Pregame Thread - CU vs CSU at Mile High

[ramfan]

Those are sunk costs. Throwing good money after bad usually doesn't work out, unless the majority of folks really feel you're headed down the right track with this endeavor which is a different debate. It would take a lot of guts to change course now, but if it's the right move your better off than being financially strapped for years to come. I believe this is a major reason for the Graham firing...it's easier for the next guy to make the case his predecessor screwed up than it would have been for Graham to change course after all his bluster.

That's true, but nothing that has happened means a new stadium is bad. If your options are to use tuition to do basic maintenance on a crappy stadium or build a new stadium without having to use any tuition, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Quattro]

I think our team has more potential and probably more talent, but most of it is younger. I don't think that bodes well for game 1. I suspect we'll need some time to come together. CSU is replacing a lot of starters, but they are doing it with seniors and juniors who have been in the program for some time. While they may not be as talented they will likely be competent and know their assignments.

So replacing 4 out of the 5 OL and all but one DL starter is no biggie in game 1 either? We didn't lose that much from last years team. Last year our team had a whole helluva lot more questions than this year going into this game.

 

[Durwardram]

Ramnation has a sticky that says that the site is moving to a new format, but gives no timetable. Don't tease me, ramnation. I hope it's better than the "new" netbuffs, which recently upgraded but still has the same post-tree idiotic format that makes it impossible to follow or sustain a conversation.

I believe it's the same format as Netbuffs. Ugh...

 

[Durwardram]

Those are sunk costs. Throwing good money after bad usually doesn't work out, unless the majority of folks really feel you're headed down the right track with this endeavor which is a different debate. It would take a lot of guts to change course now, but if it's the right move your better off than being financially strapped for years to come. I believe this is a major reason for the Graham firing...it's easier for the next guy to make the case his predecessor screwed up than it would have been for Graham to change course after all his bluster.

I see what your saying, but the point is, we incurred those costs due to the confidence that it can / should and needs to be done.

Keep in mind the $24mm or whatever, was cash in the bank. There is more money in the pipeline and pledges that probably stipulate, "when you formally give the go ahead, I'll send the money".

 

[Darth Snow]

I'll bite. Both fan bases have some reasons to be optimistic, it just depends on your perspective.

From a CSU fan's pov: we got better as the season progressed, the players have another year in the system, jmac is getting better and more comfortable at being a head coach, Grayson looks decent so our qb play shouldn't be as anemic as it's been in the last few RMS games, even though we acknowledge that Washington State gave us the win we were still competitive with a team that probably would have beaten CU last year (I realize you beat them the year before), we won 8 games and even if the competition wasn't great just winning is a positive step, CU just isn't very good and isn't scary.

What CSU fans try to forget: we didn't beat anyone last year with a winning record and weren't really competitive in our loses to half decent teams, we might have been the sorriest 8 win team in the country, we lost to CU and couldn't move the ball, we looked even worse in a loss to Tulsa, we lost a guy who scored 31 TDs - who will replace that production?, the Oline is unproven and might be worse than we are imagining them to be - especially early, history, Grayson might have been decent and broke records but he never looked dominant, we've been a slow starting team the past few seasons - could be partially due to how the schedule works out.


From a CU fan's perspective: you beat CSU by a decent margin last year, how can CSU not be worse with the personnel they lost?, CU will be better with another year under MMac, MMac doesn't lose to JMac, CSU gets worse recruits and is less talented, history.

What CU fans forget: CSU really did get better as the season went on and was definitely a better team at the end of the season compared to game 1, CU would have probably been blown out by Washington State, the degree to which CU recruits are more highly touted and more talented isn't as significant as you'd hope (not saying it doesn't exist though), CSU probably has the better QB (at this point in time), CSU probably has better special teams, this series has been closer lately than history would indicate.


Truthfully, this is a game between two bad to mediocre teams and no one really knows where along that scale they will be. It will be interesting to see if one or both of the teams takes a step forward. I'm expecting a close game and either team winning won't surprise me. Good luck the rest of the way, the state could sure use some college football success.

Hard to argue with much of this... I see a couple wild cards here... who really has a better QB? If Grayson is actually good, him and that WR corp will hurt us. If he was reliant on a dominant running game and poor competition to post his stats last year, and isn't anything other than a caretaker...

As for Sefo, basically, Lindgren better be the QB guru we thought he was. We need to see progression this year from the QB position.

That's the thing, based on the fundraising numbers we're hearing it sounds like you're really NOT all that invested.

Let's leave the ****ty stadium talk to the ****ty stadium thread, thanks.

 

[leftybuff]

Those are sunk costs. Throwing good money after bad usually doesn't work out, unless the majority of folks really feel you're headed down the right track with this endeavor which is a different debate. It would take a lot of guts to change course now, but if it's the right move your better off than being financially strapped for years to come. I believe this is a major reason for the Graham firing...it's easier for the next guy to make the case his predecessor screwed up than it would have been for Graham to change course after all his bluster.

Exactly. The most likely outcome is the stadium is dead. Building a 20,000 seat stadium is a confession that CSU is moving to FCS-level. I expect it will take 3-5 years before that happens. The train left the station when the last round of re-alignment happened...and CSU realized that when the P5 vote happened. Sucks for them, but that is what is it is. Firing Jack was a repudiation of the stadium and an acknowledgement the big time CFB world was and is a pipe dream.

On to this year's game. CSU has to rebuild their entire OL and DL. Some reports say both 1st and 2d RT's have injuries. I don't know if that will keep them out of the Rocky Mountain Slowdown but very rarely does a CFB team not named Alabama retool it's OL and DL and not miss a beat. CU's strength on D is the interior DL and DB's. CSU did not exactly set the world on fire rushing last year (less than 100 net yds.) even with a sr. laden OL with a legit NFL'er at Center.

Grayson is a decent MWC QB, but nothing more. Sefo put up similar numbers against P12 competition as true frosh.

CSU will have to likely ride GG's arm to score. Since he averaged about 5.5 ypa last RMS, and again, behind an experienced OL, I don't see that being a real threat, especially with a very pedestrian run game, even if a few breaks go CSU's way.

CU should post a 14-17 point win.

Historically, I can't even begin to understand why CSU fan even brings that up.

Overall: 62-21-2

CU shutouts of CSU: 21

Last ten: CU 7-3

Last year: 41-27

The "you don't kick our ass as often as you should" argument is, frankly, embarrassing for CSU fans.

 

[ramfan]

I really don't think the stadium is dead. When the one you have is falling apart and needs money that no one wants to donate it makes the idea of building something new more attractive. Money has to get spent either way, an action has to get taken, and if that's the case a new stadium is favored. I think we see a stadium roughly the size of Hughes, maybe slightly bigger but not as big as what was planned, and not as nice as the one that was planned.

Regarding history, CU obviously has dominated the entire span. More recently, CU still holds the advantage but it would be hard to argue that the series hasn't been competitive. The teams have been more evenly matched as of late (blame Embree/Hawkins all you want, they were horrible) than most CU fans would prefer to admit.

 

[SINKRATZ]

That's true, but nothing that has happened means a new stadium is bad. If your options are to use tuition to do basic maintenance on a crappy stadium or build a new stadium without having to use any tuition, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Unless you're financing it based on unrealistic revenue projections, but I agree the status quo with Hughes isn't viable going forward.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Let's leave the ****ty stadium talk to the ****ty stadium thread, thanks.

In all seriousness, my bad, I'll drop it.

 

[Burrito]

Thread title states "at Mile High" jokers. Not "at imaginary lammie stadium in la la land that's never going to happen".

Please stay on topic.

 

[BuffClass90]

So replacing 4 out of the 5 OL and all but one DL starter is no biggie in game 1 either? We didn't lose that much from last years team. Last year our team had a whole helluva lot more questions than this year going into this game.

Good point. I really don't see how we win this game by less than 17. The only thing that may cause a closer game is our inability to compensate adequately for PRich's production. May the taste of crow be far from my tongue on this one!

 

[CUFan]

So replacing 4 out of the 5 OL and all but one DL starter is no biggie in game 1 either? We didn't lose that much from last years team. Last year our team had a whole helluva lot more questions than this year going into this game.

My point is they are replacing those starters with guys who should know what they are doing. I'm not exactly sure that will be a huge drop off for them. Plus they have a proven, good QB. Plus this is their Super Bowl and they will leave everything on the field.

We had a lot of questions last year and we responded. We have a lot of questions this year and I hope we respond again. But it is difficult for me to assume there is some large divide between our two teams at this point. Didn't I just read on this site somewhere that we are again one of the youngest teams in the country?

My point of the previous post is that both coaches have their work cut out for them and this game will tell us something about coaching (not everything, but something).

 

[Durwardram]

On to this year's game. CSU has to rebuild their entire OL and DL. Some reports say both 1st and 2d RT's have injuries. I don't know if that will keep them out of the Rocky Mountain Slowdown but very rarely does a CFB team not named Alabama retool it's OL and DL and not miss a beat. CU's strength on D is the interior DL and DB's. CSU did not exactly set the world on fire rushing last year (less than 100 net yds.) even with a sr. laden OL with a legit NFL'er at Center.

Grayson is a decent MWC QB, but nothing more. Sefo put up similar numbers against P12 competition as true frosh.

CSU will have to likely ride GG's arm to score. Since he averaged about 5.5 ypa last RMS, and again, behind an experienced OL, I don't see that being a real threat, especially with a very pedestrian run game, even if a few breaks go CSU's way.

CU should post a 14-17 point win.

Historically, I can't even begin to understand why CSU fan even brings that up.

Overall: 62-21-2

CU shutouts of CSU: 21

Last ten: CU 7-3

Last year: 41-27

The "you don't kick our ass as often as you should" argument is, frankly, embarrassing for CSU fans.

This years game, Grayson is better then your giving him credit, his confidence grew throughout the year and the run game was opened up by the passing game not vice versa. As far as our O-line, only time will tell. They'll probably need time to gel therefore this game does scare me a bit from that standpoint. Other then that we have what we need to win.

Regarding your historically and ass kicking comments - Comprehension is not buff fans strong suit, my point is you hate losing to us and you do lose to us, more then you admit and more then you can stand (which I do like), reading the posts here would make one think you dominate every year.

That being said, the Rams do not win nearly as much as I'd like to see and giving you games is so frustrating (see 2004 and 5) especially considering the down years we both had. We'll try and catch up a little this year.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I agree. I cant wait to move this game back on campus and watch a game in that new stadium of yours. When will that be completed?

I think they are projecting the fourth quarter of NEVER.

 

[Quattro]

My point is they are replacing those starters with guys who should know what they are doing. I'm not exactly sure that will be a huge drop off for them. Plus they have a proven, good QB. Plus this is their Super Bowl and they will leave everything on the field.

We had a lot of questions last year and we responded. We have a lot of questions this year and I hope we respond again. But it is difficult for me to assume there is some large divide between our two teams at this point. Didn't I just read on this site somewhere that we are again one of the youngest teams in the country?

My point of the previous post is that both coaches have their work cut out for them and this will game will tell us something about coaching (not everything, but something).

Keep overestimating them because I've gone over the same stuff too many times

 

[sackman]

I'll bite. Both fan bases have some reasons to be optimistic, it just depends on your perspective.

From a CSU fan's pov: we got better as the season progressed, the players have another year in the system, jmac is getting better and more comfortable at being a head coach, Grayson looks decent so our qb play shouldn't be as anemic as it's been in the last few RMS games, even though we acknowledge that Washington State gave us the win we were still competitive with a team that probably would have beaten CU last year (I realize you beat them the year before), we won 8 games and even if the competition wasn't great just winning is a positive step, CU just isn't very good and isn't scary.

What CSU fans try to forget: we didn't beat anyone last year with a winning record and weren't really competitive in our loses to half decent teams, we might have been the sorriest 8 win team in the country, we lost to CU and couldn't move the ball, we looked even worse in a loss to Tulsa, we lost a guy who scored 31 TDs - who will replace that production?, the Oline is unproven and might be worse than we are imagining them to be - especially early, history, Grayson might have been decent and broke records but he never looked dominant, we've been a slow starting team the past few seasons - could be partially due to how the schedule works out.


From a CU fan's perspective: you beat CSU by a decent margin last year, how can CSU not be worse with the personnel they lost?, CU will be better with another year under MMac, MMac doesn't lose to JMac, CSU gets worse recruits and is less talented, history.

What CU fans forget: CSU really did get better as the season went on and was definitely a better team at the end of the season compared to game 1, CU would have probably been blown out by Washington State, the degree to which CU recruits are more highly touted and more talented isn't as significant as you'd hope (not saying it doesn't exist though), CSU probably has the better QB (at this point in time), CSU probably has better special teams, this series has been closer lately than history would indicate.


Truthfully, this is a game between two bad to mediocre teams and no one really knows where along that scale they will be. It will be interesting to see if one or both of the teams takes a step forward. I'm expecting a close game and either team winning won't surprise me. Good luck the rest of the way, the state could sure use some college football success.

Wait... what?

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I'll bite. Both fan bases have some reasons to be optimistic, it just depends on your perspective.

From a CSU fan's pov: we got better as the season progressed, the players have another year in the system, jmac is getting better and more comfortable at being a head coach, Grayson looks decent so our qb play shouldn't be as anemic as it's been in the last few RMS games, even though we acknowledge that Washington State gave us the win we were still competitive with a team that probably would have beaten CU last year (I realize you beat them the year before), we won 8 games and even if the competition wasn't great just winning is a positive step, CU just isn't very good and isn't scary.

What CSU fans try to forget: we didn't beat anyone last year with a winning record and weren't really competitive in our loses to half decent teams, we might have been the sorriest 8 win team in the country, we lost to CU and couldn't move the ball, we looked even worse in a loss to Tulsa, we lost a guy who scored 31 TDs - who will replace that production?, the Oline is unproven and might be worse than we are imagining them to be - especially early, history, Grayson might have been decent and broke records but he never looked dominant, we've been a slow starting team the past few seasons - could be partially due to how the schedule works out.


From a CU fan's perspective: you beat CSU by a decent margin last year, how can CSU not be worse with the personnel they lost?, CU will be better with another year under MMac, MMac doesn't lose to JMac, CSU gets worse recruits and is less talented, history.

What CU fans forget: CSU really did get better as the season went on and was definitely a better team at the end of the season compared to game 1, CU would have probably been blown out by Washington State, the degree to which CU recruits are more highly touted and more talented isn't as significant as you'd hope (not saying it doesn't exist though), CSU probably has the better QB (at this point in time), CSU probably has better special teams, this series has been closer lately than history would indicate.


Truthfully, this is a game between two bad to mediocre teams and no one really knows where along that scale they will be. It will be interesting to see if one or both of the teams takes a step forward. I'm expecting a close game and either team winning won't surprise me. Good luck the rest of the way, the state could sure use some college football success.

Holy fick, who let the highly reasonable Ram fan in? Wait...has to be the sock of a Buff fan, right? (All kidding aside, great response].

I worry about the game just because of years where we should easily have won with decent coaching and our coaches failed miserably. Now I act like someone in an abusive relationship, and can't trust that we have coaches that will make it a comfortable win like it should be.

 

[leftybuff]

This years game, Grayson is better then your giving him credit, his confidence grew throughout the year and the run game was opened up by the passing game not vice versa. As far as our O-line, only time will tell. They'll probably need time to gel therefore this game does scare me a bit from that standpoint. Other then that we have what we need to win.

Regarding your historically and ass kicking comments - Comprehension is not buff fans strong suit, my point is you hate losing to us and you do lose to us, more then you admit and more then you can stand (which I do like), reading the posts here would make one think you dominate every year.

That being said, the Rams do not win nearly as much as I'd like to see and giving you games is so frustrating (see 2004 and 5) especially considering the down years we both had. We'll try and catch up a little this year.

First bold: noted. I would point out his confidence and improved performance may have also been the product of lesser competition.

Second bold: Having mastered the intricacies of the usages of 'then' vs. 'than', I find it ironic to be called into question with respect to my reading comprehension. But I digress, how did I fail to admit the number of CU losses when I cite the series history? And yes, you are correct, CU's winning percentage of 72.9% in this series is less than what I would like to see. Especially when it has fallen to 70% over the last ten games. Again, the argument that CU only wins 70% of the time makes me embarrassed for you.

For the record, I do think McElwain is a huge upgrade over Fairchild. I am not sure he can restore the grand days of the Lubick era, but that is definitely a step in right direction, in my opinion.

 

[CUFan]

Keep overestimating them because I've gone over the same stuff too many times

I've seen your rationale and it is solid. I'm just giving you my take, which I don't think is so crazy. However, my main point was that this game will tell us a little something about each coach.

 

[sackman]

First bold: noted. I would point out his confidence and improved performance may have also been the product of lesser competition.

Second bold: Having mastered the intricacies of the usages of 'then' vs. 'than', I find it ironic to be called into question with respect to my reading comprehension. But I digress, how did I fail to admit the number of CU losses when I cite the series history? And yes, you are correct, CU's winning percentage of 72.9% in this series is less than what I would like to see. Especially when it has fallen to 70% over the last ten games. Again, the argument that CU only wins 70% of the time makes me embarrassed for you.

I think what he's trying to say is that he thinks it's great that we all believe that number should be closer to 85%. It's still embarassing, but hey, whatever floats his boat, right?

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Aaaand the party-pooper chimes in...:lol:

I have no opinion. Sorry. I haven't had any koolaid and I don't intend to. I know what happens when you do.

If we win I will feel good walking out the stadium.

If we lose I will feel unaffected walking out having not drank the koolaid.

Thats how I survive.

 

[dply]

Ned Flanders: Pardon me, neighbourinos. Some of our boys are lost in your town. You wouldn't have happenned to see them, by any chance?

Shelbyvillian #1: Sounds like Springfield's got a discipline problem.

Shelbyvillian #2: Maybe that's why we beat them at football nearly half the time.

nm

 

[ramfan]

Wait... what?

Blown out was probably not the right words, but beaten convincingly is. It's just an opinion based on how both teams ended the season. Washington State got a few more Pac wins, including USC, and scored more points overall.

 

[Highlander]

NM

 

[Darth Snow]

Blown out was probably not the right words, but beaten convincingly is. It's just an opinion based on how both teams ended the season. Washington State got a few more Pac wins, including USC, and scored more points overall.

Probably the weakest part of your posts so far. That said, hell, maybe you are right cause CSU was 2 inexplicable fumbles from getting blown out. Coug'n it is real. I've seen it with my own eyes.

 

[goalline]

Probably the weakest part of your posts so far. That said, hell, maybe you are right cause CSU was 2 inexplicable fumbles from getting blown out. Coug'n it is real. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I was also surprised by the assertion that Grayson is better than Sefo. Not that I've seen anything from Sefo to make me believe he is among the CU greats, but he was predicted to be in the upper half of the Pac 12 if I remember correctly. I don't have stats handy, so someone else can rough me up if they want, but I'd like some evidence that Grayson has an edge here.

 

[Darth Snow]

I was also surprised by the assertion that Grayson is better than Sefo. Not that I've seen anything from Sefo to make me believe he is among the CU greats, but he was predicted to be in the upper half of the Pac 12 if I remember correctly. I don't have stats handy, so someone else can rough me up if they want, but I'd like some evidence that Grayson has an edge here.

Sefo hasn't exactly lit the world on fire, but has at least matched Grayson when you look at games against stiffer competition.

 

[Quattro]

I've seen your rationale and it is solid. I'm just giving you my take, which I don't think is so crazy. However, my main point was that this game will tell us a little something about each coach.

No it's not crazy, and I do agree with part of it. I do think though that you're underestimating the loss of their OL, Barrett , the TE, Nwoke/Bibbs, and their DL. That was a damn good OL, and for how much I hate CSU I wouldn't have minded having some of those guys on our line. Despite that, they managed less than 100 yards of rushing and less than 300 yards of offense. They lost almost all that, but they're gonna be better the first game of the season? I don't buy it. Grayson may be a decent QB but so far he hasn't proven he can win games with his arm and he'll have to do that to beat us, and that plays into one of our strengths.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

I was also surprised by the assertion that Grayson is better than Sefo. Not that I've seen anything from Sefo to make me believe he is among the CU greats, but he was predicted to be in the upper half of the Pac 12 if I remember correctly. I don't have stats handy, so someone else can rough me up if they want, but I'd like some evidence that Grayson has an edge here.

Using the final 8 games of the regular season (that is all sefo had)

Sefo: 149comp, 251att, 59.4%comp, 7.09ypa, 12TD, 8INT, 10SACK, 1779YDS
Garret: 170comp, 264att, 64.4%, 8.28ypa, 14TD, 8INT, (can't find individual game sacks, but 22 on the year), 2186YDS

Looking at just stats, Grayson appears to be the better QB, however lets look at the teams faced.

Sefo: ASU, Charleston So, UofA, UCLA, UW, Cal, USC, Utah.
Garret: SJSU, UWyo, Hawaii, BSU, UNev, UNM, USU, AFA

The schedule and the talent faced tell much more of the story than just pure stats.

 

[dply]

The schedule and the talent faced tell much more of the story than just pure stats.

It also doesn't show that Sefo was learning on the go since Wood received most of the first team snaps through camp and the first few weeks of the season.

CSU also didn't have to rely on the pass with Kapri Pants having a monster year.

So who ****ing knows. Let's play ball.