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!
Dave Logan to csu?
- Thread starter Unleash Hell
- Start date
I don't think you're paying attention. Either that, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Their current stadium SUCKS. They recognize that. They understand that their current facility is partly to blame for their lack of attendance. They're trying to correct that mistake.
We've mocked them for their "upgrades" at Hughes, but then call them delusional for wanting to build something better?
Well, let's think about for a second. Folsom is a great stadium, but we're also restricted by Folsom's footprint for the most part for any future changes we want to make. Folsom is a small stadium, with a small footprint. On the one hand, we're lucky to have a great old stadium that has been on campus forever, but we're also somewhat restricted if we wanted to make ingress/egress easier, add more amenities, etc. That's one reason we need Balch to be renovated so badly - it's one of the only places we can improve things. (Especially because you know the city is going to be dicks about any further upward expansion - which I imagine CSU probably doesn't need to worry about as much as CU does.)
If we were in CSU's position, and we were wanting to replace a dump like Hughes and were talking about spending $100M+ to get it done on campus, would we be content with Folsom? I don't think so. We'd want to add all the things that you see in new stadiums - more concessions facilities, more bathrooms, easier access to gates, more room to move around inside and outside the stadium - all of that. We put up with it because we love Folsom. But good luck getting people to put up with that when they're dropping 8 figures on a new place. If they're going to be donating tons of cash for an 'on-campus' stadium, they're going to want that, they're going to want easy parking, yada yada yada. I don't think anyone believes the "but hey, it'll be on campus" excuse for giving up the cool things new stadiums have (and older stadiums don't) will work.
You also bring up another good point - if you build it where the practice fields are - right next to the McGraw center or whatever it's called, where are they going to practice? They going to go out of the McGraw center and walk over to new practice fields? It's kinda corny enough that our kids have to walk down to the practice fields, but at least they don't have to cross any busy streets to do it.
It will all depend on where they actually put it. There's a big empty space to the East of the Rec Center that would work. That would only take up a small part of their practice fields.
To a lesser degree, we are faced with the same situation as CSU is. While we don't need a new stadium, we do need to make some improvements, enhancements, and expansion to the current stadium. There's a lot of ways to do it within the existing footprint. That won't be an issue.
To a lesser degree, we are faced with the same situation as CSU is. While we don't need a new stadium, we do need to make some improvements, enhancements, and expansion to the current stadium. There's a lot of ways to do it within the existing footprint. That won't be an issue.
I think that what many people are referring to is the delusion that CSU has the capital/donations in the neighborhood of a quarter billion dollars to throw at a stadium that has zero guarantees of any sort of return. They had a solid fund raising campaign FOR ACADEMICS. You think a lot of those donors are willing to have it spent on an athletic department that gets not even close to marginal alumni support? Especially given the economic environment we are living in these days. Who is delusional now? This new on campus stadium is the biggest crock of **** story I've seen in a while. Sorry CSU fans(of which there aren't many), I give this project the chance of getting a green light somewhere between slim and none. They aren't even sure if they have the 1.5 million donation secured for the Moby improvement, and Bball is their big draw right now. Personally I think this new AD of theirs is a shister that talks the talk, but reality will intervene soon enough.
Last edited:
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
Here is bad sketch of the on-capmpus space using the current Hughes footprint. I think you could get creative and make that fit.
Last edited:
The stadium is not responsible, THEY are responsible for their lack of attendance. Unfortunately, they have no football history, they have no tradition, they have no conference, they have apathetic alumni, they have pedestrian academics, and they don't have a big population center, etc. It makes no sense, whatsoever.
Put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. Sorry.
This. Why do they think that an on-campus stadium suddenly makes them big-time? There's a long list of schools out there with on-campus stadiums that are still nobodies in the world of college football.
These quotes from the article show how delusional they are:
I especially like this one:
Yea ok, sure. :lol:
fatbuff
Member
This about covers it all right here. Would you put a sizable amount of money into the csu football program? People expect a solid ROI, even on donations.
That stadium would sit right on the softball fields I used to play on when I lived in Ft Collins and would be on my bud's intramural team as a ringer.
That would be like destroying a national historic site. As a matter of fact, I think it's being considered as one right now.
That would be like destroying a national historic site. As a matter of fact, I think it's being considered as one right now.
What I don't understand is why they wouldn't build a 35k stadium that was designed to have expansion capability.
It's the same argument we get into with CU. We know we can get around 50k per game and sell out all our club & suite seats. Pushing it to 65k with a better game day experience and more of those premium seats makes a lot of sense. But the CSU plan is equivalent, based on current attendance levels, of CU deciding it needing over 120,000 seats at our stadium.
It's the same argument we get into with CU. We know we can get around 50k per game and sell out all our club & suite seats. Pushing it to 65k with a better game day experience and more of those premium seats makes a lot of sense. But the CSU plan is equivalent, based on current attendance levels, of CU deciding it needing over 120,000 seats at our stadium.
Yep. The lammies get their hall pass, and we get editorials and political speeches thrown at us for even thinking of spending like this in a recession. Why do we prop them up again?
The population of the state of Colorado is growing. Keep that in mind as you think about this whole discussion.
Now for a quick anecdote: about 7 or 8 years ago, I was working for a small firm in Colorado Springs. We hired a new engineer who moved his family from somewhere out east (I think Penn, but that could just be because he went to PSU). Anyway, his kids were somewhere in the 8-14 range, and he was talking to me one day about wanting to take his kids to a "real college football game." He told me he had taken them to an AFA game, and while the on-field product was good, and the tailgating scene was "interesting and fun in it's own way," it wasn't a "real" college football experience. I told him to get his family up to Folsom for a game. They started going to 2-3 games a year after that.
CSU absolutely cannot get those types of people to regularly come to their games because given their current infrastructure, they cannot offer the "real college football experience." They could be ranked in the top 10, be hosting an undefeated SEC team, and they *still* couldn't make that offer. You don't need a top 25 program to make that offer. But, you do need a stadium with a better location and features than what they do have now.
There are currently more than 5 million people in Colorado, and more are coming all the time. Right now, there are only 300,000 opportunities each year for people to enjoy the college football game day experience, and most of those opportunities are being used up. CSU sees an opportunity. Good for them. And, over the long haul, it will be good for us too.
Now for a quick anecdote: about 7 or 8 years ago, I was working for a small firm in Colorado Springs. We hired a new engineer who moved his family from somewhere out east (I think Penn, but that could just be because he went to PSU). Anyway, his kids were somewhere in the 8-14 range, and he was talking to me one day about wanting to take his kids to a "real college football game." He told me he had taken them to an AFA game, and while the on-field product was good, and the tailgating scene was "interesting and fun in it's own way," it wasn't a "real" college football experience. I told him to get his family up to Folsom for a game. They started going to 2-3 games a year after that.
CSU absolutely cannot get those types of people to regularly come to their games because given their current infrastructure, they cannot offer the "real college football experience." They could be ranked in the top 10, be hosting an undefeated SEC team, and they *still* couldn't make that offer. You don't need a top 25 program to make that offer. But, you do need a stadium with a better location and features than what they do have now.
There are currently more than 5 million people in Colorado, and more are coming all the time. Right now, there are only 300,000 opportunities each year for people to enjoy the college football game day experience, and most of those opportunities are being used up. CSU sees an opportunity. Good for them. And, over the long haul, it will be good for us too.
I agree with Dio, CSU has to make their move now. The Mtn. Weenie Div. is imploding, UU, BYU, SDSU, Boise, TCU are all leaving or have left. CSU got left out of the Conference Realignment Musical Chair shuffle. All ribbing aside, if they don't make a play now, they'll be D II for sure. It may be already too late, but at least they appear to be ready to go down swinging. Bottom line, if they don't get into a BCS AQ conference, it's all over but the crying IMO, new stadium or no. I just don't see any BCS conference taking them at this point, if the conferences go to 16 they might be a player, but without a major facility upgrade, CSU will be left out again and playing in the Big Sky.
I don't know. With the internet and the opportunity to see almost all of your team's games online, if not TV, it seems that more and more people keep their allegiances to their old teams and essentially ignore the local teams. A lot of those people moving in are not going to give 2 ****s about going to CU or CSU because they'd rather stay at home and watch their alma maters, and it seems like they're perfectly content to raise their kids that way, too. As more people move in, I see just as many (if not more) Texas, Nebraska, K-State, U$C, UCLA, etc gear than CU or CSU gear. Which seems to be as bad for CU as CSU. Our only saving grace is that we have bigger draw conference opponents, closer proximity to Denver, and more tradition. JMO.
CUFan
Welcome back
I sure wish we had $30 million already raised and ready to spend on athletic upgrades. These may be lofty goals, but it is survival time for CSU. They need to shoot for the moon and they are.
Ok there is a major disconnect going on right now. We all know WHY CSU wants to have the on campus stadium. We get it. The reason that people are deriding this discussion is the HOW. CSU is going backwards with their football program at all levels. This is like the federal government coming out to the American people and saying: "You know what, we are all frustrated that Social Security is not sustainable long term, but what we think should happen because it sounds fair is that everybody will be able to retire with full social security benefits at age 60 from now on."
Anybody with half a brain seeing that would find it laughable, if not outright insulting. CSU simply does not have the resources at this time for such an endeavor, and to dangle the carrot in front of the "fans" is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to create the illusion that they are doing something.
Umm, there is no proof that CSU has raised a dime outside of a quote from some 2 for a nickel publication that says he heard it from a source.
If that were truly the case, they wouldn't have fired Kowalchuk, IMO. They hired Graham to get them to the next level. I have some serious reservations about that, truth be told. The guy has never, to my knowledge, worked in an athletic department before. He has *zero* experience in running a D-1 athletic department. None. Not even as an assistant AD. That means he's in for a very steep learning curve.
Still, CSU has a choice to make: Either step up and make a play for the big leagues, or don't. Both choices involve risk. The risk in stepping up is that they get no return for their investment, and are left with a lot of pissed off boosters and still get left out of the big leagues. The risk in doing nothing is that they slip into total obscurity, where they have no connection to their alumni and can't get on TV or schedule games against anybody of consequence. They already have a lot invested in their athletic facilities, what do they do with those if they have no athletic department to speak of?
Either way, they're taking a risk. The road they're taking is better for CU, so I'm supportive. We could argue all day whether it's good for CU or not, but that's my opinion.
If we wanted to take all the air out of their balloon, that's exactly what we would do. Announce a $75MM indoor practice facility, along with stadium upgrades, expansion, field house renovations, etc. Have the plans all drawn up and announce we already have $50MM of the $75MM raised. That would make me laugh.
For the bolded part there is no risk as they have already achieved this. For the second quote, I like your thinking!
With the imminent demise of the MWC, there is tremendous risk of falling farther behind the rest of the D-1 world. Moving down to D-II is a very distinct possibility. I don't think they really want to do that.
It may be political, too. They are probably getting pressure from certain alumni to stop the bleeding. CSU does have a lot of alumni in the area, many of whom are probably screaming about all the good stuff CU has that they don't.
Last time they got a big donation they thought they were on the way to the big time. They were in the rankings or close, they had won a bunch of games with Sonny, they got the Stryker donation and were on the way.
Instead they reverted to being CSU, a tail end team in a tail end conference. Wins went away, interest went away, and their newly expanded and renovated stadium has gone more and more empty every season.
Based on prior history I would find it hard to believe that a bunch of big dollars are going to step forward to fill their dreams. A new stadium on campus would raise attendance. It wouldn't raise it enough to make them competitive. Even if they got lucky with a coach and started to win again they aren't going to exceed 30K on a regular basis, even with lower ticket prices that AQ schools normally charge.
Instead they reverted to being CSU, a tail end team in a tail end conference. Wins went away, interest went away, and their newly expanded and renovated stadium has gone more and more empty every season.
Based on prior history I would find it hard to believe that a bunch of big dollars are going to step forward to fill their dreams. A new stadium on campus would raise attendance. It wouldn't raise it enough to make them competitive. Even if they got lucky with a coach and started to win again they aren't going to exceed 30K on a regular basis, even with lower ticket prices that AQ schools normally charge.
As I have stated before, I think a move to FCS would be the best thing for them. They would be able to be competitive, they would stop the financial bleeding, and they could have positive instead of negative results both on the field and in the media.
I think that little brother becoming an FCS school would be best for them (and us). The game we play them in has gotten to a place of entirely diminished returns. The (lack of) recruiting they do only hurts us further, especially if they get one or two play-makers who can do something for us in the kicking game or in non-glamorous positions.
We got our place at the adult table. They're racing to get theirs -- cool for them. But, methinks it's too little too late.
We got our place at the adult table. They're racing to get theirs -- cool for them. But, methinks it's too little too late.
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
http://www.fcgov.com/youtube.php?vid=LnSbJbIb9Ow
Sackman:
Check out this proposal on the development of the Mason Corridor (3:15). Talking about gaining potential long-term access to Denver Alumni this is one way to do it. A transportation system like this would literally drop Denver alumni on campus. This is the sort of long-range comprehensive planning that needs to be happening right now.
Sackman:
Check out this proposal on the development of the Mason Corridor (3:15). Talking about gaining potential long-term access to Denver Alumni this is one way to do it. A transportation system like this would literally drop Denver alumni on campus. This is the sort of long-range comprehensive planning that needs to be happening right now.
There are some on this thread and elsewhere that are essentially saying "even if they had a great stadium, in a great location, had a solid PR/community outreach program, and had a decent team, maybe even in an AQ conference, they STILL couldn't sell 45,000 tickets." You're not saying that - what I think you're saying is "they're CSU, there's no way they could actually execute a plan to get a great stadium, in a great location with solid PR and a decent team - CSU is, and will always be, CSU."
You might be right; Aggie is Aggie, and CSU is, well, CSU. But the people who are saying that under no reasonable circumstances could it ever happen - they're just wrong. It could happen, it would require vision, leadership and a hell of a lot of hard work and sustained effort over a long period of time. It would probably also require at least one "lucky" break somewhere along the way. That lucky break will probably happen no matter what - if they've put the effort to be ready to take advantage of that break when it happens, good for them. But if they're not ready...
[Actually one lucky break already passed them by: CU leaving the Big 12. Had they started really putting the effort into all of these things when Saint Sonny was in his glory years, they could have slid right into our old slot in the B12. I bet some alumni realized that, and went "****!!! why weren't we ready?!?!" and vowed to actually be ready if/when the next opportunity comes by. With all the realignment stuff, they may only get one more chance - will they be ready in time?]