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!

Folsom Field Expansion (Theorectically)

The ramp stays, but there are some equally iconic things they could do with the North and West sides that would really make the stadium special. The North side has a very unfinished look right now. We need to enclose the bowl and put tunnels along the NE and NW corners. I'd love to have Ralphie charging out from inside a tunnel.
 
The biggest problem is that if we get rid of all the ****ty seats, where will we put idots who cheer for the other team?
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Upper deck of the new west side.
Click to expand...
That will still be better than where we stick them now. Now a good portion of them don't even face the field - they have to turn their head or sit at an angle on the bleacher to see the action.

What I'm saying is that the ****tiness of 101 (and to a slightly lesser extent 102) isn't a bug - it's a feature.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
You can't remove that ramp. It is an iconic piece of Colorado football.
Click to expand...

I'm not for the removal of the south ramp but given that the Pac-12 and college athletics is cracking down on rushing the field/court, I have to wonder how much longer and how much fines will it take for CU to get rid of the ramp. I would hate to see it go but CU's hand could be forced sooner than later.
 
Jalapeno said:
I'm not for the removal of the south ramp but given that the Pac-12 and college athletics is cracking down on rushing the field/court, I have to wonder how much longer and how much fines will it take for CU to get rid of the ramp. I would hate to see it go but CU's hand could be forced sooner than later.
Click to expand...
As far as I know the Pac-12 is the only one that cares about field rushing, and it is only because one coach in this conference got pissed off in a press conference after he lost a game.

People are far too concerned about the repercussions of this whole thing. It cost CU a total of $150k in games where the stadium what 90%+ full. CU made far far far more money than they lost in that exchange. I guarantee RG would rather the stadium be full and pay a fine for field rushing than he would be for the alternative.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
As far as I know the Pac-12 is the only one that cares about field rushing, and it is only because one coach in this conference got pissed off in a press conference after he lost a game.

People are far too concerned about the repercussions of this whole thing. It cost CU a total of $150k in games where the stadium what 90%+ full. CU made far far far more money than they lost in that exchange. I guarantee RG would rather the stadium be full and pay a fine for field rushing than he would be for the alternative.
Click to expand...

This. It's a stupid rule.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
As far as I know the Pac-12 is the only one that cares about field rushing, and it is only because one coach in this conference got pissed off in a press conference after he lost a game.

People are far too concerned about the repercussions of this whole thing. It cost CU a total of $150k in games where the stadium what 90%+ full. CU made far far far more money than they lost in that exchange. I guarantee RG would rather the stadium be full and pay a fine for field rushing than he would be for the alternative.
Click to expand...
I understand the logic, but we're not yet in a position where $150k is meaningless. How many official visits would that pay for? Or recruiting trips to Texas? If it keeps up, they'll do something about it - probably not by removing the ramp, but they'll do something.
 
SINKRATZ said:
I understand the logic, but we're not yet in a position where $150k is meaningless. How many official visits would that pay for? Or recruiting trips to Texas? If it keeps up, they'll do something about it - probably not by removing the ramp, but they'll do something.
Click to expand...
Simply electrify the guardrails
 
skibum said:
That will still be better than where we stick them now. Now a good portion of them don't even face the field - they have to turn their head or sit at an angle on the bleacher to see the action.

What I'm saying is that the ****tiness of 101 (and to a slightly lesser extent 102) isn't a bug - it's a feature.
Click to expand...

My bigger issue with visitor seating is that they're able to create too much noise when our team is on offense in a goal line situation at that end.
 
Buffnik said:
My bigger issue with visitor seating is that they're able to create too much noise when our team is on offense in a goal line situation at that end.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is a problem, especially because if we pick ends, we usually choose to put them heading towards the students at the end of the game. Which means that they can create noise when our team is on offense in a goal line situation at the end of the game (or worse, overtime). Which really sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top