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!

Little Brother already upset about the AFA scheduling

jobuff said:
Texas A&M and TCU are the games replacing the CSU series, not AFA. The schedule upgrade happened in the spring when we scheduled those games. The AFA is separate. That is why anyone saying that we took our ball and ran home is an 1d1ot.
Click to expand...

They have never let reality get in the way of their perceptions. If they think we are dodging them in favor of the AFA then that's what they will think, regardless of the facts.
 
AFA only means 2 things related to CSU:

1) 2022 no longer has an open date on the schedule

2) CU has set the terms under which it will schedule the top end of the MWC (3k opposing tix, home-home, standard road guarantees)

So, no CSU in 2021 and 2022. Beyond that, if CU does it then it will be without any special considerations like CSU currently gets for playing this game.
 
Plansit said:
AFA was invited to join the BigXII. CSU was not. This alone should tell you about outside perception of the two programs.
Click to expand...

azbuff said:
WTF?
Click to expand...

There were credible rumors that Beebe called the AFA AD and inquired about their potential interest. AFA apparently told them "thanks, but no thanks."

Also +1 on the coming from out of state for the games. I'm going to try and make both. I've never even considered travelling for CSU.
 
skibum said:
There were credible rumors that Beebe called the AFA AD and inquired about their potential interest. AFA apparently told them "thanks, but no thanks."
Click to expand...

AFA coach or AD, can't remember which was on record saying did not want to join because of the facilities requirements and the change in athletics culture and the culture of the academy that would need to take place for AFA to compete on a yearly basis with a major conference in all sports.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
AFA coach or AD, can't remember which was on record saying did not want to join because of the facilities requirements and the change in athletics culture and the culture of the academy that would need to take place for AFA to compete on a yearly basis with a major conference in all sports.
Click to expand...

iirc, the new stipend rules also clash with their culture and may actually be a legal problem for the academies if they tried to implement.
 
If the rumors are true, I question the competency of the AFA AD. I already knew Beebe was incompetent.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
AFA coach or AD, can't remember which was on record saying did not want to join because of the facilities requirements and the change in athletics culture and the culture of the academy that would need to take place for AFA to compete on a yearly basis with a major conference in all sports.
Click to expand...

Biggest reason, and they talked openly about this at the time, was that they knew that in order to compete on a week in and week out basis in a power conference they would have to change their culture.

They already make certain compromises for athletics. There are kids who get in who wouldn't if they weren't recruited and there is academic assistance provided which allows some kids to be able to keep up with the academic and military load.

They know that on a one off basis they have a decent chance against P5 teams. They can't hold up multiple weeks. They would have to recruit and develop bigger, stronger, faster players than they do now. They weren't willing to sacrifice their standards and culture to win games against schools that do the things needed to play at the highest level.
 
azbuff said:
If the rumors are true, I question the competency of the AFA AD. I already knew Beebe was incompetent.
Click to expand...

Why? I don't really see how attempting to compete in a P5 conference benefits the academy's mission in any way. Not like they need the money.
 
ramfan said:
When it was first announced that the series was in doubt much of this board seemed happy - now CU could schedule more beneficial games (more money, against better/more visible/meaningful teams, whatever) - and if a team like CSU wanted to schedule a team like CU it was going to take a 2 for 1. Then CU goes out and schedules a home and home with Air Force, when it was recently said that teams like CU don't schedule home and homes with teams like CSU or Air Force and that CSU should be happy with/grateful for a 2 for 1 since they would have huge troubles getting home and homes with other P5 schools. You can't have it both ways.

CU is allowed to decide they don't want to play CSU, but you can't do things like this and at the same time claim CSU is harmful to CU or CU is above a home and home.
Click to expand...
By whom was this recently said?
 
DBT said:
By whom was this recently said?
Click to expand...
When discussing the possible ending of the RMS on here a few months back many buff fans expressed the opinion that CSU should be happy with a 2 for 1 because they won't get any 1 for 1s with other P5 schools.
 
TSchekler said:
Duh! Getting an easy win is why you schedule G5 and FCS teams like Montana State, Sac State, Fresno State, etc...
Click to expand...

Did someone say Toledo?

webopelt.jpg
 
Buffnik said:
iirc, the new stipend rules also clash with their culture and may actually be a legal problem for the academies if they tried to implement.
Click to expand...

Cadets already get a stipend. They are "officers" in the armed forces the day they enroll.

Plus, their overall program gives thir athletes many extras regular programs can't approach. And don't believe all that stuff about cadets doing the "reading and studying on the flight back" crap.

Athletes are given huge breaks not available to regular cadets at all the a military academies; as I know from my son's good friend who was a schollie hockey player at the AFA.
 
Had CSU been willing to rework the RMS to get the CU games back to Folsom, there would be no room on the schedule, nor need to schedule AFA. Both schools wanting to make the best financial decision for their respective programs.

I would welcome a rotating in-state rivalry series with CU, CSU and AFA. 1 and 1, on a three year cycle.
 
BuffHerd said:
Had CSU been willing to rework the RMS to get the CU games back to Folsom, there would be no room on the schedule, nor need to schedule AFA. Both schools wanting to make the best financial decision for their respective programs.

I would welcome a rotating in-state rivalry series with CU, CSU and AFA. 1 and 1, on a three year cycle.
Click to expand...
Until the new on campus stadium is built, I wouldn't do anything with CSU. While it has been a done deal now for over a decade according fans, has a shovel broken soil?
 
pcbuff said:
Until the new on campus stadium is built, I wouldn't do anything with CSU. While it has been a done deal now for over a decade according fans, has a shovel broken soil?
Click to expand...

They also have to do a standard contract with a visitor payday guarantee in line with what CU gets when it plays elsewhere, while also accepting its standard visitor's fee to come to Folsom. Also, standard ticket allotments for them.

In short, if the game happens again it won't be some RMS partnership structure. It will be like if CU was playing UNM or WYO or similar.
 
Yes - the assumption that we will beat AFA is ludicrous. AFA has been the best football team in the state for the past 10 years, easily.
 
BuffHerd said:
Had CSU been willing to rework the RMS to get the CU games back to Folsom, there would be no room on the schedule, nor need to schedule AFA. Both schools wanting to make the best financial decision for their respective programs.

I would welcome a rotating in-state rivalry series with CU, CSU and AFA. 1 and 1, on a three year cycle.
Click to expand...

No, and strongly no.

The AFA I could see a 1 and 1, they have plenty of other scheduling options and frankly they don't need us. CSU does need us, badly. CSU also offers very little benefit to CU, they are a minor program.

I would enjoy seeing us do a rotation of CSU, AFA and add Wyoming and even New Mexico but the only one of those that gets a 1 for 1 is the AFA, the rest it's 2 for 1 or no go. Might even be that Wyoming would rather pass on playing the game in Laramie and take the extra money just to stay in the Denver metro area. They have a small stadium and a large alumni base in Denver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top