big East does, but they are due to renegotiate in the next year or two. Does ESPN really want to reopen their ACC deal to cost themselves a lot more money to retain a network they are already not making money on? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the only game they are playing is containment of Larry Scott.
I suppose the ACC is a possibility since they are an ESPN league, so ESPN could be brokering the marriage, but the ACC also has the worst TV of the major leagues...well the Big East does, but they are due to renegotiate in the next year or two. Does ESPN really want to reopen their ACC deal to cost themselves a lot more money to retain a network they are already not making money on? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the only game they are playing is containment of Larry Scott.
Money.
You can hate the idea of expanding to 16 all you want. Its inevitable. If its inievitable, then we must fight/hope for a system that has us playing in Cali at least a couple of times a season. It looks like, if the title to this thread is true, that UT wants the same thing. So, in that sense at least, it appears that UT and CU are on the same page, are we not?
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Nice thinking. It would be easy for uTerus to use this ploy, especially in light of their other moves the last 6 months or so. Yet, they'd better be careful -- if they rile up the 12-PAC prez's too much they may get the entire pie right back in their collective ugly-orange faces.
i have been reflecting on all this and whether we end up at 16 teams in the immediate future. 14 is certainly more probable (especially if it is ou and osu).
the p12 isn't going to do anything that screws up their rev sharing or their tv rights and plans. there is far too much money at stake. the only way ut comes in is if they agree to equal rev sharing and do something about the tv network. there may be some flexibility around the network but i doubt it.
the p12 isn't going to go east/west or north/south unless they can get the votes to do it. cal and stanford will not agree to north/south, among others. CU, utah, and the az schools will not agree to east/west, among others.
they'll go zipper or pods.
and, there is no way the p12 moves unless they are damned sure the sec is going to 16. right now, the p12 has a great tv deal and 12 teams fighting for a bcs slot. if they add ut and ou and osu, they are adding 3 teams that are competing for that bcs slot, while there will be other bcs conferences with only 12 teams or so.
i don't know how it shakes out, but ut is going to have to do a lot of compromising and scott is going to have to do a lot of convincing and accomodating to make this work.
the p12 isn't going to do anything that screws up their rev sharing or their tv rights and plans. there is far too much money at stake. the only way ut comes in is if they agree to equal rev sharing and do something about the tv network. there may be some flexibility around the network but i doubt it.
the p12 isn't going to go east/west or north/south unless they can get the votes to do it. cal and stanford will not agree to north/south, among others. CU, utah, and the az schools will not agree to east/west, among others.
they'll go zipper or pods.
and, there is no way the p12 moves unless they are damned sure the sec is going to 16. right now, the p12 has a great tv deal and 12 teams fighting for a bcs slot. if they add ut and ou and osu, they are adding 3 teams that are competing for that bcs slot, while there will be other bcs conferences with only 12 teams or so.
i don't know how it shakes out, but ut is going to have to do a lot of compromising and scott is going to have to do a lot of convincing and accomodating to make this work.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
out of curiosity, have there been any official mention of pods or zippers? i know Nik has championed some great sounding options....but is it just us pissing in the wind/way ahead of the curve...or could that actually happen?
Believe scott mentioned that scheduling would be creative.
It's difficult to make this happen.
The northwest schools don't want to be in a pod because they're hoping that they'd get to LA every year with a divisional split. They don't like the current alignment. They currently get to LA every 2/3 years. Would they be willing to go 2/4 with pods if it gave them a game in Texas every 1/4? I don't know.
The California schools already compromised by being split up. They don't like it and would want to be in the same pod or the same division. I think they would fight the pod scenario where USC/UCLA paired with UA/ASU and Cal/Stan paired with CU/UU.
The Arizona schools do not want to be separated from the LA market. They'll fight divisional alignment that separates them into a different division. They would probably compromise if they saw LA a bit less but added a Texas presence, so they'd probably go for pods. They'd especially like being in a USC-UCLA-UA-ASU pod.
CU and UU are in the same camp as the Arizona schools. We might prefer being with Cal/Stan over UA/ASU too, but would probably be cool with it either way. We hate the division idea.
The new programs from the central time zone are not interested in joining the Pac only to be in divisions that don't put them in LA regularly. Pods might be a compromise they can live with, but they'll fight for more.
In the end, I don't think that divisions have the votes. The question is whether pods could have the votes. And if so, what pod format?
The northwest schools don't want to be in a pod because they're hoping that they'd get to LA every year with a divisional split. They don't like the current alignment. They currently get to LA every 2/3 years. Would they be willing to go 2/4 with pods if it gave them a game in Texas every 1/4? I don't know.
The California schools already compromised by being split up. They don't like it and would want to be in the same pod or the same division. I think they would fight the pod scenario where USC/UCLA paired with UA/ASU and Cal/Stan paired with CU/UU.
The Arizona schools do not want to be separated from the LA market. They'll fight divisional alignment that separates them into a different division. They would probably compromise if they saw LA a bit less but added a Texas presence, so they'd probably go for pods. They'd especially like being in a USC-UCLA-UA-ASU pod.
CU and UU are in the same camp as the Arizona schools. We might prefer being with Cal/Stan over UA/ASU too, but would probably be cool with it either way. We hate the division idea.
The new programs from the central time zone are not interested in joining the Pac only to be in divisions that don't put them in LA regularly. Pods might be a compromise they can live with, but they'll fight for more.
In the end, I don't think that divisions have the votes. The question is whether pods could have the votes. And if so, what pod format?
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
what does that mean? balloons or Dali?
Looks like a thorny recipe for no expansion to me.
During a chat with the Seattle Times recently, Larry Scott mentioned that preserving California market access for everyone would be paramount and that no expansion could happen without that. What that specifically means.... I'm guessing pods or zipper, because divisions won't allow that.
Cal84
Member
Texass will get fewer games in Cali if they go independent. As in zero. If the Okies go west, all of Texass' options will be worse than the one they have now (Little10), so it is not necessary for the P12/14/16 to offer something that makes Texass better off.
Truth be told, it's fairly easy to get teams outside the original P8 media exposure in California. Just schedule non-conference games with conference partners. If Texass joins the P16 it already has two such games on its docket.
Truth be told, it's fairly easy to get teams outside the original P8 media exposure in California. Just schedule non-conference games with conference partners. If Texass joins the P16 it already has two such games on its docket.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
thanks DD. rep.
Don't think for a second that UT and OU don't have options. They can call up any conference in the country and be a member tomorrow.
They are not backed into a corner in any way. The Pac-12 looks like the best option for Oklahoma, but the fans are not excited about it. It's driven from an administrative level for academic prestige. The main reason that the Pac-12 looks better to them than the Big 10 or ACC is because of LA recruiting. Other factors are OSU being able to tag along (won't happen with Big 10) and money (presumably less in ACC).
The Pac-12 is also backed into a corner a bit geographically. If 16-team conferences are going to happen, our options suck if OU and UT decide to look elsewhere. We're hardly holding all the cards here, so don't make the mistake of thinking that we can simply dictate terms and OU/UT will accept them.
I'm seeing a softening of our opinion as to whether UT should be part of this conference of ours. Let me reiterate the answer so all will know it. When the question of expansion comes up, specifically with regards to the University of Texas joining the Pac, the only correct response is:
HELL NO.
HELL NO.
Cal84
Member
They (OU+Texass) would have more options if they stuck together. Maybe that will occur. Maybe not.
If they split up and the Okies go west, Texas's options don't go away, but they become less attractive. Not coincidentally, Texass prefers things stay as they are.
The Guest
Guest
Sacky is exhibiting a brand of dogmatism on this particular topic that I haven't seen since I asked Buffwings what he thought of Dan Hawkins as a coach.
If we find out that Deloss Dodd was seen having BBQ with Dave Plati, it might just put sacky over the edge. :lol:
+1 There are no scenarios where I want to be in a conference with Texas. None.