(04-04-2014 07:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I think the point of the OP was that geography is a minor factor in conference make up. The ACC stretches from Miami to Boston to (almost) Chicago. The B1G Stretches from Nebraska to New Jersey. The B12 stretches from Washington to Southern California to Colorado. The SEC stretches from Florida to Texas. The days of the compact, "bus trip" conferences are gone. The Big East nearly had San Diego and Connecticut in the same conference.

So, it would make sense for the Big XII to expand with UConn?

The Big12 could use another decent team... UConn..

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

and comments like these are exactly what i am talking about.

Utah-Colorado are actually longtime rivals. they had 57 games up until 1960 when the rivalry ended. One of the problems with CU in the b8 is they had no rival. most of the time our end of year rival was KSU which makes no sense at all.

CU didn't get a true conference rival until the b12 killed the NU-OU rivalry. NU-CU had this joke of a rivalry which can moreso be described as a forced shotgun marriage than anything.

with our past history with utah & the noahs arc rivalry setup of the pac12 we don't have to deal with that BS. for once we have not only an undisputed conference rival, but a school we share history with and actually considers us their rival as well.

(04-04-2014 07:19 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

Historically, CU's biggest rival was the University of Denver, followed by Utah. CU never developed any rivals in either the Big 8 or Big 12.

yep.

CU joined the b8 as the 7th member. they other b8 schools had a head start at building up rivalries with each other

CU was also at a geographical disadvantage. their closest b8 schools were 500 miles away. the rest were 600-700 miles away.

meanwhile take any of the other b8 schools and they had at least 3 other schools in a 300 mile radius

(04-04-2014 10:08 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 05:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 04:54 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 04:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 04:42 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Because nothing says "Pacific" like Colorado being in the middle of the Rocky Mtns. Granted, Utah is not Pacific but you are an outlier in the PAC 12.
Just as West Virginia is in the Big 12. Hawaii in the MW, Nebraska in the Big 10, UTEP in CUSA, NMSU in the Sunbelt....

the difference though is that CU is a western leaning school in a western based conference.

wvu is an eastern leaning school in a western based conference.

every ACC state with the exception of MA has more WVU alumni than the entire b12 footprint.

The outlier meaning is what CU is geographically. I know Boulder is more culturally associated with the likes of Berkley, Eugene, Seattle, Palo Alto and L.A.

you could say the same for austin

*and thats probably a big reason why they were so close to joining the pac16

The vast majority of Longhorn fans do not live in Austin, and Texas as a whole is night and day from the Left Coast...

i am not talking about the fans, the school & city are a pure cultural fit for the pac16 hence the reason they were so close to considering it. Remember AZ is one of the most conservative states in the nation. but tuscon is the little blue city in a red ocean and thats part of what makes them fit in well with the pac.

The PAC 12 is contiguous -- There are no OUTLYING member states -- Every member falls in a state, touching another state with a member.

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

BYU would be a horrid fit for the Pac-12. Nobody in the Pac-12 wants them.

SLC is a fairly liberal town, as is UU. All the non-Mormons, or Jack Mormons congregate in SLC and go to UU

(04-04-2014 11:35 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The PAC 12 is contiguous -- There are no OUTLYING member states -- Every member falls in a state, touching another state with a member.

You have to be careful what you say here. Touching things with your member is considered perverted in many states.

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

You don't understand why the "Holy War" is such a heated rivalry if you don't understand why Utah is a cultural fit for the PAC12. The "Holy War" is a cultural battle as much as an athletic one.

SLC was previously listed by Advocate as the nation's most Gay Friendly city and was # 8 this year. As this picture demonstrates, SLC Mormons are sometimes quite different than the Provo counterparts in their religious practice and beliefs


Here's SLC mayor Rocky Anderson leading an anti-War protest against a "dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights violating president" as GW passes through SLC on his way to Provo.



In a state that is becoming progressively less white and less Mormon, these are the demographic differences betwwen BYU and Utah fanbases.



PS:

(04-04-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

and comments like these are exactly what i am talking about.

Utah-Colorado are actually longtime rivals. they had 57 games up until 1960 when the rivalry ended. One of the problems with CU in the b8 is they had no rival. most of the time our end of year rival was KSU which makes no sense at all.

CU didn't get a true conference rival until the b12 killed the NU-OU rivalry. NU-CU had this joke of a rivalry which can moreso be described as a forced shotgun marriage than anything.

with our past history with utah & the noahs arc rivalry setup of the pac12 we don't have to deal with that BS. for once we have not only an undisputed conference rival, but a school we share history with and actually considers us their rival as well.

Utah/s Main rival is and will always be BYU not CU.

Utah has more recent rivalries with the Arizona schools when they were all in the WAC together then with CU whose Utah ties were long severed

(04-06-2014 09:25 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

and comments like these are exactly what i am talking about.

Utah-Colorado are actually longtime rivals. they had 57 games up until 1960 when the rivalry ended. One of the problems with CU in the b8 is they had no rival. most of the time our end of year rival was KSU which makes no sense at all.

CU didn't get a true conference rival until the b12 killed the NU-OU rivalry. NU-CU had this joke of a rivalry which can moreso be described as a forced shotgun marriage than anything.

with our past history with utah & the noahs arc rivalry setup of the pac12 we don't have to deal with that BS. for once we have not only an undisputed conference rival, but a school we share history with and actually considers us their rival as well.

Utah/s Main rival is and will always be BYU not CU.

Utah has more recent rivalries with the Arizona schools when they were all in the WAC together then with CU whose Utah ties were long severed

just because UU has BYU does not mean UU & CU can't be rivals.

would you say MSU & UM can't be rivals because of OSU????

and there's this whole "CSU" aspect of things you are forgetting.

you are basically saying that asu/zona having 18/27 game rivalries with UU is more important than a 57 game rivalry because of a decade & a half split?????

seriously?? UU didn't turn to the zona schools as partners until AFTER CU ditched them. and even then UU had BYU & utah state as developed rivals. CU emerged as UUs go to rivals BEFORE the other 2 utah programs developed and the 2 schools were conference rivals before the pac12 formed in 1915

this is about as stupid as it gets

(04-06-2014 10:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 09:25 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

and comments like these are exactly what i am talking about.

Utah-Colorado are actually longtime rivals. they had 57 games up until 1960 when the rivalry ended. One of the problems with CU in the b8 is they had no rival. most of the time our end of year rival was KSU which makes no sense at all.

CU didn't get a true conference rival until the b12 killed the NU-OU rivalry. NU-CU had this joke of a rivalry which can moreso be described as a forced shotgun marriage than anything.

with our past history with utah & the noahs arc rivalry setup of the pac12 we don't have to deal with that BS. for once we have not only an undisputed conference rival, but a school we share history with and actually considers us their rival as well.

Utah/s Main rival is and will always be BYU not CU.

Utah has more recent rivalries with the Arizona schools when they were all in the WAC together then with CU whose Utah ties were long severed

just because UU has BYU does not mean UU & CU can't be rivals.

would you say MSU & UM can't be rivals because of OSU????

and there's this whole "CSU" aspect of things you are forgetting.

you are basically saying that asu/zona having 18/27 game rivalries with UU is more important than a 57 game rivalry because of a decade & a half split?????

seriously?? UU didn't turn to the zona schools as partners until AFTER CU ditched them. and even then UU had BYU & utah state as developed rivals. CU emerged as UUs go to rivals BEFORE the other 2 utah programs developed and the 2 schools were conference rivals before the pac12 formed in 1915

this is about as stupid as it gets

Just saying few Utah fans see CU as their rival or get excited about the matchup. Even though many CU fans really want them to,

really 1915? Hell most utah fans today don't remember 1960 either or even being in the same conference as CU before this expansion

(04-06-2014 10:34 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 09:25 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 06:33 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The only problem is no traditional rivals. As a neutral fan I would have like to have seen BYU in the PAC instead because of the Utah-BYU rivalry. Of course Boulder is a better cultral fit than Provo but then again they let in Utah with Salt Lake City not being a PAC 12 cultural fit.

and comments like these are exactly what i am talking about.

Utah-Colorado are actually longtime rivals. they had 57 games up until 1960 when the rivalry ended. One of the problems with CU in the b8 is they had no rival. most of the time our end of year rival was KSU which makes no sense at all.

CU didn't get a true conference rival until the b12 killed the NU-OU rivalry. NU-CU had this joke of a rivalry which can moreso be described as a forced shotgun marriage than anything.

with our past history with utah & the noahs arc rivalry setup of the pac12 we don't have to deal with that BS. for once we have not only an undisputed conference rival, but a school we share history with and actually considers us their rival as well.

Utah/s Main rival is and will always be BYU not CU.

Utah has more recent rivalries with the Arizona schools when they were all in the WAC together then with CU whose Utah ties were long severed

just because UU has BYU does not mean UU & CU can't be rivals.

would you say MSU & UM can't be rivals because of OSU????

and there's this whole "CSU" aspect of things you are forgetting.

you are basically saying that asu/zona having 18/27 game rivalries with UU is more important than a 57 game rivalry because of a decade & a half split?????

seriously?? UU didn't turn to the zona schools as partners until AFTER CU ditched them. and even then UU had BYU & utah state as developed rivals. CU emerged as UUs go to rivals BEFORE the other 2 utah programs developed and the 2 schools were conference rivals before the pac12 formed in 1915

this is about as stupid as it gets

Just saying few Utah fans see CU as their rival or get excited about the matchup. Even though many CU fans really want them to,

really 1915? Hell most utah fans today don't remember 1960 either or being in the same conference as CU

you can't buy history. cu-uu get to rekindle an old rivalry. it is a matchup of institutions whose programs are on equal level and consider each others main conf. foe.

I find it hilarious that a wyoming fan is even touching this topic. but then again that explains why. someones a lil bitter about his rivalry playing 2nd fiddle to CU-CSU

It's not a rivalry the nation cares about.

Let CU claim whomever they wish as a rival. It'll be irrelevant to the wider world of college football anyways.

(04-06-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's not a rivalry the nation cares about.

Let CU claim whomever they wish as a rival. It'll be irrelevant to the wider world of college football anyways.

not saying it was a nationally rivalry. all i am saying is CU finally has a real conference rival.

(04-06-2014 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's not a rivalry the nation cares about.

Let CU claim whomever they wish as a rival. It'll be irrelevant to the wider world of college football anyways.

not saying it was a nationally rivalry. all i am saying is CU finally has a real conference rival.

Still, you can't just pick a rival. Rivalries develop over time. CU hasn't spent enough time in the PAC to develop one. The fact that CU has been as bad as they have been has slowed that development.

A real rivalry will develop and honestly I doubt that it will be Utah.

(04-06-2014 10:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's not a rivalry the nation cares about.

Let CU claim whomever they wish as a rival. It'll be irrelevant to the wider world of college football anyways.

not saying it was a nationally rivalry. all i am saying is CU finally has a real conference rival.

Still, you can't just pick a rival. Rivalries develop over time. CU hasn't spent enough time in the PAC to develop one. The fact that CU has been as bad as they have been has slowed that development.

A real rivalry will develop and honestly I doubt that it will be Utah.

if utah & cu had no history you would be right. it would be a rutgers-maryland shotgun marriage.

but that's not the case. cu & uu have been yearly rivals for 60 years and conference members for nearly 50.

(04-06-2014 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's not a rivalry the nation cares about.

Let CU claim whomever they wish as a rival. It'll be irrelevant to the wider world of college football anyways.

not saying it was a nationally rivalry. all i am saying is CU finally has a real conference rival.

Still, you can't just pick a rival. Rivalries develop over time. CU hasn't spent enough time in the PAC to develop one. The fact that CU has been aus bad as they have been has slowed that development.

A real rivalry will develop and honestly I doubt that it will be Utah.

if utah & cu had no history you would be right. it would be a rutgers-maryland shotgun marriage.

but that's not the case. cu & uu have been yearly rivals for 60 years and conference members for nearly 50.

And the only people who remember it aren't long for this world.

A rivalry will develop in time for CU to get excited about.

Still, why would you want to aim 'low' and make Utah your big rival? I say low in the sense that there are some big players in the PAC to choose from.

(04-06-2014 11:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's not a rivalry the nation cares about.

Let CU claim whomever they wish as a rival. It'll be irrelevant to the wider world of college football anyways.

not saying it was a nationally rivalry. all i am saying is CU finally has a real conference rival.

Still, you can't just pick a rival. Rivalries develop over time. CU hasn't spent enough time in the PAC to develop one. The fact that CU has been aus bad as they have been has slowed that development.

A real rivalry will develop and honestly I doubt that it will be Utah.

if utah & cu had no history you would be right. it would be a rutgers-maryland shotgun marriage.

but that's not the case. cu & uu have been yearly rivals for 60 years and conference members for nearly 50.

And the only people who remember it aren't long for this world.

A rivalry will develop in time for CU to get excited about.

Still, why would you want to aim 'low' and make Utah your big rival? I say low in the sense that there are some big players in the PAC to choose from.

the pac has a Noah's arc setup. every other pac12 school has a go to conference rival. who is cu gonna rival up with and be considered their primary conference rival other than utah?

the reason I am so open to this is because we just got out of a dysfunctional b12 setup where we had to force unnatural rivalries. i don't wanna go down that road again.

utah & cu has history, they are border states, and they fit in perfectly with the pac12 Noah's arc setup

(04-06-2014 11:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 11:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-06-2014 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  not saying it was a nationally rivalry. all i am saying is CU finally has a real conference rival.

Still, you can't just pick a rival. Rivalries develop over time. CU hasn't spent enough time in the PAC to develop one. The fact that CU has been aus bad as they have been has slowed that development.

A real rivalry will develop and honestly I doubt that it will be Utah.

if utah & cu had no history you would be right. it would be a rutgers-maryland shotgun marriage.

but that's not the case. cu & uu have been yearly rivals for 60 years and conference members for nearly 50.

And the only people who remember it aren't long for this world.

A rivalry will develop in time for CU to get excited about.

Still, why would you want to aim 'low' and make Utah your big rival? I say low in the sense that there are some big players in the PAC to choose from.

the pac has a Noah's arc setup. every other pac12 school has a go to conference rival. who is cu gonna rival up with and be considered their primary conference rival other than utah?

the reason I am so open to this is because we just got out of a dysfunctional b12 setup where we had to force unnatural rivalries. i don't wanna go down that road again.

utah & cu has history, they are border states, and they fit in perfectly with the pac12 Noah's arc setup

Schools are always open to another rival of note.

I think CU's biggest issue is the fact that they haven't been very good during their move. CU is a vastly superior program to Utah, a big time rivalry just won't develop again in my opinion. What is there to be rivals over?

A good rival will develop as CU finds itself playing at its historical level, above average. When that happens a big nationally important rivalry will develop.

Besides, as a CU fan do you really want your rival to be Utah?