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!
Rocky Mountain Showdown - News & Updates
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I posted this in the Future Schedules thread. Major news on the future of the RMS in Rick George's media roundtable today.
Expect an announcement this summer of a new contract with CSU. Games on campus. Earliest opening for CU (home) is 2023 after a 2 year break from the series.
Expect an announcement this summer of a new contract with CSU. Games on campus. Earliest opening for CU (home) is 2023 after a 2 year break from the series.
BOOOOOOOOO
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't mind a two for one deal but otherwise the game is pointless for cu.
I wouldn't even mind if they did a 2-2 deal with the goats where one of their home games was held at SAF@MH just to add some variety to the series. Going back to campus will likely bring the energy back to the game. It has been so tired recently.
Seriously dissappointed. If it isn't on 2-1 terms, that would be some serious small time scheduling.
Hopefully we can dictate the game be scheduled on week 2 or later. No more kick off bull****.
Hopefully we can dictate the game be scheduled on week 2 or later. No more kick off bull****.
RG is no dummy.
Seriously, if be very surprised if this doesn't come out to be a couple sets of 2-1 series. The years when we have five home conference games can potentially be played up in the Fort. I envision a 2-1 deal with a two year hiatus followed by another 2-1 deal. If CSU doesn't like it, they can pound sand.
Seriously, if be very surprised if this doesn't come out to be a couple sets of 2-1 series. The years when we have five home conference games can potentially be played up in the Fort. I envision a 2-1 deal with a two year hiatus followed by another 2-1 deal. If CSU doesn't like it, they can pound sand.
Sounds like no 2-1 but rather 2 years on and 2 years off, switching from Boulder to Fort Collins each time. I found it comical that Parker mentioned CU/CSU in the same breath as Michigan/Michigan State, Texas/Texas A&M, OU/OSU... One of those things are not like the others...
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
**** that!
This would disappoint and surprise me. No reason to do a straight 1-1 deal with CSU.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
It's important that we have no fewer than 6 home games a season with 7 occasionally when we get 5 home conference games. As long as we get that, the 2 for 1 argument is really just about our ego. Scheduling a 1 for 1 with CSU is not some horrible disrespect to our greatness - we need to get over that.
It's not about our greatness. It's that we really shouldn't be doing 1-1 deals with CSU.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Why?
Agree for the most part. Need to have a minimum 6game home schedule. If CSU is the easiest way to get there, then fine.
Unfortunately, I agree. CU is in no position for a dick measuring contest in order to boss CSU around simply because they are in a G5 conference. I think RG obviously wants this game to continue on campus because it's an automatic sellout, and I don't think CSU feels they need to bend over for a 2-1...
It limits our options unnecessarily.
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
I agree with Sacky....Shouldn't be doing 1 for 1 deals with the CSU makes no sense. Why intentionally decrease our revenue streams and continually play a game that can only hurt the program (Win and its ok as it was expected, lose and the harm that year is tough to overcome). The negative list is growing.
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
We should start that grade RG survey all over again.
How does it decrease our revenue streams?
I don't understand the 2-for-1 argument. The only P5 programs that get that against G5 opponents are the ones that sell out 100k capacity home stadium... and even they sometimes do 1-for-1 deals. At least when we're talking about the decent programs in the top conferences in G5 such as the MWC and AAC. 1-for-1 is standard now. CSU will have a new stadium and can afford the visitor fee payout CU requires. I think people need to understand that this is the current reality. If we want 2-for-1 deals, the best G5 teams we can get would be programs like UMass which won't come close to selling out Folsom.
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
The pay day going up to the CSU campus is tiny. They can't fill their existing stadium, we shall see about the new one. So a home and home series with them means one year we do well (our house) the next year we do poorly.
As Nik said, the visitor fee payout for CU going to Fort Collins will be on par with what CU requires. You are not smarter than Rick George when it comes to the financial matters of scheduling college football games.
I've grown up in the state my whole life, so I tend to like the series a little more than most.
Last year I was steady on wanting a 2 for 1 deal, but as Nik mentioned above, it really does not exist anymore. Just as long as Rick doesn't sign a 10 year contract at Mile High, I have no problem with it. Getting the 6 home games in is more important as Sinkratz put it. A 1 for 1 with a year or two off sounds good to me.
Last year I was steady on wanting a 2 for 1 deal, but as Nik mentioned above, it really does not exist anymore. Just as long as Rick doesn't sign a 10 year contract at Mile High, I have no problem with it. Getting the 6 home games in is more important as Sinkratz put it. A 1 for 1 with a year or two off sounds good to me.