Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

CU to play two FCS teams (one in 2012 and one in 2013)

Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
If I was Bohn, I'd only allow season ticket sales for the Pac-12 games -- no single game purchases for those games. (Not including the visitor's tickets, of course.) Given the Pac-12 home games next season he might be able to pull that off. Would generate decent revenue for the FCS games, even if the crowd was poor.
Click to expand...

Horrible idea. Do you know how many out of staters come here each season for 1 game? Everybody is acting like our attendance is horrible. IT'S NOT! Even when we played Montana state, Eastern Washington, New Mexico state and Miami, our attendance wasn't that bad.
 
Unleash Hell said:
Horrible idea. Do you know how many out of staters come here each season for 1 game? Everybody is acting like our attendance is horrible. IT'S NOT! Even when we played Montana state, Eastern Washington, New Mexico state and Miami, our attendance wasn't that bad.
Click to expand...

Attendance is irrelevant to me.

I am only interested in wins.
 
This is a no-brainer after watching the last decade of non-conference struggles and given our recent TV deal. Especially considering strength of schedule is now up to the human voters and not taken into account in the BCS formula. We've gotta find a path back to bowl eligibility... The early 90's are a distant memory.

I've gotta disagree with Boulder Buff. We need FCS opponents every year for AT LEAST the next 10 years. That's the reality of where our program is at and also where the rest of the BCS schools are trending.
 
I honestly don't mind the occassional FCS teams. I want to go into each conference schedule undefeated every year. If that means scheduling Northern Colorado, so be it.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Attendance is irrelevant to me.

I am only interested in wins.
Click to expand...

umm ya, and thats the easiest to get wins, schedule patsies (although thats still not a automatic W for us)

EDIT: And what the hell does what I replied to have anything to do with wins slade? You are a god damn spinner. Do you even know what you say half the time?
 
Last edited:
EVERYBODY schedules these guys, what's the big deal? Plus it's not like we crushed Eastern WA and we all remember MT State.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Attendance is irrelevant to me.

I am only interested in wins.
Click to expand...

That's nice. But I have no idea what it has to do with your earlier post in this thread.

And honestly, I am fine with a FCS team every year if we go that route. I just want some balance. No hellacious schedules and no Mike Leach TT era scheduling either.
 
Winning will drive season tickets long-term much better than scheduling "name" opponents that cause people to come to the game for the opponent.

This is one of the major flaws with CU marketing and philosophy since forever. We promote the opponent when the opponent is largely irrelevant. We need to have a core base that comes to cheer for CU no matter who we're playing.

We're around 25k season tix this season. That sucks, but it's a huge improvement. We need to drive that number up. Scheduling the LSUs of the world to come to Boulder is not what's going to push that to 35k. What's going to push that is having a winning team that's going to bowl games, appearing in the Top 25 and challenging for Pac-12 championships.

It's worth the short term financial pain of scheduling an FCS opponent every year to get us that extra win that puts us on the road to sustainable success. This needs to be a 10-year plan for the program.

A-B-C, B-B-B or B-B-C scheduling should be our norm.

A = BCS program that is usually in bowl games or elite non-BCS FBS program
B = doormat BCS program or mediocre non-BCS FBS program
C = doormat non-BCS FBS program or FCS program

I consider CSU a "B" since they come at it like it's a big rivalry game.

You could probably even convince me of a B-C-C schedule every now and then (CSU, North Texas and San Jose State, for example).

This year, we went B-A-B-A. That's nuts. If we'd just taken the financial hit by playing a home game against an FCS team instead of going to Ohio State, we'd have played a B-A-B-C schedule and been 2-2 after non-conference play. With the confidence from that record versus 1-3, there's a much better chance that we close out Washington State at home. Such a simple move and we'd probably be looking at 3-3 right now instead of 1-5. We would have also not gotten so beat up during the OOC schedule.
 
it's mentioned that we go back to HI in a couple of years, to finish that contract.

why did they get 2 for 1 on the home field?
 
cu2x said:
it's mentioned that we go back to HI in a couple of years, to finish that contract.

why did they get 2 for 1 on the home field?
Click to expand...

They didn't. The contract is two home/home games. Two in Boulder, two in Honolulu. The last game in Honolulu finishes the contract.
 
Buffnik said:
Winning will drive season tickets long-term much better than scheduling "name" opponents that cause people to come to the game for the opponent.

This is one of the major flaws with CU marketing and philosophy since forever. We promote the opponent when the opponent is largely irrelevant. We need to have a core base that comes to cheer for CU no matter who we're playing.

We're around 25k season tix this season. That sucks, but it's a huge improvement. We need to drive that number up. Scheduling the LSUs of the world to come to Boulder is not what's going to push that to 35k. What's going to push that is having a winning team that's going to bowl games, appearing in the Top 25 and challenging for Pac-12 championships.

It's worth the short term financial pain of scheduling an FCS opponent every year to get us that extra win that puts us on the road to sustainable success. This needs to be a 10-year plan for the program.

A-B-C, B-B-B or B-B-C scheduling should be our norm.

A = BCS program that is usually in bowl games or elite non-BCS FBS program
B = doormat BCS program or mediocre non-BCS FBS program
C = doormat non-BCS FBS program or FCS program

I consider CSU a "B" since they come at it like it's a big rivalry game.

You could probably even convince me of a B-C-C schedule every now and then (CSU, North Texas and San Jose State, for example).

This year, we went B-A-B-A. That's nuts. If we'd just taken the financial hit by playing a home game against an FCS team instead of going to Ohio State, we'd have played a B-A-B-C schedule and been 2-2 after non-conference play. With the confidence from that record versus 1-3, there's a much better chance that we close out Washington State at home. Such a simple move and we'd probably be looking at 3-3 right now instead of 1-5. We would have also not gotten so beat up during the OOC schedule.
Click to expand...
The loss in TV and ticket revenue the rest of the season due to that OSU game is probably gonna take us right about to where we would have been just scheduling an FCS program...

Not to mention the long term loss of hope, ticket sales, and tv revenue due to a worse recruiting year etc. :bang:
 
cu2x said:
it's mentioned that we go back to HI in a couple of years, to finish that contract.

why did they get 2 for 1 on the home field?
Click to expand...

Hawaii is 2 for 2. I would love to keep them on the schedule semi-consistently. Island recruiting is so important to us and in the years we go to Hawaii we get a 13th game, so we can still schedule an FCS team to get the extra home date in those years.
 
Creatini said:
They are for damn near every rebuilding team. We get it, you want the 90's scheduling to last forever. Playing Miami(OH) helped us get to a bowl game, something we haven't done since. We need wins for confidence and wins to help us get to bowl games. I've repeated that many times but you don't seem to want to move out of the 90's scheduling pre-BCS era when you needed a tough OOC. We play in a BCS conference, we go to a bowl game with 6 wins and we're half way there in all likely hood with this OOC. That helps recruiting pick up and allows for Embree to be more successful. Tell me, why should we continue with these tough OOC schedules when they provide very low benefits.
Click to expand...

The formula of A-B-C is what I advocate. The 1999 schedule is pretty much respective of that, but not the rest of that awesome decade.

The reason I want a C game is because C teams are most likely to schedule a one-and-done in Boulder. Getting six or more home games are key in a nine game conference schedule.

It cracks me up how A-B-C gets falsely interpreted as "any time, any where" or "90's scheduling". I'm not aware of any posters who feel strongly about maintaining a B-A-B-A like this year, or an A-A-A. I certainly don't. Yet once again you are incapable of comprehending my position that is as easy to remember as A-B-C.

C-C-C or B-C-C isn't going to build confidence. Beating up on the sisters of the poor (or losing to them) is either going to give a false sense of confidence or provide for some embarrassing losses (Drake, MSU, Toledo...)

This is 90's scheduling, provided for your benefit.

1990: A-A-A-A-A
(Tennessee, Stanford, Illinois, Texas, Washington)
1991: B-B-A-A
(Wyoming, Baylor, Minnesota, Stanford)
1992: B-B-A-A
(CSU, Baylor, Minnesota, Iowa)
1993: A-B-A-A
(Texas, Baylor, Stanford, Miami FL)
1994: C-A-A-A
(NE Louisiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas)
1995: A-B-C-A
(Wisconsin, CSU, NE Louisiana, A&M)
1996: A-B-A-A
(Wazzou, CSU, Michigan, A&M)
1997: B-A-B-A
(CSU, Michigan, Wyoming, A&M)
1998: B-B-B-B
(CSU, Fresno, Utah State, Baylor)
1999: B-C-A
(CSU, San Jose State, Washington)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pre-1997 doesn't mean much because that was before the BCS was introduced. BCC is what we need right now, or BBC at the most.
 
Careful Buff fans! Colorado is now stooping to the level of Nebraska by scheduling FCS games.

LOL!

Really it is a good move for the Buffs. Good luck rebuilding the football program.
 
Creatini said:
Pre-1997 doesn't mean much because that was before the BCS was introduced. BCC is what we need right now, or BBC at the most.
Click to expand...

So you admit being wrong about 90's scheduling. Thumbs up!

For the 2012 and 2013 schedules, BCC or BBC would be understandable, even if it does smack of desperation and fear.
As much as I'd like to eventually face LSU, I would NOT want to see them before 2016.
 
Skidmark said:
So you admit being wrong about 90's scheduling. Thumbs up!

For the 2012 and 2013 schedules, BCC or BBC would be understandable, even if it does smack of desperation and fear.
As much as I'd like to eventually face LSU, I would NOT want to see them before 2016.
Click to expand...
Uhh no my point was there's no reason to schedule tough OOC schedules like we did prior to the BCS.

Looks like your wishing for LSU came early, or so says Bohn.
 
Creatini said:
Uhh no my point was there's no reason to schedule tough OOC schedules like we did prior to the BCS.

Looks like your wishing for LSU came early, or so says Bohn.
Click to expand...

Your point about pre-BCS scheduling is valid. During the Big 8 days, the in-conference schedule was basically A x 2 (Nebraska, Oklahoma)
B x 5

Once CU joined the B12 and faced a CCG, the days of "90's Any-Time-Anywhere" ended. The only place it apparently still exists is inside your head when you attempt to fathom what other posters are actually saying.
 
I dream of games where we can bring in the second team because we're winning by so much.
 
Skidmark said:
Call them out...if you can.
Click to expand...
Not all are on here, well some may but I don't know their username on here. I do remember a thread over the summer about the OOC and a few thought we should still take the 80's and 90's scheduling approach.
 
Creatini said:
Not all are on here, well some may but I don't know their username on here. I do remember a thread over the summer about the OOC and a few thought we should still take the 80's and 90's scheduling approach.
Click to expand...

You have a talent for pulling things out of your ass.
 
UAB has 5 home and 7 away. Their OOC home game is Mississippi State. They have a home and away with MSU, Troy, Navy.

North Texas has 6 home, 6 away. In OOC they play Houston and Indiana at home.

Florida International has 6 home and 6 away. In OOC, they play UCF and Duke at home.

The athletic directors from these "C" schools have pressure to play ideally 6 home games, which means they are going to have to schedule some home and away series each year. They typically have four OOC to schedule. It's unlikely any of them to agree to book all four as one-and-done against BCS schools. They might go for one or two "money" games, but that's about it.

The dance card for these one-and-done schools fills up fast. You are fooling yourself if you believe Bohn can dial up a one-and-done at will. He's going to either have to offer up big money or agree to a home-and-home.
 
Like Nik, I like the Hawaii game for recruiting purposes. No reason not play them a few times a decade. I'm okay with an FCS program on the schedule every other year or so. Add a crappy FBS school each year (other than CSU) (I like UNM, Tulsa, North Texas, Wyoming, NMSU, bottom-tier MAC schools here). Play a big-boy out of conference a few times a decade (ON A ONE FOR ONE BASIS) (pretty much any SEC school, Michigan, tOSU, PSU, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top