AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CSU AD Fired?
- Thread starter jobuff
- Start date
:rofl:Almost no one is more unintentionally funny than goat fan.....
I went over to goatnation and saw a link to magic Jack's departure letter. You have to hand it to the guy, he had enough sense to hire a PR firm to help with his farewell letter. He also took a shot at the administrators, in a very subtle clear manner. Can anyone say power struggle?
So Frank is saying that "This decision is in no way connected to the on-campus stadium project,". :wow:
He must really think that CSU fans are idots. Oh wait
He must really think that CSU fans are idots. Oh wait
Well if Kiszla is correct...(pause for laughter)...then a lot on this board will be happy down the line and the RMS will be a thing of the past.
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_26308334/kiszla-without-graham-rams-should-make-unc-main
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_26308334/kiszla-without-graham-rams-should-make-unc-main
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
Probably. Their $200M project seemed way too much for CSU to pull off. CU is the flagship school in a power 5 conference and we struggled with a $143M project. $100M seems more doable for CSU.
Wonder what this means for McIlweenie?
We'll definitely see a change.
Whatever happens, I believe that the RMS is going to go away as an every-year event. We may complete the current contract with adjustments to play on campus some or all years, but there will not be a renewal.
Every year that goes by, the cost to buy out the remainder of that deal becomes less. I think CU should wait until it has rebuilt its reputation within the state (players, parents, coaches, administrators) before pulling the plug, though.
Design to $100 million with expandability in the future. It's done all the time.
Last edited:
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
I think jizla has been reading AllBuffs.
BuffTuba
Club Member
This would have been the smart thing to do in the beginning. Even a goal of $60-70mm or so with two phases of expansion. Starting capacity around 20-30k. Expanding to 35k and 45k or something in those ranges. The AD and foundations should know that something of their original grandiose scale is not feasible in the current climate. And falling short, as they are, will do nothing but make it harder for anybody in CO to do similar projects in the future. More $$ and larger budgets don't always mean more momentum or better results. Actual result will propel them to more support and better products. They can then scale it up in the future following a well laid outline.
There are a lot of reasons that an expandable 20k seat stadium makes much more sense for them.
Historical numbers clearly show that significantly more seats than this are rarely ever needed for them. Even when they were highly successful they had a hard time getting 30k to show up and the likelyhood of repeating that level of success in today's climate is fairly low.
The recent changes regarding the P5 conferences are likely to both increase the separation between the P5 schools and the mid-majors and further reduce the already slim hopes they had of getting an invitation to a P5 conference. It is all about revenue potential for the conference and CSU doesn't bring that right now.
My belief is that for once Kizla may be right. CSU's future in football isn't trying to compete against the top level, they simply don't have the resources and support to effectively do that. Instead they can and should aim at being an elite program at the next level be that FCS or a new second tier formed by the schools that are now in the non P5 conferences plus a few of the top FCS programs.
For this level a high quality 20k on campus stadium would be a perfect fit and would not only cost less but result in more revenue. Simple logic and experience tells us that a product with a limited supply is usually seen as more desirable than one with a less limited supply. In a 30k stadium many fans would choose not to buy season tickets knowing that they can purchase, usually at walk-up tickets for any games they want to see including the most desirable ones. Why risk pre-purchasing then having to dispose of tickets for games that are less desirable or in conflict with other activities.
It also generally holds true that a full smaller stadium is a better and more energetic experience than a larger stadium with significant empty seats. Building a more appropriately sized stadium would help to build that stadium experience and develop future fan base.
If they would happen to get an P5 invitation or otherwise grow their demand to a point that expansion is justified then they do it, and have the revenue streams available to support it.
I think there is a minimum capacity allowed to be D1.
Edit: That rule was scrapped in 2004. It was 30,000. They do have to average 15,000 once every 2 seasons.
Last edited:
D1 requires a minimum average attendance but doesn't have a set minimum capacity.
From the NCAA website:
With a 20k stadium this would allow for enough of a margin that a few poorly attended games could be overcome. In addition as I stated it would likely result in more season ticket sales bringing sold ticket numbers up for the season increasing the average.
Edit: you did your edit while I was copying the bylaw.
It also never did actually require a 30k seat stadium, it just provided a couple different ways of calculating based on that stadium size cut off.
The University of Idaho played FBS football in a dome that has a official capacity of about 16k even though they have sometimes packed more into it. War Memorial in Laramie is also well under 30k as are some other stadiums around the country.
Wyoming has been worried in recent years about meeting the average attendance cut-off including I think a few times when they have packed the house with heavily discounted tickets to bring the average up.
Last edited:
My high school had/has a 20,000 seat stadium.
That and you need extra capacity since a lot of the mom's require two seats to fit.
Buffenuf
massive tool
Many moms in Texas are still anti-feminazi, "Southern Belle" types. They take some pride in their appearance.
Those homely fatties with bad tats, demanding equalism, are all from New Joisy and New England!
Texas has it's share of mom's who are still trying to maintain their cheerleader figures but I have been there enough to know that they also have more than enough who more than make up for the wanna be Barbies. The women's plus size sections of Walmarts in Texas don't lack for traffic.
23 is the crossover age where southern women start embracing the food and exercise culture and become less attractive than their northern, fitter counterparts.
Tractor
Club Member
CU needs to capitalize on the plights that currently face CSU. Every person in this state that even casually follows college football knows these two schools are nowhere near equal. CU is on the P5 money train and will ride that revenue wave plus the benefits of being autonomous to wherever they want. The future of CSU however is much more murky.
With the MWC continually being diluted by the good schools (the ones that get good TV ratings) moving out, CSU schedule gets less and less appealing to non CSU fans. Declining attendance, coupled with declining conference revenues as the big draws leave is a recipe for disaster. Frustrations from fans/donors will not help. CSU is trending down. CSU needs revenue now more than ever....hence they need the CU game now more than ever.
CU is trending up. New stadium expansion, all kinds of conference money that will only go up. Probably soon will have the ability to offer football stipends to players, so recruiting will improve. CU does not need this game with CSU to stay afloat.
We are in SUCH a position of leverage. Blood is in the streets at Fort Collins, it's time for us to buy some property. Offer to extend the series to 2035 only if it switches to 2-1 with our two being at home and theirs being wherever they want. Hell, offer 3-1 so it balances with our conference slate better. But also say that we take an even more uneven revenue split of ticket sales and tv revenue. If they say no, we buy them out the year before it goes to Ft. Collins and won't see them ever again. Good luck.
If they want to keep the contract as it stands now through 2020, we buy them out the year before it goes to Ft. Collins and won't see them ever again. Good luck.
They can't afford losing the CU game, in any capacity. Especially now. They can't afford to say no. It's time to assert dominance on this series from an administrative standpoint as well.
Get it done RG
With the MWC continually being diluted by the good schools (the ones that get good TV ratings) moving out, CSU schedule gets less and less appealing to non CSU fans. Declining attendance, coupled with declining conference revenues as the big draws leave is a recipe for disaster. Frustrations from fans/donors will not help. CSU is trending down. CSU needs revenue now more than ever....hence they need the CU game now more than ever.
CU is trending up. New stadium expansion, all kinds of conference money that will only go up. Probably soon will have the ability to offer football stipends to players, so recruiting will improve. CU does not need this game with CSU to stay afloat.
We are in SUCH a position of leverage. Blood is in the streets at Fort Collins, it's time for us to buy some property. Offer to extend the series to 2035 only if it switches to 2-1 with our two being at home and theirs being wherever they want. Hell, offer 3-1 so it balances with our conference slate better. But also say that we take an even more uneven revenue split of ticket sales and tv revenue. If they say no, we buy them out the year before it goes to Ft. Collins and won't see them ever again. Good luck.
If they want to keep the contract as it stands now through 2020, we buy them out the year before it goes to Ft. Collins and won't see them ever again. Good luck.
They can't afford losing the CU game, in any capacity. Especially now. They can't afford to say no. It's time to assert dominance on this series from an administrative standpoint as well.
Get it done RG
Last edited:
Fun stuff. I do honestly think that if CSU decides that the non-P5 route is best for them (which it is), then that could really help focus in-state big-time college football interest even more on the Buffs as the teams would no longer really be rivals and people could enjoy them exclusively for what they are. Even if it adds just a few thousand extra butts at Folsom going forward then that is fantastic.
I do feel bad for CSU at a certain level (more on that in a minute). Why are they any different than WSU or OSU? One could make a strong argument that there is no difference or they are better.
However, that ship sailed in 60's when the Pac 8 solidified it's membership and then added UA and ASU in 1978. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Conference
On the Big 8 side, CU was the last member in 1947 (discounting OSU's in and out dance). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Eight_Conference
They are pretty much screwed. No major TV market (Ft Collins is separate from Denver) and if the Pac 12 or Big 12 add teams, it will only be about TV markets or prestige, neither of which can CSU claim. I'm not saying the outcome here is fair, but they are done, period.
PS - as a part of this situation, could we please end the Rocky Mountain Showdown for all the previous reasons discussed? Thanks.
However, that ship sailed in 60's when the Pac 8 solidified it's membership and then added UA and ASU in 1978. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Conference
On the Big 8 side, CU was the last member in 1947 (discounting OSU's in and out dance). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Eight_Conference
They are pretty much screwed. No major TV market (Ft Collins is separate from Denver) and if the Pac 12 or Big 12 add teams, it will only be about TV markets or prestige, neither of which can CSU claim. I'm not saying the outcome here is fair, but they are done, period.
PS - as a part of this situation, could we please end the Rocky Mountain Showdown for all the previous reasons discussed? Thanks.
Put a bullet in the series. They have reinforced their irrelevancy with this latest set of gaffes. The p5 should only play other p5 schools. When expansion heats up again and more schools are let into the club, if they can get out of their own way long enough to get an invite, then we can revisit the series.
Right now and In the foreseeable future, playing them makes as much sense as playing Greeley or mines. All that said, I think they they are in position to make it hard for our Buffs this season.
Right now and In the foreseeable future, playing them makes as much sense as playing Greeley or mines. All that said, I think they they are in position to make it hard for our Buffs this season.
As long as it makes financial sense for the P5 schools to play non-P5 schools it is going to happen.
By playing these schools teams are able to pad their records making the fans feel good about the teams and making it easier to both sell tickets and to generate donations. How many years did kNU make a big deal about their consecutive bowl streak and the bugeater fans proudly bought into it. How could they not make a bowl, they got 3-4 wins a year against paid victims from the bottom of what we now call BCS (University of the Pacific, Arkansas State, etc.) Then add on Iowa State, Kansas, and KSU who at that time were all consistent bottom 10 teams and they had 6 wins without breaking a sweat.
They also managed to sell out these games, generate all the associated stadium revenues like parking and concessions, and still pay the "opponent" 1/2 of what they would would have had to pay a legitimate opponent.
How many SEC teams do this exact same thing beating up weak OOC teams and the very bottom of their league, How many Big 10 teams play at least 2 or even 3 MAC teams a year?
Teams getting paid to take a loss to a higher budget team isn't going to end. That said there is no reason we should continue to play CSU when other opponents exist that provide us with the same or better benefits for less money and without dealing with the game being their reason for existence and their target for the entire year, every year.
Replace CSU with New Mexico, New Mexico State, Tulsa, or a number of others who would provide a good CU team with a fairly secure win, a chance to get the whole roster some playing time, the fans a fun, stress free win, and provide the athletic department with a chance to bank some extra money without having to deal with all the jealous little brother garbage that comes with CSU.
By playing these schools teams are able to pad their records making the fans feel good about the teams and making it easier to both sell tickets and to generate donations. How many years did kNU make a big deal about their consecutive bowl streak and the bugeater fans proudly bought into it. How could they not make a bowl, they got 3-4 wins a year against paid victims from the bottom of what we now call BCS (University of the Pacific, Arkansas State, etc.) Then add on Iowa State, Kansas, and KSU who at that time were all consistent bottom 10 teams and they had 6 wins without breaking a sweat.
They also managed to sell out these games, generate all the associated stadium revenues like parking and concessions, and still pay the "opponent" 1/2 of what they would would have had to pay a legitimate opponent.
How many SEC teams do this exact same thing beating up weak OOC teams and the very bottom of their league, How many Big 10 teams play at least 2 or even 3 MAC teams a year?
Teams getting paid to take a loss to a higher budget team isn't going to end. That said there is no reason we should continue to play CSU when other opponents exist that provide us with the same or better benefits for less money and without dealing with the game being their reason for existence and their target for the entire year, every year.
Replace CSU with New Mexico, New Mexico State, Tulsa, or a number of others who would provide a good CU team with a fairly secure win, a chance to get the whole roster some playing time, the fans a fun, stress free win, and provide the athletic department with a chance to bank some extra money without having to deal with all the jealous little brother garbage that comes with CSU.
Yes... but it's the old model.
Attendance is down across the country. Fans are getting fed up with the cost of season tickets when you get 6 or 7 games and, for many programs, 2 or 3 are total crap. With the NFL, I may be paying 25% more for games than the receipt says since I'm paying for 8 games and they're spreading it over 10 to include those ****ty preseason exhibitions. But those 8 games are against real opponents.
If CU filled the schedule with 6 games in Folsom each year and they were all P5 opponents, not only would I pay more but I'd be willing to add a payment for something to do with the Spring Game, Kickoff Luncheon and Signing Day Luncheon to make it like I paid for 7 games. Hell, they should do that anyway as soon as they get this thing turned around and start winning again.
But you are also a pretty serious fan. Do you think that 1/2 those fans in Stincoln or Tuscalosa care that much?
I agree that I would rather see every team play a quality schedule but I don't think that is a significant factor in attendace drops.