EastCoastFan

I'm not sure what all the anti-Colorado rhetoric is all about, dominating threads with repeated comments. I'd rather talk about football. Let's just celebrate another Pac-12 teams that is having a good season. As for Colorado players and their head coach, a lot of what is said has a somewhat racist tone to it. That's probably not what we're seeing here, but nationally, it sure is in the mix. It's hard to deny. Everything is more complicated than what adherents and opponents claim. For example, the talk about Colorado players. I ran into this on Jaylen Ellis, a transfer from Baylor. It's not exactly a watch-flex: https://x.com/skobuffsnation/status/1711433633121047004?s=46&t=Sog5NU3yntdjFaMceUSzcA

Totally discredited. Check the Shanghai or London international ratings. CU sits in the top 30 nationally, along with Washinton and ahead of USC. Arisona also rates well, while Stanford and UCLA are simply stunning, leading the world.

As I understand it, KSU overstocked their roster with juco kids, sometimes more than half, ones that CU wouldn't allow in. Regarding Stanford, there's a misunderstnding. While they are a stunning academic bastion, they have designated "pathways" for less qualified athlete students, something that you don't see at schools like Northwestern and Rice, and for that matter Colorado, at least before the recent esperimental changes were implemented. The core is that CU doesn't have a "general studies"s program (often the way to slide athletes by), and also has a snarky anti-football faculty on demanding performance. Stanford actually has another huge advantage of their own -- for all those football players that don't go NFL or have short careers there, a Tree Degree is a goldsend for the rest of you life. And they also have a world class tutoring program. an admirable effort. Another factor affects resuiting. Colorado requires that all scholarhsip footbll players from in-state be charged out-of-state tuition, which gives the school a windfall to pay for other sports. A number of other schools do the oppodite, billing all out-of-state football plyers at in-state rates (KU is an example,) which allows the football and basketball program way more funds to hire staff and do recruiting., There is no cinsistency on these thngs. The connection between winning football and acedemic syccess is slowly being more understood, Colorado reports having had an increase of 40% in out of state applications since Prime was hired, with higher average SAT scores and paying one of the highest out-of-state tuitions in the nation.

Regardless of where one stands on the liberal/progressive vs conservative/reactionary spectrum, when all is said and done, just about every knowledgable observer is aware of one core thing -- football pays the bills. All of them. It pays for the volleyball spike and the backwards somersault. Every lacrosse pass is funded by some Saturday touchdown, whether you ascribe to critical race theory or want to build a border wall.

Consider it done.

Where are you with all of this? I know that long term, the cash will follow the B1G, and it's the obvious locale for media relevancy. But when it come to football, in 2024 the Huskies have to travel to Bloomington, IN; Iowa City, IA; State College, PA; and Piscataway, NJ. Is that what you bargained for?

With the Pac-12 schools heading in four directions -- the Big-12, the Big-10, the ACC, and the Pac-2 (or whatever,) a number of rivalries will be split. There are some existing openings in out-of-conference schedules for the twelve teams, and some new ones where previously scheduled out of conference opponents are now in the conference joined. The question is, what rivalries are worth preserving, either annually or occasionally for Pac-12 football teams? Or should they end? In the past, conference movements often have ended traditional rivalries -- examples being Kansas/Missouri, Nebraska/Missouri, Texas/Texas A&M. But an important part of college football is lost when those rivalries end. Should the following be preserved? Oregon/Oregon St? Washington/Washington St? UCLA/Cal? UCLA/Stanford? USC/Stanford? USC/Cal? Anyone for Utah, ASU, CU, Arizona?

The camparison is made to UCLA sending $$$'s to Cal. In addition to different governing structures, it's interesting to note that UCLA receives a windfall by moving to the B1G, some of which they'll share with Cal; while at least for a number of years, Oregon, bought by the B1G at a discount price, won't be receiving any more media payments from the B1G than they were in the Pac-12.

I have no problem with Utah doing this, and it actually seems they're doing it right by not giving a Lambo to the QB and a Yugo to the long-snapper. My problem is on another level, a discomfort that college football has come to this. It appears, though, that there's no turning back.

Good article. $100 million for Prime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardarmato/2023/10/02/deion-sanders-aka-coach-primes-is-deserving-of-a-record-agreement/?sh=61352cb55789

Does the Rose Bowl really give the "home team" that much of an advantage? Maybe it's more about WSU being away from their home.

It appears it's because it is what he wants to be called. It doesn't seem that offensive. It's not like renaming Twitter as "X"...

The winner, according to the media: Especially the uber-love from this guy:

Good game. Lots of eyes nationally on it. It just adds to the anger about the dissilution of the Pac-12. And to the bad deal the the Pac-2 got. I'll root for the Beavs and Cougs to beat everyone.

Unforunately, you will care when your schedule is filled with the highlights of New Mexico, San Jose St, and Wyoming. The Big-12, while certainly far from everything, along with the ACC, offer a stepping stone when the next big scramble occurs in 2030. If you're sitting on the outside playing Hawaii and Nevada, the door for opportunity is closed.

You have a way of missing the point. From a non-aligned view, your comments are becoming irrelevant, with some unexplained need to make a case. Over and over again. You have a choice. You can continue to beat the same drum, or you can use your intelligence, which is pretty clear that you have, and step back and see the bigger picture. Here are a few things to think about. Media values go way beyond the current Big-12 media deal; African American viewership is skyrocketing for targeted Pac-12 games (we know why,) which is great and benefits every school in the conference; every media payout is a "bribe," or we wouldn't have had USC and UCLA jumping to start this ball down the hill; and the final collapse of the Pac-12 wasn't caused by Colorado, which actually didn't matter, it was caused by the front office of the B1G deciding to grab Oregon and Washington at a discounted rate, which blew up the about-to-survive Pac-9.

I'm just an observer, and we can go back and forth about this, but the bottom line is that Deion Sanders has elevated the level of interest in west coast football to a level it hasn't seen in like forever. We can call it hype, and it is, and we may or may not like him, but it also is what drives the sport, the media, and the money markets. Every Pac-12 school benefits from that. Eyeballs not only = media cash, they also open the wallets of donors, and not just for Colorado. Every school that Prime faces stands to benefit from the exposure.

What would make so much sense would be to add WSU and OSU to the Big-12. They easily have as much or more value as Cincy, UCF, Houston, and BYU. (Or Cal, for that matter.) I'd let the two of them stick around for 2024 and take 100% the Pac-12's residual cash, and then after a year add them to the Big-12 at a temporarily reduced share.

Utes have often been undervalued by the betting world.

So, it just got a touch more personal.

Nicely done. It makes you wonder if the Prime Effect might rub off on Boyle's program and move them from a consistently good team to an occasionaly great team.

Beavs and Cougs deserve all of the Pac's remaining assets and money. Every cent. They should hold on for a year as the "Pac-2" (allowed by the NCAA) and then pick up the best of the G-5's in a newly expanded Pac/America conference. Interesting additions would be SD State, AFA, Tulane, Rice, Navy, Army , Memphis and a couple of other MWC teams.

None of this makes any sense. Cal's tennis team playing in Boston? Colorado in a conference without women's lacrosse? Utah looking for a ski opponent in Central Florida? UCLA's swim team trying to find the pool at State College? SMU leaving Texas for every game in every sport to play on either the Atlantic or Pacific coast? And all these kids are supposed to be college students at pretty demanding schools? Arizona visiting Morgantown, Oregon in Piscataway?

More than surprisingly, it's looking like it could be a 3-0 Colorado vs a 3-0 Oregon shaping up. Ducks will be heavily favored, but could be a really fun game for hopefully, a national audience. Sanders brings the cameras, the national telecast, the viewers, and the hype, and Colorado's opponents benefit.

We need a broad perspective here. This is simply a ag school dicsussion. For real insight into the upcoming contest, one has to delve deeply into the 25-14 Beav victory over the lambs in 1962, the largest margin of victory in their extensive three-game historical series.