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!

Ut,ou,ku,mu

Buffnik said:
Here's how that hypothetical pod system would likely play out:

Eastern Division
"Southwest" pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
"Mountain" pod: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Western Division
"Coastal" pod: Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA
"Northwest" pod: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Click to expand...

Don't know why people bring this up as something that is likely. A CCG is only allowable if the divisions play a round robin. It's a rule that makes sense and isn't going to be changed. It's even more ridiculous to suggest there will be a 2 round playoff to crown a conference champion. If the NCAA were to allow another week of play, it's going to be for a NCAA playoff, not to allow a conference to have 4 divisions of 4 teams for no good reason.

Pods might work for basketball, but that's because NCAA bids are not determined solely by being a conference champion so no one really cares about the conference tournament in the grand scheme of things.
 
GoBeers said:
Don't know why people bring this up as something that is likely. A CCG is only allowable if the divisions play a round robin. It's a rule that makes sense and isn't going to be changed. It's even more ridiculous to suggest there will be a 2 round playoff to crown a conference champion. If the NCAA were to allow another week of play, it's going to be for a NCAA playoff, not to allow a conference to have 4 divisions of 4 teams for no good reason.

Pods might work for basketball, but that's because NCAA bids are not determined solely by being a conference champion so no one really cares about the conference tournament in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

We have been reading that sweeping changes to the NCAA are likely to come. And I did say that it would require an NCAA rules change. If the landscape changes to 4 conference that have 16 teams, that's over half the NCAA football members and about 90% of the money/power/influence. By-laws will change to what these 4 conferences want or they won't be part of the Association any more.

Anyway, I did have round robin within the pods (or subdivisions if you like). So that is within the spirit of the existing rule. The big issue is the 2 playoff round thing. I don't think it would be hard to change it with the money it would generate (4 conferences playing 8 playoff games = tons of money that is additive and, by itself, worth more than all but the BCS bowls).

If it was a simple split of 8 teams on each side, with 7 games in your division and 2 against the other division... I wouldn't even feel like we were part of the same conference with some of the west coast teams. We'd be playing twice every 8 years and we could accomplish that much against someone just with non-conference scheduling.
 
SpacemanSpiff said:
The Texas legislature wants to make sure that the Texas schools have soft landings (or, as soft as possible). A&M chooses to leave, so they are on their own. Texas has one wherever they go, so then the issue becomes Tech and Baylor. The western portion of the state is a very strong support base for Gov Perry. He would be inclined to make sure they are taken care of. When the Big 12 was formed, Baylor alumns were very powerful and made sure Baylor was included. I don't think they have the pull that they once had. More likely that Texas would be told to bring Tech with them.
Click to expand...

I really don't think legislature has the same pull anymore. If they did, Scott would have mentioned a possible scenario in which Baylor was in, instead of Colorado when Pac expansion talks were happening a year ago. But that was never a potential scenario- Starr and the other ***hole made a hell of a hullabaloo but a realistic threat never came out of it. I just don't see UT being bullied to bring Tech (hell, UT doesn't really care about the techies anyways). IMO, only way TTU gets in is if they have something to offer that adds to the conference and that is for the uni prezs to decide.
 
Buffnik said:
Larry Scott wants UT and UT wants to be in the Pac. Both sides are still in the process of creating leverage points. UT is posturing that it can go independent or absorb new members into the Big 12 to keep it viable and strong. Scott is posturing that the Pac is just fine without them and could even expand without UT and get everything it needs in the even that superconferences become desirable/necessary.

I think they'll find their way to an agreement. The money and being positioned for long-term stability + growth is too compelling not to get this done.
Click to expand...

Yup. If Scott is as smart as everyone makes him out to be, then he's smart enough to realize that UT is the big fish still out there that makes sense. And as big as the Pac-12's new TV contract is now, it would be massive if UT were to join and would end up meaning more to each of the current member schools.
 
What if our new TV arrangement is actually agreeable to UT. Since we will have regional networks we basically could have a UT/State of Texas network. They might be willing to be a conference equal (money-wise) in that scenario since they would basically have their own network anyway. Sounds crazy but it just might give UT enough independence while becoming a conference equal.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Yup. If Scott is as smart as everyone makes him out to be, then he's smart enough to realize that UT is the big fish still out there that makes sense. And as big as the Pac-12's new TV contract is now, it would be massive if UT were to join and would end up meaning more to each of the current member schools.
Click to expand...
Until of course, UT reverts to acting like UT.
 
FtColBuff said:
That would terrible nik. Any leverage that Texas would bring to the table already makes it a bigger player in the conference than the other 15 schools. If Texas wants to join, they have to surrender all of it, including LHN, and become just one of sixteen. Texas with any kind of leverage makes them a danger to the whole conference.

I don't understand why we should need Texas. Yes they could bring in more TV $'s, but they would also benefit from that expanded money pool. So we make an extra $10 Million, so would they on top of what they already bring in. I'd rather look in a different direction than add Texas.
Click to expand...

You're right, but not looking at it from the correct angle. When the big dog is already earning $70MM a year or whatever it is they're earning, the extra $10MM isn't going to allow them to do much, if anything, that they weren't already going to be doing before. Conversely, the extra $10MM allows a team like the Buffs to do what more of what UT is already doing. As you move up the financial food-chain, you experience diminishing returns - there is only so much you can do with cash and still be within the rules. Because UT sees diminishing returns, that means the Buffs take another step towards financial equality. Financial equality allows us have more equality in selling recruits, build a competitive marketing machine, and expand the fanbase.

If you think of a guy who has $9MM, a guy who has $40MM, and a guy who has $80MM. The guys in the double digits probably act pretty similar in how they spend their cash. Now bump those folks up to $19MM, $50MM and $80MM. Those big fish probably aren't changing what they do by much, but the small fish with the extra $10MM can do a lot differently, and becomes that much more of an equal with the others.

Hopefully it makes sense where I'm coming from.
 
Creatini said:
Scott said UT having the LHN is a massive hurdle and that he is comfertable with the current twelve team format. I can't find the article but I know I read it yesterday over on Rivals.
Click to expand...

He also said the p12 was not done expanding and that we are heading towards super conferences
 
MrFrumpylane said:
Can anyone tell me why TTU is always included in the expansion talk? No one except for the red raiders care for TTU to be included. Not even UT. Anyone?? I want seriouz answers.
Click to expand...

Because they have a ton of alums in DFW and will deliver north and west Texas in the event the Pac-12 invites KU over UT because they're still pissed at UT. If the Pac goes east, they'll have at least one team in The Republic.
 
I wouldn't mind TTU to tbh. Their while they are low on the totem-pole academically, their student culture is pretty close to CU (see: assholish partying)
 
ESPN just reported breaking news that the 4 schools likely to join the SEC are A&M, FSU, Clemson, and Missouri.

Missouri? :wtf:
 
Seeing that too, apparently ESPN sources inside the SEC are confirming. The first super conference, it will be interesting to see the dominoes fall. Especially with the ACC losing 2 teams.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
ESPN just reported breaking news that the 4 schools likely to join the SEC are A&M, FSU, Clemson, and Missouri.

Missouri? :wtf:
Click to expand...

Holy ****!

Strong move by the SEC if this happens. Very smart from the standpoint of paired rivalries and locking down geographic dominance.

Mizzou and Arkansas will become a big deal, as will LSU-Texas A&M. The existing Clemson-South Carolina and Florida-Florida State rivalries now take on bigger meaning.

I would think that the ACC has to respond next.

I don't see how the Big 12 survives this. I'm not sure the can get any decent program from outside the state of Texas to join and I don't think that bringing in TCU and Houston to get back to 10 teams would work financially.
 
Buffnik said:
Holy ****!

Strong move by the SEC if this happens. Very smart from the standpoint of paired rivalries and locking down geographic dominance.

Mizzou and Arkansas will become a big deal, as will LSU-Texas A&M. The existing Clemson-South Carolina and Florida-Florida State rivalries now take on bigger meaning.

I would think that the ACC has to respond next.

I don't see how the Big 12 survives this. I'm not sure the can get any decent program from outside the state of Texas to join and I don't think that bringing in TCU and Houston to get back to 10 teams would work financially.
Click to expand...


For the Big 12 to survive they are going to have to come after some more powerful programs then TCU and Houston. They are going to have to raid the MWC I think. Boise, Nevada, AF. Also BYU is still out there...

However Scott needs to start looking at the piece of the Big 12 now before it can be patched back together. I think OU and OSU would work well, good solid programs without the Texas ego. I can see Kansas from the standpoint of increasing the conference's basketball prestige but it isnt quite at the same academic level. If Texas is willing to play ball then I think they are the biggest fish in the pond. Turn the already established LHN into the PAC16 Midwest Network and that is settled. They will have to deal with the equal revenue thing. If USC did not get special treament then neither does Texas. I would not be upset with adding OU, OSU, KU, and UT
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
Holy ****!

Strong move by the SEC if this happens. Very smart from the standpoint of paired rivalries and locking down geographic dominance.

Mizzou and Arkansas will become a big deal, as will LSU-Texas A&M. The existing Clemson-South Carolina and Florida-Florida State rivalries now take on bigger meaning.

I would think that the ACC has to respond next.

I don't see how the Big 12 survives this. I'm not sure the can get any decent program from outside the state of Texas to join and I don't think that bringing in TCU and Houston to get back to 10 teams would work financially.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the big 12 teams worth a damn will all have their suitors now. Pac 12 will look, at a minimum, to UT and OU. Maybe KU too. And KU will have multiple options... The buzzards are circling.
 
Regarding FSU and Clemson and the scramble these past few days...

This is what the ACC Manual states in regards to a team withdrawing from the league:
Section IV-5. Withdrawal of Members
"To withdraw from the conference a member must file an official notice of withdrawal with each of the conference members and the commissioner on or before August 15 for the withdrawal to be effective June 30 of the following year.
"Upon official notification of withdrawal the member will forfeit the proportionate ownership share of all real and personal properties held in the name of the Conference, be assessed a proportionate share of the Conference liabilities and receive 25 percent of its proportionate distribution share for the terminal year ending June 30."
 
And teams leaving the Big 12 were originally supposed to wait two years. That stuff can all be worked out.

I know the Mizzou-SEC move seems odd on the surface, but Missouri is, culturally, a southern state in most spots. It has ties to the South in the Civil War and the Missouri Tigers are named after the old Columbia Tigers Confederate regiment. That obviously is just historical stuff, but it fits with the SEC world. But the big reason they're a candidate is adding the KC and St. Louis markets. Obviously, neither of those are huge markets, but they are markets the SEC doesn't currently have and can only add to their TV empire. That's why you're hearing so much about A&M and Mizzou going: you're talking about adding all those Texas markets and KC/STL as well.

This combo would be a huge get for them for a lot of reasons. Obviously getting into Texas is huge, but the rivalry angle is a great deal as well. A&M and LSU becomes a focus and Mizzou/Arkansas have a history as well. It's just a great move for them, plus it likely finishes off the Big 12, meaning one less BCS pig at the trough.
 
Now that Mizzou's name is out there, the Sooners just have to snake them and move to the SEC in their place.
 
Maxer said:
I'm guessing that Larry Scott will now invite both Oklahomas (and form another PAC regional sub-network for them) and Texas and Texas Tech (and turn the Longhorn Network into the Texas regional PAC sub-network).

A big clue to me is that the Longhorn Network is supposed to launch in two weeks and they haven't announced ONE deal with a cable or satellite provider yet: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/12/3073356/network-difficulties-at-the-longhorn.html#ixzz1Uuy0qxD2
Click to expand...

Dude, you're not from around here. Have you ever been to Stillwater? Have Larry call me...
 
Maxer said:
I'm guessing that Larry Scott will now invite both Oklahomas (and form another PAC regional sub-network for them) and Texas and Texas Tech (and turn the Longhorn Network into the Texas regional PAC sub-network).

A big clue to me is that the Longhorn Network is supposed to launch in two weeks and they haven't announced ONE deal with a cable or satellite provider yet: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/12/3073356/network-difficulties-at-the-longhorn.html#ixzz1Uuy0qxD2
Click to expand...

I cannot tell you how ridiculously stupid a move that would be on Scott's part. I know you're blissfully unaware of the cancer that is the University of Texas. But it's imperative that you understand something from people who have first-hand experience. We do not, under any circumstances, want UT in our conference. Anything we *think* we're getting is an illusion. There's a reason every other school in the Big 12 wants out, and that reason is UT. Don't let them in.
 
sackman said:
I cannot tell you how ridiculously stupid a move that would be on Scott's part. I know you're blissfully unaware of the cancer that is the University of Texas. But it's imperative that you understand something from people who have first-hand experience. We do not, under any circumstances, want UT in our conference. Anything we *think* we're getting is an illusion. There's a reason every other school in the Big 12 wants out, and that reason is UT. Don't let them in.
Click to expand...

Well, Mack Brown did singlehandedly screw us out what should have been our first Rose Bowl since 1959. So we're a little aware (you'll prob find more Texas hate amongst Cal fans than any other Pac-12 fanbase other than your own, by the way).

I hear you. I have faith in Larry Scott though - he is either going to make a good deal with Texas, or he isn't. I don't think he's going to allow them to join with special status like they have in the Big 12. If they hold themselves above the the rest of the PAC, they won't be able to make a deal. There is no way (I think) that Scott will change the equal distribution model of the conference.
 
Maxer said:
Well, Mack Brown did singlehandedly screw us out what should have been our first Rose Bowl since 1959. So we're a little aware (you'll prob find more Texas hate amongst Cal fans than any other Pac-12 fanbase other than your own, by the way).

I hear you. I have faith in Larry Scott though - he is either going to make a good deal with Texas, or he isn't. I don't think he's going to allow them to join with special status like they have in the Big 12. If they hold themselves above the the rest of the PAC, they won't be able to make a deal. There is no way (I think) that Scott will change the equal distribution model of the conference.
Click to expand...

It's not about what deal Scott makes. It's about what kind of deal gets struck after Scott is gone. UT played nice in the first years of the Big 12, too. I trust Larry Scott, but I don't trust UT. UT, if allowed into the Pac, will do whatever they are told to do, but will continue to try to get the rules changed in their favor. Eventually, there will be a weaker personality in charge and then the floodgates will be opened. We are better served having absolutely nothing to do with them.
 
The good news about this situation is that the Pac-12 has all the leverage in these negotiations. What are UT's options? 1) Independent, 2) Expand/Hold on to the Big 12, 3) Pac-12. If they choose door #3, I don't think they have a lot of say in the terms. Non-negotiable term #1 = equal money distribution on tv money. PERIOD. The LHN can be tweaked to be the Texas regional network (with OU/OSU and Tech) but you are sharing all of that money with the Pac-16. If that's a dealbreaker, then so be it. Have a nice time finding suckers for your Big 12 conference or conference homes for all your non-rev teams...
 
Maxer said:
Well, Mack Brown did singlehandedly screw us out what should have been our first Rose Bowl since 1959. So we're a little aware (you'll prob find more Texas hate amongst Cal fans than any other Pac-12 fanbase other than your own, by the way).

I hear you. I have faith in Larry Scott though - he is either going to make a good deal with Texas, or he isn't. I don't think he's going to allow them to join with special status like they have in the Big 12. If they hold themselves above the the rest of the PAC, they won't be able to make a deal. There is no way (I think) that Scott will change the equal distribution model of the conference.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Scott won't allow Texas to come in with special privileges, but at the same time he's smart enough to realize the overall value they would bring to the Pac. And as you previously mentioned, they would do something like make the LHN some sort of sub-regional Pac/Texas network. The 2 sides would come to a compromise.

Many of you fans on here can have your anti-UT bias, but when it comes to making a smart business decision Scott won't have any such biases.
 
Buffnik said:
If it was a simple split of 8 teams on each side, with 7 games in your division and 2 against the other division... I wouldn't even feel like we were part of the same conference with some of the west coast teams. We'd be playing twice every 8 years and we could accomplish that much against someone just with non-conference scheduling.
Click to expand...

I can understand it's definitely a step back for Colorado (and the Arizonas) - CU expecting a entirely new set of conference opponents only to be thrown back in with the some of the same old teams. The real allure of the 16 team league is the bargaining power they bring to the table. And yes the Pac has done very well for itself with 12 teams and I'd be happy to see it stay that way if it could be guaranteed that the pac wouldn't lose clout when compared to the possible 16 team super conferences.

Buffnik said:
Anyway, I did have round robin within the pods (or subdivisions if you like). So that is within the spirit of the existing rule. The big issue is the 2 playoff round thing. I don't think it would be hard to change it with the money it would generate (4 conferences playing 8 playoff games = tons of money that is additive and, by itself, worth more than all but the BCS bowls).
Click to expand...

The issue I see with the two weeks conference playoff is that

A) it takes an extra week that could be used for games that EVERY school could play (a full slate home games + TV = more overall $$),
B) it is essentially is a 16 team playoff with 16 four team divisions - not a very good use of a 12 regular season games and not very inclusive - something that will could be a problem when all those left out have their congressmen look into anti trust
C) it requires the other 16 team leagues to have the exact same format and they might not want to do so - what else would they do with that extra week? (probably play a full state of games, and
D) we don't even have a playoff right now - that extra week for the two week divisional playoff would be much better served as a +1 type week - NCAA isn't going to approve two extra weeks at the same time, and I'd rather see a real playoff than a clever but strange pod system which was essentially proposed to get teams equal access to Los Angeles.

Finally, most of the west coast teams were looking at expansion in hopes of re-establishing the Pac 8 as a division in the long term. I know... sucks for CU - it may have been different if the Pac 12 had a ew years to get to develop better rivalries with the new members, but A&M and others are really forcing this issue and forcing it right now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top