I agree but the point is, if there was a consensus that moving to Big 12 was right for CU, there has been plenty of opportunity to come back. If they return, I believe it is because they believe it to be the only choice and not their number one choice. They are where they want to be, today.bear2be2 said:There are no doubt some academics and alums who feel the way you describe here. But there are also some very powerful people at and around that university that have seen the largely negative impact that has come athletically as a result of Colorado's move to the PAC-12 and are not pleased. Those who want to see the university recommit itself to competing at a high level again aren't content to watch Colorado slip further into athletic mediocrity/obscurity to maintain its association with a dying conference.Bakersdozen said:Hardly. CU doesn't want in the Big 12. There is a big fight internally. They don't want to play Baylor or BYU. They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.Russell Gym said:
The days of "fit" are over.
Straight runnin' cash, homie, rules the day. It's The American Way. Fit is now determined by TV execs. As in politics, financial gain can make strange bedfellows.
Perhaps this will happen because of a new day just need to wait for another new day. One of the two constants about changes is 1) it always happens.
Colorado board meeting
8,733 Views |
78 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Stefano DiMera
Bakersdozen said:Hardly. PAC and West Coast is a much better fit. Still is or they would have already jumped. They may jump out of a plane before it crashes (the conference) but they won't until PAC options are no longer desirable because that is their #1 choice.BaylorGuy314 said:Bakersdozen said:
They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.
Um, what kind of revisionist history is this?
The original Big 12 dissolved because of instability and inequality. Nebraska was the first to jump ship, seeing an opportunity to make more money and be apart from Texas at a time when there were flirtations between several members of the B12 and the PAC. Colorado jumped the gun shortly thereafter to secure their spot fearful that UT/OU/OSU/TT would get into the PAC and they'd be potentially left in a decimated Big 12.
Colorado to the PAC was nothing more than a reaction.
I believe it is the desire of all the PAC schools to stick together in an ideal world. That ideal scenario is just highly unlikely to materialize. I also believe, in hindsight, all of them wish they would've been more aggressive on the expansion front when they had opportunities (and they've had numerous opportunities). Further, I strongly believe that many wore the PAC12 badge as an honor academically and ego got in the way. A lot of "They're not good enough to sit with us" mentality which will come back to haunt many of them.
While CU may be, culturally, much more of a west coast school, they were in the Big 8/12 for 70 years and they still have a ton of alumni in those areas. They have missed the pipeline for recruiting in Texas and the South. So while I don't believe they necessarily want to move and upset the apple cart, there are lots of legitimate reasons to seriously consider it. Given their familiarity with the Big8/12, it's probably less scary for them than some of the other PAC programs.
That said, I'll reiterate that CU to the PAC was not some predestined thing. The PAC became the aggressor in 2011 with big ideas and Larry Scott at the helm and Colorado didn't want to get left out when there was talk of bringing 4-6 Big 12 schools into the fold. They grabbed their lifeboat as soon as Nebraska jumped and it looked like the Big 12 might sink. Colorado certainly would not have left if Nebraska had stayed put and the conference held together.
Why does anyone think any realignment has to do with who the HC in football is. That is what is fascinating to me. Do some of y'all still not realize after experiencing at least 30 years of at least a little realignment every few years or so, that this has absolutely nothing to do with it and same with performance on the field for that matter.Aberzombie1892 said:
I'm simply fascinated that we are at a point where adding Colorado is a huge deal. Deion is a great catch, but, if he's successful, he probably won't be at Colorado for long. That would then leave us with whomever hires after he would (potentially) leave.
Colorado has a ton of momentum right now because of their coach. If that is put to the side, it's not clear why anyone would want them other than for desperation.PartyBear said:Why does anyone think any realignment has to do with who the HC in football is. That is what is fascinating to me. Do some of y'all still not realize after experiencing at least 30 years of at least a little realignment every few years or so, that this has absolutely nothing to do with it and same with performance on the field for that matter.Aberzombie1892 said:
I'm simply fascinated that we are at a point where adding Colorado is a huge deal. Deion is a great catch, but, if he's successful, he probably won't be at Colorado for long. That would then leave us with whomever hires after he would (potentially) leave.
It could have something to do with the Denver market......... just.......perhaps if I was to make a wild guess.
We should grab CU if it keeps us even or enhances our value as a conference. I think it does. The added bonus is further destabilizing the PAC. If there is one thing we should have learned it's better to be the hunter than the hunted. Grabbing CU helps the odds of BU staying in a P5 conference.
b12 takes cu because it will break the p12. that allows arizona good reason to follow along with others. it's pretty simple tactics to me.
Mine has nothing to do with politics. I just think Oregon and Washington wouldn't be worth the headache and I don't see what any of the Four Corners schools bring (other than potentially Arizona basketball).Russell Gym said:bear2be2 said:
I don't particularly want any of the PAC-12 schools, but most disagree with me.
I've read a lot of politically tinged posts here that express a "do not want" PAC schools position, and that's fine. I don't read that into your posts btw, be2.
For me, it's not so much politics, "fit," or a perceived slight by PAC schools or their fans. I'm most interested in what will bring stability and ratings going forward.
If that's expansion, great. If it's PAC schools, great. If it's other schools, or none at all, great. Whatever brings greater stability and earning power (ratings) going forward. That is the name of the game now.
Colorado, in particular, has a garbage athletic program at the moment and hasn't shown the necessary commitment to change that in the last two decades. Could Deion's hiring represent a sea change? Certainly. But I'm with those who think he'll be out the door the second he experiences any real success in Boulder.
When Texas and OU left, I was pretty adamant that I thought the best path forward for the conference was to focus on on-field/on-court achievement and to make itself relevant in that way. In the absence of name brands, it really didn't/doesn't have much choice.
So I don't want to add programs that are going to come in and be bottom feeders in either revenue sport. Every program entering the Big 12 needs to do so committed and prepared to compete at a high level. I'm not sure that would be the case with any of the Four Corners programs with the exception of Utah football and Arizona basketball.
I'm not sure we want others. I believe based on what I have been reading but I could be wrong, we really are only going to take 2 at the most from the Pac if any.tmcats said:
b12 takes cu because it will break the p12. that allows arizona good reason to follow along with others. it's pretty simple tactics to me.
BaylorGuy314 said:Bakersdozen said:Hardly. PAC and West Coast is a much better fit. Still is or they would have already jumped. They may jump out of a plane before it crashes (the conference) but they won't until PAC options are no longer desirable because that is their #1 choice.BaylorGuy314 said:Bakersdozen said:
They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.
Um, what kind of revisionist history is this?
The original Big 12 dissolved because of instability and inequality. Nebraska was the first to jump ship, seeing an opportunity to make more money and be apart from Texas at a time when there were flirtations between several members of the B12 and the PAC. Colorado jumped the gun shortly thereafter to secure their spot fearful that UT/OU/OSU/TT would get into the PAC and they'd be potentially left in a decimated Big 12.
Colorado to the PAC was nothing more than a reaction.
The PAC became the aggressor in 2011 with big ideas and Larry Scott at the helm and Colorado didn't want to get left out when there was talk of bringing 4-6 Big 12 schools into the fold. They grabbed their lifeboat as soon as Nebraska jumped and it looked like the Big 12 might sink. Colorado certainly would not have left if Nebraska had stayed put and the conference held together.
It was actually 2010 and the real "prize" at the time was UT and some possible combination of other B12 Texas and Oklahoma based schools (not including BU and aggy - who already had one eye on the SEC even then) that were known to be at least flirting with the PAC in the wake of the Nebraska defection to the Big 10. The PAC thought that taking CO would force the hand of UT and possibly the other schools of interest in imploding the Big 12 and coming onboard with the PAC. What of course ultimately occurred was the implosion didn't happen (thanks to a minor miracle) and the PAC ended up being stuck with CU, then eventually got Utah onboard to balance things out.
I don't think it's so black and white.Bakersdozen said:I agree but the point is, if there was a consensus that moving to Big 12 was right for CU, there has been plenty of opportunity to come back. If they return, I believe it is because they believe it to be the only choice and not their number one choice. They are where they want to be, today.bear2be2 said:There are no doubt some academics and alums who feel the way you describe here. But there are also some very powerful people at and around that university that have seen the largely negative impact that has come athletically as a result of Colorado's move to the PAC-12 and are not pleased. Those who want to see the university recommit itself to competing at a high level again aren't content to watch Colorado slip further into athletic mediocrity/obscurity to maintain its association with a dying conference.Bakersdozen said:Hardly. CU doesn't want in the Big 12. There is a big fight internally. They don't want to play Baylor or BYU. They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.Russell Gym said:
The days of "fit" are over.
Straight runnin' cash, homie, rules the day. It's The American Way. Fit is now determined by TV execs. As in politics, financial gain can make strange bedfellows.
Perhaps this will happen because of a new day just need to wait for another new day. One of the two constants about changes is 1) it always happens.
I think all PAC-12 schools would prefer to stay in a viable PAC-12, with the exception of Oregon and Washington, which are clearly pining for a Big Ten invite.
There's nothing wrong with that. When Texas and OU announced they were leaving, I wanted the Big 12 to survive and had no real desire to end up in the PAC-12, whether that was a legitimate option or not.
But as circumstances change, so do universities' stances on certain things. And if it's clear that the PAC-12 isn't going to be viable going forward, the members in that league with options will become more serious about exploring them. That doesn't necessarily mean they view the Big 12 has a last resort. It just wasn't as attractive to them as a thriving PAC-12, and that's OK.
Thanks for the correction. It's been a minute since I went back and looked at a timeline. It was a bit of a blur there from 2010-2012.Johnny Bear said:BaylorGuy314 said:Bakersdozen said:Hardly. PAC and West Coast is a much better fit. Still is or they would have already jumped. They may jump out of a plane before it crashes (the conference) but they won't until PAC options are no longer desirable because that is their #1 choice.BaylorGuy314 said:Bakersdozen said:
They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.
Um, what kind of revisionist history is this?
The original Big 12 dissolved because of instability and inequality. Nebraska was the first to jump ship, seeing an opportunity to make more money and be apart from Texas at a time when there were flirtations between several members of the B12 and the PAC. Colorado jumped the gun shortly thereafter to secure their spot fearful that UT/OU/OSU/TT would get into the PAC and they'd be potentially left in a decimated Big 12.
Colorado to the PAC was nothing more than a reaction.
The PAC became the aggressor in 2011 with big ideas and Larry Scott at the helm and Colorado didn't want to get left out when there was talk of bringing 4-6 Big 12 schools into the fold. They grabbed their lifeboat as soon as Nebraska jumped and it looked like the Big 12 might sink. Colorado certainly would not have left if Nebraska had stayed put and the conference held together.
It was actually 2010 and the real "prize" at the time was UT and some possible combination of other B12 Texas and Oklahoma based schools (not including BU, TCU and aggy - who already had one eye on the SEC even then) that were known to be at least flirting with the PAC in the wake of the Nebraska defection to the Big 10. The PAC thought that taking CO would force the hand of UT and possibly the other schools of interest in imploding the Big 12 and coming onboard with the PAC. What of course ultimately occurred was the implosion didn't happen (thanks to a minor miracle) and the PAC ended up being stuck with CU, then eventually got Utah onboard to balance things out.
Memory is that the PAC made it pretty clear they were seriously considering going to 16 (at the time, that would've been adding 6 to their 10) and there was a massive push for UT/TT/OU/OSU as four of those. The other two were TBD but I know Baylor was pushing hard to be included and the PAC wanting nothing to do with a private religious school in Central Texas.
I believe CU was scared to death that politics could leave them in a weak Big 12 and I agree that the PAC believed that taking CU would put pressure on the other four to join. Ultimately, as you said, CU jumped to secure them a place and then the rest didn't happen thanks to the ESPN/LHN intervention.
I realize it's just me, alone, I am completely overwhelmed at being underwhelmed by CU moving. Someone please help me understand WHAT they bring to the table other than being just a #? If they come with the "group of four" okay I guess. To me, CU is like the coupon free salsa with the purchase of chips.Bakersdozen said:I agree but the point is, if there was a consensus that moving to Big 12 was right for CU, there has been plenty of opportunity to come back. If they return, I believe it is because they believe it to be the only choice and not their number one choice. They are where they want to be, today.bear2be2 said:There are no doubt some academics and alums who feel the way you describe here. But there are also some very powerful people at and around that university that have seen the largely negative impact that has come athletically as a result of Colorado's move to the PAC-12 and are not pleased. Those who want to see the university recommit itself to competing at a high level again aren't content to watch Colorado slip further into athletic mediocrity/obscurity to maintain its association with a dying conference.Bakersdozen said:Hardly. CU doesn't want in the Big 12. There is a big fight internally. They don't want to play Baylor or BYU. They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.Russell Gym said:
The days of "fit" are over.
Straight runnin' cash, homie, rules the day. It's The American Way. Fit is now determined by TV execs. As in politics, financial gain can make strange bedfellows.
Perhaps this will happen because of a new day just need to wait for another new day. One of the two constants about changes is 1) it always happens.
Recruiting has really picked up under Coach Prime. They will not be the same team.
They've been gone for barely over a decade. There has obviously been no reasonable time before now they might have jumped "back", as doing so would have incurred them a steep exit penalty to come back to a league that has been the least stable in the country since the time they left.Bakersdozen said:I agree but the point is, if there was a consensus that moving to Big 12 was right for CU, there has been plenty of opportunity to come back.bear2be2 said:There are no doubt some academics and alums who feel the way you describe here. But there are also some very powerful people at and around that university that have seen the largely negative impact that has come athletically as a result of Colorado's move to the PAC-12 and are not pleased. Those who want to see the university recommit itself to competing at a high level again aren't content to watch Colorado slip further into athletic mediocrity/obscurity to maintain its association with a dying conference.Bakersdozen said:Hardly. CU doesn't want in the Big 12. There is a big fight internally. They don't want to play Baylor or BYU. They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.Russell Gym said:
The days of "fit" are over.
Straight runnin' cash, homie, rules the day. It's The American Way. Fit is now determined by TV execs. As in politics, financial gain can make strange bedfellows.
Perhaps this will happen because of a new day just need to wait for another new day. One of the two constants about changes is 1) it always happens.
The four corner schools are "meh"
The PAC is already hurting without its dissolution. If a competitor is bleeding money why buy them out if they don't increase your bottom line? Let em go like the dinosaurs and focus on increasing your NOI.
More exciting teams in the ACC that would be more of a geographic fit. I get it's all about the money but travel costs eat money and I don't see us ever really reaching Big10/SEC money. If we break into a pod system with a west coast pod then maybe west coast teams make sense.
The PAC is already hurting without its dissolution. If a competitor is bleeding money why buy them out if they don't increase your bottom line? Let em go like the dinosaurs and focus on increasing your NOI.
More exciting teams in the ACC that would be more of a geographic fit. I get it's all about the money but travel costs eat money and I don't see us ever really reaching Big10/SEC money. If we break into a pod system with a west coast pod then maybe west coast teams make sense.
If some teams do leave the PAC, will the PAC try to add NTexas and NArizona to try to stay viable?
BBWCBear said:I realize it's just me, alone, I am completely overwhelmed at being underwhelmed by CU moving. Someone please help me understand WHAT they bring to the table other than being just a #? If they come with the "group of four" okay I guess. To me, CU is like the coupon free salsa with the purchase of chips.Bakersdozen said:I agree but the point is, if there was a consensus that moving to Big 12 was right for CU, there has been plenty of opportunity to come back. If they return, I believe it is because they believe it to be the only choice and not their number one choice. They are where they want to be, today.bear2be2 said:There are no doubt some academics and alums who feel the way you describe here. But there are also some very powerful people at and around that university that have seen the largely negative impact that has come athletically as a result of Colorado's move to the PAC-12 and are not pleased. Those who want to see the university recommit itself to competing at a high level again aren't content to watch Colorado slip further into athletic mediocrity/obscurity to maintain its association with a dying conference.Bakersdozen said:Hardly. CU doesn't want in the Big 12. There is a big fight internally. They don't want to play Baylor or BYU. They left Big 12 for a reason. That reason remains.Russell Gym said:
The days of "fit" are over.
Straight runnin' cash, homie, rules the day. It's The American Way. Fit is now determined by TV execs. As in politics, financial gain can make strange bedfellows.
Perhaps this will happen because of a new day just need to wait for another new day. One of the two constants about changes is 1) it always happens.
I agree that just CU alone wouldn't necessarily be a reason to pop champagne corks and start celebrating, but I'm wondering if the additional potential eyeballs in the Denver market alone at least makes them somewhat attractive, given that most of these things boil down to what can you do for the TV networks.
I'm not sure if some of your posts are hard counts to draw us offsides since you don't use the sarcasm emoji.
If the meeting started this morning isn't it over by now? Any news from it?
It was executive session which means everything was top secret. I guess no leaks either.
Don't expect that @CUBuffsFootball will announcing ANYTHING today about a possible move to the @pac12 - there will be an update on the status of the situation & discussion of options if the P12 media deal is unacceptable. This is a process & there is no need to rush.
— Jim Williams (@JWMediaDC) April 17, 2023
Think Jim made a typo there @Big12
I could care less if CU joins Big 12, honestly. Doesn't bring much but neither some others Big 12 picked up. Can't change that now.
I do think that CU coming to the Big 12 could happen, but only if/when PAC 12 is dead to them. We are a lifesaver, I believe, nothing more. We might be the last alternative. Is that ok?
I would imagine that Deon is all over the AD and President to join the Big 12 and get some kids out of Texas. I am not sure there are a lot of others that care in CO.
Still, it could happen but I just don't remain convinced it is a big deal except a P5 school wants to join the Big 12.
I do think that CU coming to the Big 12 could happen, but only if/when PAC 12 is dead to them. We are a lifesaver, I believe, nothing more. We might be the last alternative. Is that ok?
I would imagine that Deon is all over the AD and President to join the Big 12 and get some kids out of Texas. I am not sure there are a lot of others that care in CO.
Still, it could happen but I just don't remain convinced it is a big deal except a P5 school wants to join the Big 12.
Of course we are a life saver so would be the ACC if they actually also do not go through what the Pac is going through now in the near future or if there was not a looming threat of that happening in the near future. Nothing wrong with being a life saver at this point in time.
I would prefer teams that want to join the Big 12 and make it something special as opposed to a life boat until they find a bigger boat.
I think we are better off introducing new league and then jumping on ACC leftovers. Much better time zone, already have teams nearby and better population coverage.
We need to be patient. ACC will fold, too.
I think we are better off introducing new league and then jumping on ACC leftovers. Much better time zone, already have teams nearby and better population coverage.
We need to be patient. ACC will fold, too.
Well wanting to be in a given conference is relative to other options and the circumstances for every single program.
On your other point, I dont think the XII would take many from the Pac despite what some are saying, for that reason. I'm guessing no more than 2 actually.
On your other point, I dont think the XII would take many from the Pac despite what some are saying, for that reason. I'm guessing no more than 2 actually.
Lotta chatter that PAC 12 and ACC still kicking tires on merger talk
Of course I'm not sure why ESPN would want to do that with ACC locked into that ESPN friendly deal.
Of course I'm not sure why ESPN would want to do that with ACC locked into that ESPN friendly deal.
If Clemson, UNC, and FSU find an out anywhere in that GOR they're gone within the hour. Mayhem then ensues which is great talking head fodder but the ACC is rather worthless eyeball wise without those three schools.
I'm sure the commissioner is hounding ESPN for a better deal and merging with another conference could allow that, which is why the rumors will swirl until the PAC has a deal or implodes and the ACC either implodes or gets another deal in the 2030s.
I'm sure the commissioner is hounding ESPN for a better deal and merging with another conference could allow that, which is why the rumors will swirl until the PAC has a deal or implodes and the ACC either implodes or gets another deal in the 2030s.
Clemson and Fl St will be courted but not sure about NC.
Clemson to SEC would opposed by SC, FSU by UF, but money may matter more in the end. UNC could go to SEC because SEC likes University Of's or to B1G (big name bball, AAU etc). UVA same as UNC.
Bakersdozen said:
I would prefer teams that want to join the Big 12 and make it something special as opposed to a life boat until they find a bigger boat.
There is not a single team, including those currently in the Big XII, who wouldn't jump aboard one of the two "bigger boats" if given the opportunity.
Texas was opposed by TamuCorsicanaBear said:
Clemson to SEC would opposed by SC, FSU by UF, but money may matter more in the end. UNC could go to SEC because SEC likes University Of's or to B1G (big name bball, AAU etc). UVA same as UNC.
of course they wouldn't. 1. SEC 2. Big 10MT_Bear said:Bakersdozen said:
I would prefer teams that want to join the Big 12 and make it something special as opposed to a life boat until they find a bigger boat.
There is not a single team, including those currently in the Big XII, who wouldn't jump aboard one of the two "bigger boats" if given the opportunity.
The league and its members have no leverage. They signed the forever-long deal and ESPN has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to renegotiate or restructure it.boykin_spaniel said:
If Clemson, UNC, and FSU find an out anywhere in that GOR they're gone within the hour. Mayhem then ensues which is great talking head fodder but the ACC is rather worthless eyeball wise without those three schools.
I'm sure the commissioner is hounding ESPN for a better deal and merging with another conference could allow that, which is why the rumors will swirl until the PAC has a deal or implodes and the ACC either implodes or gets another deal in the 2030s.
These schools can saber rattle all they want, but that's all it is. ESPN has them by the balls.
Which is funny because most would be doing so at their own long-term peril. But the dollar always wins, even when it comes at the expense of national apathy and athletic irrelevancy.MT_Bear said:Bakersdozen said:
I would prefer teams that want to join the Big 12 and make it something special as opposed to a life boat until they find a bigger boat.
There is not a single team, including those currently in the Big XII, who wouldn't jump aboard one of the two "bigger boats" if given the opportunity.
That's basically been the story of every Big 12 defector so far. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Texas and OU join that list in time.
Featured Stories
See All
Reminder: Baylor's Return to the Top Takes Everyone
by Colt Barber
Defending BYU: Creating Turnovers, Stopping Big Plays
by Travis Roeder
Behind Enemy Lines: What No. 22 BYU is Saying about Baylor
by Garrett Ross
Bearknuckle
SicEm365 Staff Predictions: Baylor Looks to Bounce Back against No. 22 BYU
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
2
BUbearinARK
SicEm365 Staff Predictions: Baylor Looks to Bounce Back against No. 22 BYU
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
2
Clavin
SicEm365 Staff Predictions: Baylor Looks to Bounce Back against No. 22 BYU
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
1
Bruin92
SicEm365 Staff Predictions: Baylor Looks to Bounce Back against No. 22 BYU
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
1
Bearknuckle
SicEm365 Staff Predictions: Baylor Looks to Bounce Back against No. 22 BYU
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
1