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!

Naming rights for CSU's new stadium - ideas?

The amusing thing about the 'For' argument is that he uses Boise State as the example of how athletics can improve academics..... uhhhhhhh
 
Also, an interesting blurb from the counter-point

• He claims that none of these costs will​
evercome out of student fees or state money. His estimated cost for a "bare bones" stadium with none of the hype shown in the publicity is $246 million. And the administration is already talking about floating loans from $167 million to $270 million against highly exaggerated future revenues. Moody's estimates that when these loans occur, CSU will already be $720 million in debt. Add a main-campus stadium and that debt could top $1 billion. Many universities are currently in financial distress because of these kinds of shenanigans.

Read more:Will an on-campus football stadium at CSU help the school's academic mission? No - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20967709/no-false-pitch-by-csu-athletics#ixzz1zNvFSuP6
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Click to expand...



At least someone up there understands feasibility studies.
 
dio said:
Point and counterpoint in the Denver Post today

For


[/I]http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20967713/yes-build-it-and-donors-will-come


Against



[/FONT][/LEFT]http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20967709/no-false-pitch-by-csu-athletics


This pitch is false. National expert David Ridpath, a CSU alum and professor of sports management at Ohio University, says that a main-campus stadium, if it succeeds in making football the focus of CSU, "will change the culture of CSU forever, academically, athletically, and socially. It will affect academics, student fees, and academic subsidies. This issue affects everybody."
Click to expand...
​
Click to expand...

The problem I have with that "against" approach is that he assumes as new stadium would "make football the focus of CSU". That is the usual argument used by anti-athletics people everywhere. If a school tries to succeed athletically, the school suddenly doesn't care about academics. It creates a false choice between athletics and academics. Done properly (which there is a very good argument CSU would not be doing, given the likely reality of the numbers), the two can complement each other. If athletics improvements can be done in a way that is self-funding (as CU should be able to do with the increase in Pac-12 revenue and reasonable private funding), it is excellent promotion for the University, while taking nothing away from academics. Nobody is talking about turning CSU into an $EC style football factory - at least no reasonable person.
 
Junction said:
The problem I have with that "against" approach is that he assumes as new stadium would "make football the focus of CSU". That is the usual argument used by anti-athletics people everywhere. If a school tries to succeed athletically, the school suddenly doesn't care about academics. It creates a false choice between athletics and academics. Done properly (which there is a very good argument CSU would not be doing, given the likely reality of the numbers), the two can complement each other. If athletics improvements can be done in a way that is self-funding (as CU should be able to do with the increase in Pac-12 revenue and reasonable private funding), it is excellent promotion for the University, while taking nothing away from academics. Nobody is talking about turning CSU into an $EC style football factory - at least no reasonable person.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and it is a huge weak point in his argument. He makes lots of good points, however.
 
Darth Snow said:
Agreed, and it is a huge weak point in his argument. He makes lots of good points, however.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he makes sense when it comes to CSU specifically. Points we've been making here all along, actually. That line just caught my attention, though, because we've heard that same kind of reasoning so many times when it comes to CU from the anti-athletics contingent in Boulder...
 
Junction said:
Yeah, he makes sense when it comes to CSU specifically. Points we've been making here all along, actually. That line just caught my attention, though, because we've heard that same kind of reasoning so many times when it comes to CU from the anti-athletics contingent in Boulder...
Click to expand...
:lol: ya my hackles reflexively went up big time when I read that.
 
I'm not in favor of a new stadium for CSU but the argument that having a successfull football program is harmful to the academic quality and reputation has certainly held true at Stanford, Cal, USC, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc.

The football programs at those schools have certainly made the degrees issued by those schools less reputable and diminished in value
 
Denver_sc said:
SIAP, but I figured this thread was perfect for this article:

http://blutarsky.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/more-money-than-sense/

It talks about how much trouble the Maryland AD is in financially as a result of ill-advised upgrades to FB and BB facilities.

I'd say that this is a much more likely scenario for CSU than a University of Minnesota scenario repeat itself.
Click to expand...

That is a really, really good article showing the pitfalls of this type of pursuit
 
One of the comments was great: Just have the State of Maryland pass a law that says everybody must be a season ticket holder. For those who don't comply, tax them the amount of the tickets.
 
Obviously, Maryland didn't have ICON do their feasability study. Had they done so, they would have had a 95% chance of seeing a 22% increase in football attendance, and had an uncountable number of donors falling out of the trees in College Park ......
 
I did it. It took me two days but I made it through all 35 pages.

I'm still trying to picture how pathetic a 50k seat stadium would look with only the 14,107 people who bothered to show up to the Air Force game.
 
I thought you guys would all get a kick out of this comment re: the new stadium

Please do your research.....80% of Colorado high school grads majoring in science, tech, and math go to CSU....therefore CSU is THE FLAGSHIP University. And CU not only raises their tuition, they've changed how they report their fundraising as CSU is kicking their butt there also. CU includes research money now as donations while CSU in their $500 million fundraising campaign did not. And don't forget when it comes to fundraising CU has four campuses including a med school AND CSU again with one campus and no medical school raised $500+ million during the worst economic climate our country has seen in generations. Way to go RAMS! Build the stadium and we'll kick Ralphies' butt there too.​
Click to expand...


​
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21204552&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20
 
I love these kinds of posts. The instant that a pro CSU argument starts referencing CU, they are only legitimizing CU as the flagship school, and trying to prove how they stack up. There is a reason that you never see CU people trying to argue their case against CSU.
 
CU just keeps increasing tuition and admitting more out of state than in-state students to make up some the difference.​
Click to expand...

Well we can't admit more out of state students but don't let facts get in the way
 
...CU has four campuses including a med school AND CSU again with one campus and no medical school...



Um, CSU fan, you have more than one campus. Way to know your own school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top