Boulderites who hate the CU football program

[DrunkRalphie]

Doesn't that also get students the rec center and fields they use?

It did when I went there.

 

[DrunkRalphie]

I hope it helps that Bohn finally has the budget to hire an executive in charge of marketing.

Very encouraging sign. That Pac 12 money is going to help the program immensely.

 

[sackman]

There is a town in Colorado that is Boulder without the football team, and it's not Castle Rock.

It's called Aspen.

Not even close. Aspen has skiing and before that had mining. Boulder has neither of those things. Boulder was nothing more than a supply depot for miners in Nederland and Caribou. The state legislature had a choice between Boulder and Canyon City for the University. So perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be Canyon City. In any case, without CU, Boulder is nothing. There's no industry, no fancy restaurants, etc. Pearl St would be just another street and yes, people would drive on it. The University is what makes Boulder even if some of them don't understand that.

 

[buffs04]

There are a few people in Boulder who would prefer this. Their numbers may not be large but there are enough of them to be a pain in the backside. They would love Boulder to be their exclusive little piece of heaven. They think that without the university all the things they like would stay, their favorite resturaunts, the cultural opportunities, etc. but all the negatives would go away. They don't want to realize that you don't get one without the other.

There are also those inside of CU who have fantasies about being able to be some Ivy league school where athletics don't matter and they can be "recognized" for their "academic" pusuits and just because they are so dog gone special. These are the people who also think that all the money that goes into the athletic program from ticket sales and donations would magically be transfered to their little kingdoms if those "stupid jocks" would just go away.

They don't have any basis in reality but that has never stopped them from trying to get their way before and won't stop them in the future.

I don't think you completely understand the primary function of a university.

 

[Quattro]

I don't think you completely understand the primary function of a university.

You don't take your football seriously.

 

[MtnBuff]

I don't think you completely understand the primary function of a university.

Don't know if you are joking or not.

Drop football and the attention that football gets doesn't magically transfer to the academics, in fact the attention to the academics goes down as does the money available to them. Of course they would also have a lot less applications from those pesky students to deal with, especially those irritating out of state students.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Not even close. Aspen has skiing and before that had mining. Boulder has neither of those things. Boulder was nothing more than a supply depot for miners in Nederland and Caribou. The state legislature had a choice between Boulder and Canyon City for the University. So perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be Canyon City. In any case, without CU, Boulder is nothing. There's no industry, no fancy restaurants, etc. Pearl St would be just another street and yes, people would drive on it. The University is what makes Boulder even if some of them don't understand that.

Aspen and Boulder are similar culturally in that both are Colorado county seats with national name recognition, and a habit of looking down on Denver, while supporting a free Tibet. Both are populated by an elite class of very educated and affluent people who are well travelled and seek a lifestyle involving the pursuit of luxury in a community that is open to thinking globally. Residents in both communities don't just end up there; it is a deliberate choice. There is an emphasis on fitness, fine dining, and the pursuit of higher ideals that manifest themselves in odd symposiums and institutes. Residents of both subscribe to a fringe philosophy that pooh-poohs national chain stores and focuses on limiting sprawl through growth moratoriums and strict building codes.

Both have brick lined outdoor upscale pedestrian shopping zones that feature luxury hotels beyond the reach of most families. Bike paths and park spaces line the creeks.

The majority of residents are transient, living there for a few halcyon years as young adults, but move out when the economic realities of raising a family kick in. Those who can live in either city for more than a decade have made some serious decisions that favor "quality of life" over lifetime earning potential.

Sure there are differences. Aspen is more expensive and brings in big name celebrities and well to do east and west coast part-time residents that arrive in private jets for vacations in a resort community. Thousands of ski tourists drop recreation dollars in Aspen while thousands of college kids drop tuition dollars in Boulder. Boulder has various technology based industries spawned by venture capital and access to a highly educated workforce with relative proximity to a major airport.

People who have the wherewithal to "cash out" of society are prone to check into either.

I see the differences in elevation, climate, history, and industry. But I don't see much difference in politics, worldview, and culture.

 

[MrFrumpylane]

Aspen and Boulder are similar culturally in that both are Colorado county seats with national name recognition, and a habit of looking down on Denver, while supporting a free Tibet. Both are populated by an elite class of very educated and affluent people who are well travelled and seek a lifestyle involving the pursuit of luxury in a community that is open to thinking globally. Residents in both communities don't just end up there; it is a deliberate choice. There is an emphasis on fitness, fine dining, and the pursuit of higher ideals that manifest themselves in odd symposiums and institutes. Residents of both subscribe to a fringe philosophy that pooh-poohs national chain stores and focuses on limiting sprawl through growth moratoriums and strict building codes.

Both have brick lined outdoor upscale pedestrian shopping zones that feature luxury hotels beyond the reach of most families. Bike paths and park spaces line the creeks.

The majority of residents are transient, living there for a few halcyon years as young adults, but move out when the economic realities of raising a family kick in. Those who can live in either city for more than a decade have made some serious decisions that favor "quality of life" over lifetime earning potential.

Sure there are differences. Aspen is more expensive and brings in big name celebrities and well to do east and west coast part-time residents that arrive in private jets for vacations in a resort community. Thousands of ski tourists drop recreation dollars in Aspen while thousands of college kids drop tuition dollars in Boulder. Boulder has various technology based industries spawned by venture capital and access to a highly educated workforce with relative proximity to a major airport.

People who have the wherewithal to "cash out" of society are prone to check into either.

I see the differences in elevation, climate, history, and industry. But I don't see much difference in politics, worldview, and culture.

Skidmark is spot on. I lived in both towns for 4 years each. Student -> Skibum

 

[MtnBuff]

Aspen and Boulder are similar culturally in that both are Colorado county seats with national name recognition, and a habit of looking down on Denver, while supporting a free Tibet. Both are populated by an elite class of very educated and affluent people who are well travelled and seek a lifestyle involving the pursuit of luxury in a community that is open to thinking globally. Residents in both communities don't just end up there; it is a deliberate choice. There is an emphasis on fitness, fine dining, and the pursuit of higher ideals that manifest themselves in odd symposiums and institutes. Residents of both subscribe to a fringe philosophy that pooh-poohs national chain stores and focuses on limiting sprawl through growth moratoriums and strict building codes.

Both have brick lined outdoor upscale pedestrian shopping zones that feature luxury hotels beyond the reach of most families. Bike paths and park spaces line the creeks.

The majority of residents are transient, living there for a few halcyon years as young adults, but move out when the economic realities of raising a family kick in. Those who can live in either city for more than a decade have made some serious decisions that favor "quality of life" over lifetime earning potential.

Sure there are differences. Aspen is more expensive and brings in big name celebrities and well to do east and west coast part-time residents that arrive in private jets for vacations in a resort community. Thousands of ski tourists drop recreation dollars in Aspen while thousands of college kids drop tuition dollars in Boulder. Boulder has various technology based industries spawned by venture capital and access to a highly educated workforce with relative proximity to a major airport.

People who have the wherewithal to "cash out" of society are prone to check into either.

I see the differences in elevation, climate, history, and industry. But I don't see much difference in politics, worldview, and culture.

You are correct but Boulder has all those things because of the university. The people you refer to go to Aspen because the ski mountain is there. Without the ski area Aspen is a Grand Lake or Lake City, a nice place but not an attraction for the people you mention. Boulder is the same. Take away the university and you take away the thing that draws most of the high education, high income, trend setting or following people. In that way without the university Boulder would be another upper middle class residential city feeding workers to Denver.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Here's a question. What's the nation's best public land grant university without a football team? I don't know the answer, and I'm having trouble coming up with a list of dedent candidates?

 

[sackman]

You are correct but Boulder has all those things because of the university. The people you refer to go to Aspen because the ski mountain is there. Without the ski area Aspen is a Grand Lake or Lake City, a nice place but not an attraction for the people you mention. Boulder is the same. Take away the university and you take away the thing that draws most of the high education, high income, trend setting or following people. In that way without the university Boulder would be another upper middle class residential city feeding workers to Denver.

Exactly. Without the University, none of the conditions that skiddy detailed would exist. Rep.

 

[sackman]

Here's a question. What's the nation's best public land grant university without a football team? I don't know the answer, and I'm having trouble coming up with a list of dedent candidates?

I hope you realize that CU is not a land grant university. Unrelated to your question, I know.

 

[Deleted member 807]

You are correct but Boulder has all those things because of the university. The people you refer to go to Aspen because the ski mountain is there. Without the ski area Aspen is a Grand Lake or Lake City, a nice place but not an attraction for the people you mention. Boulder is the same. Take away the university and you take away the thing that draws most of the high education, high income, trend setting or following people. In that way without the university Boulder would be another upper middle class residential city feeding workers to Denver.

We are approaching the same arguement from different perspectives.

On one hand, there is the "Boulder is what it is BECAUSE of the University. If you were to take away CU, it would just be Littleton/Ken Caryl North or Golden without the suds and School of Mines. The implied message is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

On the other hand, there is the "If you don't like Boulder for what it is, then get the **** out." There are places like Aspen that are just as "enlightened" and even more exclusive, but without the presence of a university football program that is a member of a big time college athletic conference.

 

[MtnBuff]

We are approaching the same arguement from different perspectives.

On one hand, there is the "Boulder is what it is BECAUSE of the University. If you were to take away CU, it would just be Littleton/Ken Caryl North or Golden without the suds and School of Mines. The implied message is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

On the other hand, there is the "If you don't like Boulder for what it is, then get the **** out." There are places like Aspen that are just as "enlightened" and even more exclusive, but without the presence of a university football program that is a member of a big time college athletic conference.

Point is that Aspen is Aspen because of the ski area, that's why those people are there. That's why the resturaunts and hotels and stores are there.

Boulder is Boulder because of the university. The high tech industry is there because of the university. All the cultural elements of Boulder exist because of the university or because of the other economic elements attracted by the university. Take away CU and Boulder doesn't have a ski area to pick up the slack.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Point is that Aspen is Aspen because of the ski area, that's why those people are there. That's why the resturaunts and hotels and stores are there.

Boulder is Boulder because of the university. The high tech industry is there because of the university. All the cultural elements of Boulder exist because of the university or because of the other economic elements attracted by the university. Take away CU and Boulder doesn't have a ski area to pick up the slack.

Of course not. Boulder is too far from Eldora to be a ski town. I suspect Nairopa Nancy isn't advocating that CU should go away. The sentiment is for the athletic department to go away. That way you keep the nerdy professors and concerts in Macky and Shakespeare Festival and beautiful architecture, but no annoying game-day traffic and maurading privileged athletes attracting media attention for the wrong reasons.

This line of thinking aspires to de-emphasize football. The University of Denver is viable without a football program. Those ivy league schools like Harvard have football programs, but aren't identified by football success or opulant athletic spending.

People are entitled to think that way. And if they want proximity to a community that deemphasizes football, then they should move next to DU, Colorado College, the School of Mines, or Ft. Collins.

It would be easier than trying to pry CU football out of Boulder. This is one of those things that would only happen over our cold, dead bodies.

 

[dply]

I park at the East campus for games and then walk over to Folsom. The people on bike on those days are ruthless. They will run your ass over in a second. I'm pretty sure they hate the games.

 

[boulder77]

I park at the East campus for games and then walk over to Folsom. The people on bike on those days are ruthless. They will run your ass over in a second. I'm pretty sure they hate the games.

Are they from Aspen???

 

[skibum]

Skidmark is spot on. I lived in both towns for 4 years each. Student -> Skibum

Hey now! I'm pretty sure I should be offended here...

 

[Hugegroove]

I doubt if any of the FB haters wondered how much $$$ CU stood to lose by not joining to the P-12?

 

[MtnBuff]

I doubt if any of the FB haters wondered how much $$$ CU stood to lose by not joining to the P-12?

True but joining the PAC means we have to associate with those lousy academics, football factories like Stanford, Cal, etc.

You just can't be a legitimate academic institution when the jocks are running everything.

 

[sackman]

I doubt if any of the FB haters wondered how much $$$ CU stood to lose by not joining to the P-12?

True but joining the PAC means we have to associate with those lousy academics, football factories like Stanford, Cal, etc.

You just can't be a legitimate academic institution when the jocks are running everything.

Football haters don't have the first idea what the Pac 12 is. Nor do they care.

 

[Buffnik]

Football haters don't have the first idea what the Pac 12 is. Nor do they care.

Exactly. When the comments are in the Camera, they're mostly coming from a vocal superminority that wants to see CU become like the University of Chicago, an original Big Ten member that eliminated football (later reinstated as DIII) and also dropped to DIII in hoops despite having been one of the better programs in the nation.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that approach. I don't think it fits for a state's flagship university, however.