Blue out?
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!
Nothing personal but y'all little "do little conference" is no better than
- Thread starter Freddie_The_Ram
- Start date
A college football stadium, located on a college campus, should not have a "pro" feel.
As if we needed more evidence that the ewes don't really understand how college football works.
It's not the Junior NFL.
You're supposed to double down on what makes your product (college football) unique.
P5 programs understand this.
Like I said, pluses and minuses. I'm sure they have the nicest stadium in they conference, and that will have them winning recruiting battles. But yeah, it needs to feel much more collegiate to be a great college stadium.
It's like blue balls but at the very end you get to **** a sheep.
Oh. Tuesday.
Not that I really give a crap about CSU but f*** it, I'll ask anyway. How about a few specifics? What made it feel more pro than college?
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
I found some 2016 numbers. Last year there football team lost about 1 mil. This number included student fees and a bunch of ancillary revenues. If the football team is upside down, their athletic budget must be a bit scary. Frankly, I’m surprised they pulled off the stadium. If they were honest, they would just explain their AD is a state funded entity. I wonder how much support it would get if the taxpayers were asked if it was worthwhile to support an NCAA G5 athletic program? Does CSU really need a state sponsored athletic program in their little conference?
From the Coloradan
More than half of CSU athletics revenue is subsidized
Matt L. Stephens, matthewstephens@coloradoan.comPublished 11:02 a.m. MT May 27, 2015 | Updated 11:52 p.m. MT May 27, 2015
More than half of the revenue claimed by CSU athletics in 2014 was subsidized by student fees and university sources.
According to the NCAA membership financial report filed by Colorado State University, 51.7 percent of its $38.7 million in revenue came from financial streams not generated by the department's athletic functions. "Athletics functions" includes ticket sales, concessions, donations, rights and licensing and bowl revenue.
The 51.7 percent is based on the NCAA's definition of self-sufficiency, meaning a university's athletic department's generated operating revenues are at least equal to its operating expenses. USA TODAY Sports reported Tuesday that only 24 of 230 Division I public schools are self sufficient.
Of the $20 million in total subsidies, $5.26 million was from student fees, $12.3 million from direct institutional support (e.g. state funds, tuition, tuition waivers) and $2.4 million from indirect facilities and administrative support (value of facilities and services provided by the institution not charged to athletics). CSU's percentage is the fourth-highest in the Mountain West behind Utah State (56.37 percent), San Jose State (61.61 percent) and Air Force (66.3 percent), but does fair better than 64 percent of Division I schools.
CSU athletic director Joe Parker said Wednesday that built in to the fees are student tickets. Instead of CSU charging students individually for tickets to football, volleyball and men's and women's basketball games like some schools do — which would show up as ticket revenue — fees cover student entry to home athletic events, appearing as a subsidy.
In addition, scholarships are shown on the financial report as an expense opposed to revenue, despite most of the financial support student-athletes receive being paid back to the university. Steve Cottingham, chief financial officer for CSU athletics, said more than $6.58 million of the $7.58 the school spent on scholarships will be returned, with the leftover paid out to student-athletes as housing stipends.
Note that the NCAA doesn't count returned scholarship money as revenue and all universities are subject to the same issue when working toward self-sufficiency.
Only 19.01 percent of the University of Colorado's athletic revenues were subsidized in 2014, according to USA TODAY. The University of Northern Colorado was subsidized at a rate of 72.63 percent. Maryland was the lone Power 5 conference member institution with more than 20 percent of its athletics revenue subsidized (24.68).
Success at CSU athletics is at an all-time high and so is the rate the department is subsidized.
The percentage of revenue from subsidies has steadily increased over the past decade. In 2005, student fees and school funds made up less than a third of the department's $19 million in total revenue. Within four years, 45.7 percent of revenue came from subsidies. CSU reached 50 percent in 2010, dipped to 48 percent in 2011 and 2012 and has since been at 51.7 percent.
More than half of CSU athletics revenue is subsidized
Matt L. Stephens, matthewstephens@coloradoan.comPublished 11:02 a.m. MT May 27, 2015 | Updated 11:52 p.m. MT May 27, 2015
More than half of the revenue claimed by CSU athletics in 2014 was subsidized by student fees and university sources.
According to the NCAA membership financial report filed by Colorado State University, 51.7 percent of its $38.7 million in revenue came from financial streams not generated by the department's athletic functions. "Athletics functions" includes ticket sales, concessions, donations, rights and licensing and bowl revenue.
The 51.7 percent is based on the NCAA's definition of self-sufficiency, meaning a university's athletic department's generated operating revenues are at least equal to its operating expenses. USA TODAY Sports reported Tuesday that only 24 of 230 Division I public schools are self sufficient.
Of the $20 million in total subsidies, $5.26 million was from student fees, $12.3 million from direct institutional support (e.g. state funds, tuition, tuition waivers) and $2.4 million from indirect facilities and administrative support (value of facilities and services provided by the institution not charged to athletics). CSU's percentage is the fourth-highest in the Mountain West behind Utah State (56.37 percent), San Jose State (61.61 percent) and Air Force (66.3 percent), but does fair better than 64 percent of Division I schools.
CSU athletic director Joe Parker said Wednesday that built in to the fees are student tickets. Instead of CSU charging students individually for tickets to football, volleyball and men's and women's basketball games like some schools do — which would show up as ticket revenue — fees cover student entry to home athletic events, appearing as a subsidy.
In addition, scholarships are shown on the financial report as an expense opposed to revenue, despite most of the financial support student-athletes receive being paid back to the university. Steve Cottingham, chief financial officer for CSU athletics, said more than $6.58 million of the $7.58 the school spent on scholarships will be returned, with the leftover paid out to student-athletes as housing stipends.
Note that the NCAA doesn't count returned scholarship money as revenue and all universities are subject to the same issue when working toward self-sufficiency.
Only 19.01 percent of the University of Colorado's athletic revenues were subsidized in 2014, according to USA TODAY. The University of Northern Colorado was subsidized at a rate of 72.63 percent. Maryland was the lone Power 5 conference member institution with more than 20 percent of its athletics revenue subsidized (24.68).
Success at CSU athletics is at an all-time high and so is the rate the department is subsidized.
The percentage of revenue from subsidies has steadily increased over the past decade. In 2005, student fees and school funds made up less than a third of the department's $19 million in total revenue. Within four years, 45.7 percent of revenue came from subsidies. CSU reached 50 percent in 2010, dipped to 48 percent in 2011 and 2012 and has since been at 51.7 percent.
Aka "ladies night" in fort fun.
Bufffan68
Club Member
I get the OP’s point. Both conferences have a slew of national championships, Heisman winners and routinely play in the CFP.
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Mtn., the study link I found was the USA Today referenced, but claimed 2016.
I love sports. For me, football and basketball open some doors for some kids that might not otherwise exists. But it is interesting to ask at what cost. Is the social engineering and diversity that CSU’s programs brings to their campus with the cost of the stadium and relative cost per student as oppossed to a Vet student, or other academic pursuit? One of the reasons I’ve stayed loyal to CU was the fact that I understood they are historically revenue neutral. CSU’s model is not sustainable unless the state decides it is worthy of massive tax support. I’m glad ram fan got under my skin and allowed me to educate myself a bit.
I love sports. For me, football and basketball open some doors for some kids that might not otherwise exists. But it is interesting to ask at what cost. Is the social engineering and diversity that CSU’s programs brings to their campus with the cost of the stadium and relative cost per student as oppossed to a Vet student, or other academic pursuit? One of the reasons I’ve stayed loyal to CU was the fact that I understood they are historically revenue neutral. CSU’s model is not sustainable unless the state decides it is worthy of massive tax support. I’m glad ram fan got under my skin and allowed me to educate myself a bit.
Layout and electronics mostly. There are screens literally everywhere, large and small, then the electronic screens that circle the upper deck and at field level. The sound system is incredible and it plays almost non stop. You hardly ever hear the band. (Which is stupid, no doubt.)
Agree with what you are saying. The amount of the subsidy at CSU is huge in relation to their other needs and to the benefits generated by the football program. My opinion was before the stadium that they should seriously consider instead of being a BCS level doormat they could be an FCS power for substantially less money.
What I don't see is a path for them to make their financial situation better. They are not going to get an invitation to a P5 conference and a share of P5 conference media money. Without that there is no path for them to become more financially viable.
They could do better where they are though. They made a strategic error when they chose CU as their measuring stick 20+ years ago, because it was a mountain they were too unlikely to ever be able to climb.
Should have honed in on a program like Fresno. A school that sure, would take a P5 invite if it landed on them, but really they've embraced the hard working of building a great G5 program with excellent community support.
The funny thing is, had that been their model, they'd be better positioned today to actually get a P5 invite.
Instead, they come across as an envious little brother that doesn't want to do the hard work necessary to achieve success.
Dropping the CU game for a decade (or more) could be the best thing to happen to them in the long run.
Maybe Bohan really was a genius who realized the best way to expose their suck was to have them embrace a "rivalry" in which they could never have sustained success.
Agree that they set their target unrealistically. They are different than Fresno though.
Northern Colorado is much more transient, CSU sports does not have a lot of loyalty there, it isn't identified as a part of the culture and community. In the Valley Fresno is a big part of their identity.
CSU is never going to get the P5 invite. They have had winning seasons and national attention, they have the stadium, they have done major marketing campaigns. The end result is lousy TV ratings and 20,000 people in the stadium. They don't bring value that any P5 conference would want.
I don't really get making fun of CSU for having serious long term goals. If word ever got out that RG/Benson (or the next president) has goals of winning multiple Pac-12 championships and being in the playoff hunt over the next 10-12 years I am sure people outside of Colorado would laugh their ass off but that should never stop an administration from designating that and trying to move towards it. If you think about the amount of money CSU just put into their AD in terms of how big their AD actually is it would be the equivalent of CU knocking down Balch, replacing it with some huge club seating area and adding about 15,000 seats, renovating all of the old parts of the stadium and probably removing all of the academic space from the stadium itself to replace it with athletics facilities. If CU did that then the debt service would be huge and there would be some push back but it would also be a huge statement to the rest of the country that we aren't messing around anymore trying to scrape by and do the bare minimum.
When those totally unrealistic goals are going to cost the school and potentially the state millions of dollars then yes, they should be shot down.
Dude, it's not that crazy to think CSU could get a P5 invite, especially if the Big-12 continues to stay together and there are 5 power conference instead of condensing to 4 like we all want/think will happen. CSU is a good school academically, in a growing area, have a big student enrollment which will increase their fanbase over the next 20 years. And let's not sit here and act like the stadium is going to bankrupt the school or anything like that, go look at the construction budget for their school and you will see this is a relatively dollar amount compared to the amount of money school spend building ****.
To get a P5 invite, they need to
1. Build community support.
2. Become a very good G5 team that:
a. Plays .500 ball against P5 teams, and
b. Regularly wins their conference.
They keep thinking they can skip those steps, and we get to make fun of them for delusions of grandeur.
The biggest key to achieving success and respect in college football is to win your conference on a regular basis. If you can't consistently beat the teams you play every year, then you don't have a good program.
1. Build community support.
2. Become a very good G5 team that:
a. Plays .500 ball against P5 teams, and
b. Regularly wins their conference.
They keep thinking they can skip those steps, and we get to make fun of them for delusions of grandeur.
The biggest key to achieving success and respect in college football is to win your conference on a regular basis. If you can't consistently beat the teams you play every year, then you don't have a good program.
But if the conference in which you play is as competitive as the conferences to which you aspire point 2 matters less.
And that's likely why we get laughable narratives like the one presented in the OP.
Mtn has a huge point though. They seemingly have a great potential for a loyal fan base, but they just don't. I understand that they had lost a couple tough games and the game was at 8:30 at night, but the first season in the stadium that was going to cure all their ills, playing the team that has dominated their conference, and they couldn't fill their 40k stadium. That's not going to get the attention of anyone.
AlferdJasper
Well-Known Member
I've said this before, but when CSU is playing anyone except the Buffs, I wish them well. The better they do, the better it is when we beat them. The more attention to Colorado - the state - football that is positive, the better. When we play each other, I want to win. Oh, yes, I want to win big. But when the Rams play ... whoever it is they play ... go for it. Make us proud that you are from Colorado.
I was talking to a CSU alum neighbor, who's a legit Broncos fan (20 year ticket holder) but a pretend Ram fan. It's crazy; he could tell you what the 3 string broncos WR's stats were last year, but completely clueless when it comes to his college team. He was going on and on about how the stadium should get them a P5 invite, but when I told him it almost all depended on the 2022 TV contract renegotiations, he just blinked at me. Never heard of such a thing being a factor. I didn't even get into the fact that academics and a conference-winning history would be necessary to get a look. What's the point; when he thought his 32K seat stadium was the golden ticket?
Oh, and I had to correct him as to when the Boise State / CSU game was. He hadn't even looked closely at his alma mater's schedule. FFS.
CSU has the academics to fit into a P5 conference, they are better than some of our PAC12 conference mates. Winning games doesn't even matter that much.
What matters is that they don't sell tickets and nobody watches them when they are on TV.
You neighbor is a prime example. They shout about their big alumni base, it doesn't translate. Does your neighbor go to games in the brand new stadium? Does he even watch most of them on TV? They can talk all they want but their ticket prices are well below what most P5 teams charge and they still can't sell out games. With the fancy new stadium and the first year boost their home games have been between 32k and 37k, not numbers that would inspire any P5 conference to give them a piece of the conference money pie. Next year those numbers are very likely to be going down as is normal when the new stadium burst wears off.
He hadn't yet been this year. He said he was going to the BSU game, but I'm pretty sure he didn't get tickets and didn't go.
We had a big neighborhood group camping at Hartman Rocks over Labor Day, and he & his family was there. I went into Gunnison to find a bar to watch the game, and he made an excuse and hung out by camp. So, yeah, no - not even for a game that is supposed to define their season.
I agree that they have better academics than ASU and maybe some others, but it's a higher bar that it was when the Pac12 got started. Sure the TV stuff is what really matters, but CSU isn't raising the stature of our conference, anyway. Big 12 level intro academics, at best.
That all said, I hope they pull their **** together and truly get a good enough fanbase together to get a Big 12 invite or something. I just doubt it will happen. I may go up to the SJSU game this weekend, though. I'd like to check out the stadium.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Now that they've ****ed any chance of a championship, I'll bet they don't break 30k this weekend versus SJSU
NeverGiveIn
Confused by the facts
Aka 33,325.