The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[SeattleUte]

Super ignorant post.

The only incentive the PAC-10 had to expand was holding a CCG. If the PAC-10 could have hosted a CCG with 10 teams they certainly would have. Colorado had been wanting to go to the PAC-10 for decades, yet remained in the Big 8/12. Why? Because the PAC-10 didn't want them. There was no reason for the PAC-10 to expand until the Big Ten announced they were going to 12 teams. And why was that? To hold a CCG. Nobody in the Big 12 was mourning the loss of Colorado - it was good riddance.

You're just making stuff up. Try to get out of your skewed, narrow, prejudiced, blue-tinted point of view. First, the factual predicate for what you say flat-assed false. Colorado had not been begging for admission to the Pac 12. On the contrary.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/3...IN-BIG-12.html

Colorado was a founding member of the Big 8 and had a lot of cultural, political and financial ties that kept it in the Big 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._12_Conference

Look at Colorado outside your box. There is no reason--alumni, market, eyeballs, tradition, football orientation, academics and academic mission--why Colorado wouldn't be more attractive than any current Big 12 school outside Texas or maybe Oklahoma. There is no reason Colorado wouldn't be as attractive as Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, Nebraska, or more attractive than Missouri, Kansas, and so on.

Second, here is a lessen that should be hitting you right between your baby blue eyes after the past six years of history. A conference like the Pac 12--or the Big 12--doesn't just take on whomever to get a conference championship game. Expansion is University and program driven, not an empty numbers game. How badly does the Big 12 not want BYU, Houston Cincinnati et al.? Look at the lengths it's gone to in order to avoid adding any of those schools. If Michigan wanted to jump to the Big 12 do you think the Big 12 wouldn't grab it and be scrambling for a partner--rather than trying to make new rules for a championship game in a ten team conference? If you don't agree with that we have nothing to talk about. Indeed, because of its history and its geographic advantages and attendant glamour the Pac 10 had been the conference most self-satisfied and resistant to expansion until Colorado--along with TAMU, Missouri and Nebraska--got fed up with Texas' carnivorous tendencies. When Colorado reached out to the Pac 12, the Pac 12 jumped at it, and started looking for a partner for Colorado. Had this not happened, today the Pac 10 would be doing what the Big 12 is doing.

You say nobody in the Big 12 mourned the loss of Colorado. Actually, the loss of Colorado--along with Missouri and Nebraska--has caused the Big 12 nothing but grief. Meanwhile, nobody but the bitter posters here and on CB is expressing any buyer's remorse over Utah and Colorado joining the Pac 12.

I'm objective enough to admit that without Colorado suddenly becoming available Utah would still be in the MWC. The Pac 12 would not have taken Utah and BYU or Colorado State or Air Force or anyone else in the West just to get a championship game. Why don't you try a smattering of objectivity. It will lighten your load.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm objective enough to admit that without Colorado suddenly becoming available Utah would still be in the MWC. The Pac 12 would not have taken Utah and BYU or Colorado State or Air Force or anyone else in the West just to get a championship game. Why don't you try a smattering of objectivity. It will lighten your load.

I don't know about you guys, but I got a good laugh out of that.

[Omaha 680]

SU: PBW is more a Nebraska guy than BYU and he knows more and the Big 8/12 than you do. His comments on Colorado come from a Nebraska/Big 8 perspective, not a BYU one. Yes the Big 12 would love to have the four schools they lost back. But losing Colorado alone wasn't a big deal to them. That's one of the reasons they didn't act at all when they lost colorado. It was only after losing Nebraska a and others left that they moved on adding more members.

Also just for the record: Colorado played a 2 loss ND in the Orange Bowl at the end of the 1990 season. Their split national title with GT was controversial because they had a loss and should have had another if not for one of the most infamous officiating blunders in the history of college football against Missouri. So no they didn't play in a NC game but their controversial split title was one of the driving factors to put in place a system to set up a NC game in the existing bowl structure, which started in 1992.

[Uncle Ted]

You're just making stuff up. Try to get out of your skewed, narrow, prejudiced, blue-tinted point of view. First, the factual predicate for what you say flat-assed false. Colorado had not been begging for admission to the Pac 12. On the contrary.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/3...IN-BIG-12.html

Colorado was a founding member of the Big 8 and had a lot of cultural, political and financial ties that kept it in the Big 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._12_Conference

Look at Colorado outside your box. There is no reason--alumni, market, eyeballs, tradition, football orientation, academics and academic mission--why Colorado wouldn't be more attractive than any current Big 12 school outside Texas or maybe Oklahoma. There is no reason Colorado wouldn't be as attractive as Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, Nebraska, or more attractive than Missouri, Kansas, and so on.

Second, here is a lessen that should be hitting you right between your baby blue eyes after the past six years of history. A conference like the Pac 12--or the Big 12--doesn't just take on whomever to get a conference championship game. Expansion is University and program driven, not an empty numbers game. How badly does the Big 12 not want BYU, Houston Cincinnati et al.? Look at the lengths it's gone to in order to avoid adding any of those schools. If Michigan wanted to jump to the Big 12 do you think the Big 12 wouldn't grab it and be scrambling for a partner--rather than trying to make new rules for a championship game in a ten team conference? If you don't agree with that we have nothing to talk about. Indeed, because of its history and its geographic advantages and attendant glamour the Pac 10 had been the conference most self-satisfied and resistant to expansion until Colorado--along with TAMU, Missouri and Nebraska--got fed up with Texas' carnivorous tendencies. When Colorado reached out to the Pac 12, the Pac 12 jumped at it, and started looking for a partner for Colorado. Had this not happened, today the Pac 10 would be doing what the Big 12 is doing.

You say nobody in the Big 12 mourned the loss of Colorado. Actually, the loss of Colorado--along with Missouri and Nebraska--has caused the Big 12 nothing but grief. Meanwhile, nobody but the bitter posters here and on CB is expressing any buyer's remorse over Utah and Colorado joining the Pac 12.

I'm objective enough to admit that without Colorado suddenly becoming available Utah would still be in the MWC. The Pac 12 would not have taken Utah and BYU or Colorado State or Air Force or anyone else in the West just to get a championship game. Why don't you try a smattering of objectivity. It will lighten your load.

Yeah man, I agree with you... Colorado is a much better school than Utah (BTW, has Utah broken the top 100 yet in school rankings?). And that Utah rode Colorado's coattails into the Pac 12. However, I am pretty sure that the Big 12 would rather have even Missouri back before Colorado.

[Moliere]

I really don't mind independence

Sure, I'd prefer to be in a P5 conference, especially the big12, but it's been fun to visit a bunch of new places and play a bunch of new teams. It's also fun to always be able to catch the game on tv.

The bottom line is that BYU will never compete with the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, and neither will Utah, or Texas Tech, or Oregon State or any team like that. We might catch lightning in a bottle one year and go undefeated or have one loss and make a big bowl, which would be great.

At this point in my life I'm just enjoying the games and the road trips and the 8-10 win seasons. It's fun if you come to terms that a national championship isn't really probable anymore for BYU...nor is it really probable for Utah either.

[SeattleUte]

SU: PBW is more a Nebraska guy than BYU and he knows more and the Big 8/12 than you do. His comments on Colorado come from a Nebraska/Big 8 perspective, not a BYU one. Yes the Big 12 would love to have the four schools they lost back. But losing Colorado alone wasn't a big deal to them. That's one of the reasons they didn't act at all when they lost colorado. It was only after losing Nebraska a and others left that they moved on adding more members.

Also just for the record: Colorado played a 2 loss ND in the Orange Bowl at the end of the 1990 season. Their split national title with GT was controversial because they had a loss and should have had another if not for one of the most infamous officiating blunders in the history of college football against Missouri. So no they didn't play in a NC game but their controversial split title was one of the driving factors to put in place a system to set up a NC game in the existing bowl structure, which started in 1992.

Clearly he doesn't know more about the Big 12/8 than I do. I don't care if he's a Nebraska fan. I'm right and he's wrong about this. I'm actually a student of conference history. And again, you miss the point.

Regardless, nobody is claiming Colorado made anything other than a lateral move, or that the Pac 12 taking Utah and Colorado was anything other than a win-win outcome in every way.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-foo...t-chaos-061115

Unfortunately, though, as Mandel notes, there have been losers.

[SeattleUte]

Yeah man, I agree with you... Colorado is a much better school than Utah (BTW, has Utah broken the top 100 yet in school rankings?). And that Utah rode Colorado's coattails into the Pac 12. However, I am pretty sure that the Big 12 would rather have even Missouri back before Colorado.

Guess what. The people in the Pac 12 who made the decision are smarter than anybody here about such things.

[Bo Diddley]

I really don't mind independence

Sure, I'd prefer to be in a P5 conference, especially the big12, but it's been fun to visit a bunch of new places and play a bunch of new teams. It's also fun to always be able to catch the game on tv.

The bottom line is that BYU will never compete with the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, and neither will Utah, or Texas Tech, or Oregon State or any team like that. We might catch lightning in a bottle one year and go undefeated or have one loss and make a big bowl, which would be great.

At this point in my life I'm just enjoying the games and the road trips and the 8-10 win seasons. It's fun if you come to terms that a national championship isn't really probable anymore for BYU...nor is it really probable for Utah either.

And it never was probable.

[Uncle Ted]

I really don't mind independence

Sure, I'd prefer to be in a P5 conference, especially the big12, but it's been fun to visit a bunch of new places and play a bunch of new teams. It's also fun to always be able to catch the game on tv.

The bottom line is that BYU will never compete with the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, and neither will Utah, or Texas Tech, or Oregon State or any team like that. We might catch lightning in a bottle one year and go undefeated or have one loss and make a big bowl, which would be great.

At this point in my life I'm just enjoying the games and the road trips and the 8-10 win seasons. It's fun if you come to terms that a national championship isn't really probable anymore for BYU...nor is it really probable for Utah either.

To compete with the super P5's BYU would most likely have to pump money into their athletics like what Utah is doing by adding a $330+ fee to each student's tuition...

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1240807

But you are right, even after pumping an extra $10 million+ dollars into athletics Utah still can make it to the conference championship game and is stuck playing a team with a profitable athletic department in the bowl game. Sad.

[SeattleUte]

I am pretty sure that the Big 12 would rather have even Missouri back before Colorado.

And this is also just your bias. From a southerner's perspective? Colorado has more going for it objectively in every way than Missouri--except maybe Missouri's journalism school.

[SeattleUte]

And it never was probable.

It isn't "probable" for anyone. It's possible for any of us.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...cfb-title-odds

[Bo Diddley]

It isn't "probable" for anyone. It's possible for any of us.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...cfb-title-odds

Signed Alabama.

[Uncle Ted]

Guess what. The people in the Pac 12 who made the decision are smarter than anybody here about such things.

Yeah, I guess the people in the Pac 10 were making their decisions using metrics other than academics (and athletics).

[creekster]

Clearly he doesn't know more about the Big 12/8 than I do. I don't care if he's a Nebraska fan. I'm right and he's wrong about this. I'm actually a student of conference history. And again, you miss the point.

Regardless, nobody is claiming Colorado made anything other than a lateral move, or that the Pac 12 taking Utah and Colorado was anything other than a win-win outcome in every way.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-foo...t-chaos-061115

Unfortunately, though, as Mandel notes, there have been losers.

You are so full of crap that it isnt even worth making fun of you anymore.

[Uncle Ted]

It isn't "probable" for anyone. It's possible for any of us.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...cfb-title-odds

250-1. I like those odds.