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!

Rocky Mountain Showdown - News & Updates

buffaholic said:
If Sacky was confident we would roll them every year, he'd take this. The gap is starting to widen.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all.

I'm confident we will beat the snot out of CSU this year and for the remainder of the series. The gap IS widening. That's exactly why we shouldn't be doing 1-1's.

At the end of the day, I think we should have a lot more leverage than what we seem to be utilizing. CSU needs the series a whole lot more than we do. We should be using that to our advantage.

Even when the series went off its initial hiatus in 1983, the two teams didn't play in Ft Collins until 1987. Between 1883 and 1997 CU played CSU 10 times, with seven of those games in Boulder (for those of you doing the math, that's more than 2-1).What's different? Why are we so willing to accept a deal we clearly were not willing to accept in 1983?
 
sackman said:
This makes no sense at all.

I'm confident we will beat the snot out of CSU this year and for the remainder of the series. The gap IS widening. That's exactly why we shouldn't be doing 1-1's.

At the end of the day, I think we should have a lot more leverage than what we seem to be utilizing. CSU needs the series a whole lot more than we do. We should be using that to our advantage.

Even when the series went off its initial hiatus in 1983, the two teams didn't play in Ft Collins until 1987. Between 1883 and 1997 CU played CSU 10 times, with seven of those games in Boulder (for those of you doing the math, that's more than 2-1).What's different? Why are we so willing to accept a deal we clearly were not willing to accept in 1983?
Click to expand...
Because we now live in a welfare state?
 
sackman said:
This makes no sense at all.

I'm confident we will beat the snot out of CSU this year and for the remainder of the series. The gap IS widening. That's exactly why we shouldn't be doing 1-1's.

At the end of the day, I think we should have a lot more leverage than what we seem to be utilizing. CSU needs the series a whole lot more than we do. We should be using that to our advantage.

Even when the series went off its initial hiatus in 1983, the two teams didn't play in Ft Collins until 1987. Between 1883 and 1997 CU played CSU 10 times, with seven of those games in Boulder (for those of you doing the math, that's more than 2-1).What's different? Why are we so willing to accept a deal we clearly were not willing to accept in 1983?
Click to expand...

Math is hard. Also, think of Colorado's status (and CSU's for that matter) during the 1983-1997 period.
 
It's about the payday. A 2-1 is preferred, but there's ways that 1-1 also makes sense. CSU has to give up some coin to get us to go to FoCo though.

And yes, I believe RG is freeing up Mile High to host the Huskers. It will be a huge payday if he fills that joint, undoubtedly with red clad cobgobblers.
 
TSchekler said:
It's exactly why we shouldn't be locking into long term 1-1's, IMO.
Click to expand...
Wtf is a long term 1-1?

By definition, 1-1 is two years.

I'd be satisfied with a 2-1, then a 3-4 year hiatus, followed by another 2-1. Six games over ten years with four games in Boulder. We should have the leverage to pull that off. If CSU doesn't like it, they can try filling their stadium with San Jose State and New Mexico State.
 
I think I am going to go full @SINKRATZ and say that maybe we shouldn't blame the CSU fans for their behavior over the last 10-15 years and rather blame the admin that let the program slip to a place where they weren't beating them by 28 points consistently. If they would have done their job CSU would be begging us for a 2-1 right now.
 
I'm going to guess that it ends up being a 3 for 2.

That or something else that also balances out the 2020 game at the end of the current series slated for Fort Collins.
 
Buffnik said:
I'm going to guess that it ends up being a 3 for 2.

That or something else that also balances out the 2020 game at the end of the current series slated for Fort Collins.
Click to expand...

3-2 spread out over six or seven years would be ok.
 
sackman said:
Wtf is a long term 1-1?

By definition, 1-1 is two years.

I'd be satisfied with a 2-1, then a 3-4 year hiatus, followed by another 2-1. Six games over ten years with four games in Boulder. We should have the leverage to pull that off. If CSU doesn't like it, they can try filling their stadium with San Jose State and New Mexico State.
Click to expand...
What I mean by long term is locking into multiple agreements of separate 1-1 series. Schedule the one in '23/'24 and hopefully the gap is so wide by that time and CU is back to prominence, that CU actual has some clout to demand a 2-1 after that. I simply don't believe CU is in any position, at the moment, to demand anything of an above average G5 program.
 
TSchekler said:
What I mean by long term is locking into multiple agreements of separate 1-1 series. Schedule the one in '23/'24 and hopefully the gap is so wide by that time and CU is back to prominence, that CU actual has some clout to demand a 2-1 after that. I simply don't believe CU is in any position, at the moment, to demand anything of an above average G5 program.
Click to expand...

I think 'Nik's suggestion of a 3-2 is more doable. CSU politically will not agree to a 2-1 and both schools need the payday. Low hanging fruit.
 
buffaholic said:
I think 'Nik's suggestion of a 3-2 is more doable. CSU politically will not agree to a 2-1 and both schools need the payday. Low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. 3-2 isn't kicking sand in their face but still gives us what we need. I do hope it's spread out over more than five years, though.
 
TSchekler said:
They'd agree to a 3-2 now, but not a 1-1 now and a 2-1 later? Serious question: What's the difference?
Click to expand...
Perception, mostly. Again, we hold all the cards. I don't think the CSU folks want to be seen as needing this series, even though they do. Accepting a 3-2 is an easier sell, even if there's no difference between that and a 1-1,2-1combo.
 
TSchekler said:
They'd agree to a 3-2 now, but not a 1-1 now and a 2-1 later? Serious question: What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Not sure. And I just took a look at their future schedules. They've got 4 slots a year to fill since the MWC only plays an 8-game conference schedule. With that and the need to monetize the new stadium, they're struggling to find opponents. Yes, they got TTU to come to Ft Collins in 2025, but that is the only non-conference home game CSU has scheduled after the end of the current RMS contract in 2020. http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/mtn-west/colorado-state-rams.php
 
It would be awesome if CSU got a Big12 invite (unlikely) and then we could build a real rivalry a la Georgia-Georgia Tech or Kentucky-Louisville. That is a scenario where an annual campus game would be fun.

I would much rather beat CSU than some distant G5 like UMass or Fresno St as it is though.
 
Kuratz said:
It would be awesome if CSU got a Big12 invite (unlikely) and then we could build a real rivalry a la Georgia-Georgia Tech or Kentucky-Louisville. That is a scenario where an annual campus game would be fun.

I would much rather beat CSU than some distant G5 like UMass or Fresno St as it is though.
Click to expand...

I think that might very well happen when the realignment dominoes fall again. But if that happens, I don't think it will be a Big 12 like we currently recognize. Rather, it will be the current Big 12 teams that didn't find a P4 home and they'll invite the best fits from the AAC and maybe MWC to join them and become the best of the G6. ISU, KSU, Baylor, TCU and new members would be my guess.
 
TSchekler said:
They'd agree to a 3-2 now, but not a 1-1 now and a 2-1 later? Serious question: What's the difference?
Click to expand...

It's all perception. But if you bundle a 2-1 and 1-1, then you sell your supporters it's a 3-2. If you have to announce a 2-1 nakedly, it's a bigger slap in the face.
 
They are saying their new stadium will hold 41000 with standing room filled to capacity. Playing Colorado is going to be big for them. They can use that as key marketing points for selling their fanbase on season tickets. Every ram I know relishes playing CU. To do that on campus will get them out for that game IMO. Probably can bundle it with other games or raise prices, or add more revenue in similar ways.

To Sacky's point, they need this more than we do. But it may not be 2-1 in weighting. Maybe revenue sharing equation gets shifted to make that balance in a 1-1 scenario?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top