Well, you know. Fittest city, least obese city, near the top of most "happiest city" lists and foodiest city. We're all ****ed up. We should be more like Tallahassee.
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!
What happens first
- Thread starter skibum
- Start date
Well, you know. Fittest city, least obese city, near the top of most "happiest city" lists and foodiest city. We're all ****ed up. We should be more like Tallahassee.
That's great, but the traffic issues are awful. Trying to get rid of alcohol on The Hill/Pearl. Over the top environmental policies that prevent building. I'm pretty biased because I'm sick of Boulder but this town has a lot of problems. If not for the college population in this town...
Boulder's problems are the top of the pyramid of first world problems.
I still stand by my original take on the CSU stadium never happening. I think the astronomical cost and pathetic fan support simply don't add up to make it a realistic project.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
I don't see the traffic issues. Traffic in Boulder seems exceedingly agreeable, but I've lived primarily in Southern California and DC for the last 8 years.
Concur completely on the alcohol issue. Boulder has ****ed away the Hill, and the alcohol nazi crap needs to stop.
Boulder is not without problems. But it does better than a lot of municipalities.
Wanna finish your last sentence for me? What exactly is the college population (I'm assuming you mean students) doing to save this town? They can't even keep bears out of their trash.
Oh, so now it's not just some random professor. He is just clearly uninformed with his own department. Got it
Deleted member 807
Guest
Not so fast, Sackman.
Franks and Benson both lament higher ed funding evaporating. Both are focusing on private fundraising to shore up their revenue streams. Private fundraising for both stadium projects have been less than, shall we say, A&M eye popping crazy. Daddy Warbucks figures like OSU's Boone or Duck's Phil have not emerged.
Let market dynamics work. CSU can't jump the shark soon enough. A spectacular failure at Ft Fun only accelerates the inevitable. Colleges are riding a bubble of easy student loans.
When the higher ed bubble bursts, doors are going to close and a consolidation of the dozens of Colorado institutions will just make sense. With CSU sucked into the Buffalo Borg, the overhead of administrative functions can be cut.
In the end, CSU football will be collateral damage, and just another example of road kill in the race of survival of the fittest.
The RMS goes away. CCsquared's and Gasm's offspring will cheer for the Buffaloes. A less divided state consolidates it's joint football energy on kicking ass against other schools of the P12 instead of this silly little provincial spitting match these two cripples are engaged in today.
If they can't beat us, join us. Together we're better than apart.
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
this. While the rest of the world is worrying about making sure it's people are fed, and most American cities are concerned with maintaining infrastructure, schooling, utilities, employment, etc. Boulder worries itself about the plight of prairie dogs and global warming. :rolling_eyes:
1. Traffic in this town is dreadful. Red light after red light. Countless people unaware that they're going 5 under the speed limit in the left lane who refuse to get over. The crosswalks 100ft away from a light are nice to, let's make a ton of cars at 5:00pm stop 100ft away from the light so a pedestrian can cross right there instead of walking that little extra distance. Add all that to the fact that the roads are not big enough to handle the amount of people who drive daily in Boulder and traffic becomes a bitch.
As for the last sentence, I'm not a fan most of the actual Boulder residents. I think most take the environmental ideology too far to the point where it hurts doing things that would make Boulder better. College population is good for the most part.
Oh, and the amount of homeless people
Disagree on the traffic. I'm in Boulder frequently, and I've never seen any real traffic. Okay, once I was driving from Snooze to the Hill on 17th and there was a backup at Arapahoe due to BHS dropoff.
Annoying drivers exist everywhere, not just Boulder. I don't like those drivers either, or those super-empowered pedestrians moseying across the cross-walks. But I assure you, it's not better in most other places. Come visit me in DC sometime--you'll appreciate Boulder traffic a lot more.
Your comments on students and residents makes me laugh a little. I've been both. Your disapproval of Boulder residents takes me back to previous remarks I've made about the incompatibility of values between students and families in Boulder. Neither approves of the other. I actually appreciate some of the character that the students provide Boulder. But on an individual basis, most of the students I see are incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone providing a net gain to the community. They tend to be loud, self-absorbed leaches, who are destructive in their neighborhoods. It's exactly the way I was as a student.
Finally, I do concur with your observation of a certain elite element that likes to fund their environmental pipe-dreams on the backs of the upper middle-class. Some of those projects (solar panel initiative incompatible with fire-fighting roof design requirements etc...) aren't helping.
The 5 mph under is annoying. The left lane thing doesn't apply on city streets - especially those where left turns are made - it's for highways.
The crosswalks are so drunken college morons (hint) aren't run over when jaywalking while zig-zagging across the street.
I realize it's not a 'law' for the left lane, buts it's not a uncommon thing for people to adhere to on the roads. In Parker I rarely have trouble with that, Boulder I encounter it all the time.
I also don't think I've ever used those crosswalks since none are on The Hill
Deleted member 807
Guest
:smile2:
With all this talk of CSU football adequacy going on, I thought this was a fantasy forum.
Yep we all think this way.
Stereotypes exist for a reason, but I don't think I'm holding onto them here, just what I've experienced over the last 4 years living here.
CU does not need any other school in the state to be successful for CU to be successful. CU's value and performance is based on how much the admin wants to invest in the program. Having relevant college teams isn't magically making a bunch of people move to that state, population growth in Colorado and Utah is the main reason for the increased high school talent, not because the teams are relevant. Utah burst onto the scene because of the Olympic facilities money.
'Tini is 100% correct. Colorado's run as a national power had zero to do with any other programs in the state. If anything the fact that there were no other relevant programs in Colorado at the time almost says the opposite.
The longer this thing drags out the less likely that CSU's fantasy is going to happen. For our sake we should hope it doesn't.
CSU "fans" have proven that they don't belong at the BCS level of college football. I think they could be a very successfull FCS level program, generate more positive and less negative publicity for the school, and most importantly reduce the roughly $15 million subsidy that they put into football each year which will only blow up if they continue on the track they have planned out. If they went FCS they could build an economical 15-18k stadium on campus designed to expand to 25k if needed for far less than the $212 million that they will overspend on the fantasy stadium they are proposing.
On the other hand if they continue on the plans they have announced they will end up, as usual, falling short of their projections. Averaging 37,800 sounds fine except that they would be essentially doubling what they had last year. New stadiums do traditionally produce a bump in attendance but 25% is more the upper end of the norm so that still leaves them short of 25k. Even if they added an additional 5k students (not a significant revenue producer) they are still under 30k. They could do lots of tractor pulls and Lady Gaga shows and still fall way short of paying for the stadium requiring the school to pick up the tab from other budget items.
This does not directly impact CU but indirectly it could be a mess. As we are seeing from our current facilities upgrades CU doesn't have an H. Ross Perrot or Phil Knight sugar daddy putting up lump sums of money. For us to do significant facility improvements we have to do incremental steps and take financing against future revenues and donations which we can have some assurance will come in.
The problem is if CSU internally defaults on $50-100 million the legislature, not looking at the real differences between the two schools could pass restrictions aimed at preventing CSU from another financial disaster that in fact make it much harder for CU to use tools that we have been successfully using for decades.
CSU "fans" have proven that they don't belong at the BCS level of college football. I think they could be a very successfull FCS level program, generate more positive and less negative publicity for the school, and most importantly reduce the roughly $15 million subsidy that they put into football each year which will only blow up if they continue on the track they have planned out. If they went FCS they could build an economical 15-18k stadium on campus designed to expand to 25k if needed for far less than the $212 million that they will overspend on the fantasy stadium they are proposing.
On the other hand if they continue on the plans they have announced they will end up, as usual, falling short of their projections. Averaging 37,800 sounds fine except that they would be essentially doubling what they had last year. New stadiums do traditionally produce a bump in attendance but 25% is more the upper end of the norm so that still leaves them short of 25k. Even if they added an additional 5k students (not a significant revenue producer) they are still under 30k. They could do lots of tractor pulls and Lady Gaga shows and still fall way short of paying for the stadium requiring the school to pick up the tab from other budget items.
This does not directly impact CU but indirectly it could be a mess. As we are seeing from our current facilities upgrades CU doesn't have an H. Ross Perrot or Phil Knight sugar daddy putting up lump sums of money. For us to do significant facility improvements we have to do incremental steps and take financing against future revenues and donations which we can have some assurance will come in.
The problem is if CSU internally defaults on $50-100 million the legislature, not looking at the real differences between the two schools could pass restrictions aimed at preventing CSU from another financial disaster that in fact make it much harder for CU to use tools that we have been successfully using for decades.
Parker isn't an old city with standardized city blocks, etc. Makes a big difference...especially when there's buses that run in the right lane in such cities, something that's not as common in the suburbs.
Shut up you Birkenstock wearing, Suburu driving, left winged pot smoking hippie!
What does State funding have to do with athletic funding? My assumption, I guess, is that all athletic facility funding is to be private. The state doesn't even provide funding for academics, if all the stories I read about it are true.