why do people think...

[Sexton Hardcastle]

There are a couple reasons i hate playing CSU at Invesco. I think it robs local businesses of revenue. These places, much like Pasta Jay's and many others, are big supporters of CU football. They probably lose alot of business that day. I think the game at Invesco is kind of a bum deal for our local businesses. I know it's not a HUGE deal. But imo it kind of is.

I also hate the atmosphere at Invesco. I was walking to the game and i get to see both bands practicing underneath the highway bridge. Both schools were next to each other pretty much. Wow. Great atmosphere. You can't really tailgate because they don't open the parking lots a couple of hours before the game, and they kick you out soon after the game ends. At least from what i've experienced with some of my friends. The only thing to do, if you don't tailgate, is walk around the stadium and watch the students make complete asses of themselves. Which is pretty funny sometimes.

The seating deal sucks ass. My father has been a season ticket holder for about damn near 40 years now. We sit on the 50yd line in Folsom. Yet when we recieved our tickets for the game, I'm on the 20 yd line. Only 10 rows from the top. That really pisses me off. Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not expecting luxury suits here. But i think the top bowl, somewhere relatively close to the 40 shouldn't be a reach. Come on. Anyone else have this issue?

The national exposure is good. yes. But CU has always had no problems getting on to TV. It helps when you win. Plain and simple. The only reason we are on national TV is because the game is on Sunday. If it was on Saturday, then it would be regional.

The rivalry needs a break. CSU sucks. And we haven't been exactly lighting people up either. Attendance is pretty low imo. The game has no importance anymore. I agree with the others who say it benifits CSU more than it does CU. That's true. Everyone expects us to beat CSU. when we do, it's no big deal. We were supposed to. When we don't, it's "what's wrong with CU?"

I'm starting to rant. And as you can see, i'm not very good at expressing myself over a computer. Bottom line for me is its not a good atmosphere. It's kind of a processed deal. Nothing really seems genuine when compared to being on campus.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

When I read that CU has sold out its 39,000 tickets, and CSU has sold approximately 20,000 tickets -- that pretty much tells me all I need to know.

Hopefully the Buffs will royally throttle the rams, and the interest in future games will dwindle even more.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

V, your rant is okay. I think the local businesses suffer before and after the game, when it's on campus. Additionally, anyone who would normally work during the game (on campus) loses as well, since it's at Invesco.

If they continue the series, move it back to the campuses. If the ad's don't want to do that, then screw Denver - drop the series.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

hmmmmm 6 words come to mind -- bowl revenue sharing among conference schools :smile2:

Skidmark[/B];326611]ISU and Baylor would agree. Since the inception of revenue sharing in the B12, my guess is that CU FB contributes as much as it benefits. If you've seen anything to the contrary, please share. There's no doubt OU is a net donator, thank you very much.

But what about the RRS? Does CU get any of that action? If not, STFU? This is a CU-CSU thread.

I fail to see how OU's contribution to the B12 revenue sharing arrangement has anything to do with CU's decision to extend the Mile High Massacre against CSU.

You keep your nose out of CU's OOC schedule, and I won't get into your matchups against Chattanooga or Cincinnati. Damn Okie Threadjackers!:smile2:

hmmmm i just happened to mention bowl revenue sharing among conferecnes, didn't even mention TV contract money and how it is divided among conference and somehow OU, the RRR, and me being a threadjacker:smile2: is brought in to play....:smile2:

my take on this is how others at the 1st say it does not benifit CU, nor does it hardly every benifit the "larger" program. Its the little guys like CSU, Tulsa, TCU, Chattanooga that benifit from playing BCS schools in both schools OOC....

 

[Deleted member 807]

Its the little guys like CSU, Tulsa, TCU, Chattanooga that benifit from playing BCS schools in both schools OOC....

Just curious. Is OU paying Chattanooga and Cincinnati to come to Norman for their shellacking? What is the going rate for a cupcake to visit OU this season?

At least CU is walking away from Invesco with a purse, small as it may be.
Does anyone know if CU is getting a deal similar to the RMS (i.e., $500K) from the trip to Jacksonville?

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

V, your rant is okay. I think the local businesses suffer before and after the game, when it's on campus.

Local business suffers? I'm thinking in terms of restaurants, hotels, all of pearl st., et cet.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

When I read that CU has sold out its 39,000 tickets, and CSU has sold approximately 20,000 tickets -- that pretty much tells me all I need to know.

Hopefully the Buffs will royally throttle the rams, and the interest in future games will dwindle even more.

so thats close to 59K tickets sold..... Folsom seats just under 54k while Hughes Stadium is 30K.... dont know if the additional ticket revunue will offset the costs of the game not being in Boulder though.....

but I do agree with Valdez's post right before this one and how it hurts the local ecaonomies in both Boulder and Ft. Collins......

 

[unbiasedtruth]

Just curious. Is OU paying Chattanooga and Cincinnati to come to Norman for their shellacking? What is the going rate for a cupcake to visit OU this season?

of course they are being paid, and paid well I am sure, don't know exactly, have to find the contract.

Heck it cost Michigan 1mil last year to have Chattanooga to come to their house and beat them I think.

Also, being a resident of that town just east of me, you are aware that the city of Dallas has to pony up several hundred thousand dollars to each school cover the costs of OU and Texas playing in the Cotton Bowl the past 2 years dont you?

 

[unbiasedtruth]

Local business suffers? I'm thinking in terms of restaurants, hotels, all of pearl st., et cet.

Dark Horse doesnt suffer from me before or after the games...... :thumbsup:

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Dark Horse doesnt suffer from me before or after the games...... :thumbsup:

Win or lose...:drink:

 

[FlatironsBuff]

SO do we always get 6 home games outside of the RMS, or only in years that CSU is the home team? If we always get 6 home games outside of the RMS, then the local businesses always have their 6 weekends of revenue, and nobody is hurt. Can teams schedule more than 6 home games?

I do like getting to see 7 home games, or at least, 7 games I can get to easily during the season wihtout traveling out of state. As long as that is there, I like it. Now, I would like it better with CSU one year, AFA the next.

Whatever makes CU the most money so we can continue to invest in facilities for the sports teams is ok with me I guess.

 

[2HellNback]

Bottom line... Huge pay day for both athletic departments, even if the games suck or w/e, highest pay day of the year as one of the articles posted on here said, Buffs take in nearly $500,0000 more than they would at Folsom.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Also, being a resident of that town just east of me, you are aware that the city of Dallas has to pony up several hundred thousand dollars to each school cover the costs of OU and Texas playing in the Cotton Bowl the past 2 years dont you?

This is just one more example of how the $500K add'l revenue provided to CU from the RMS is too damn cheap. With CU selling tickets at ($40/seat + revenue from concessions + parking + the network contract) x 50K seats, why isn't the school clearing $1M?

 

[sackman]

SO do we always get 6 home games outside of the RMS, or only in years that CSU is the home team? If we always get 6 home games outside of the RMS, then the local businesses always have their 6 weekends of revenue, and nobody is hurt. Can teams schedule more than 6 home games?

I do like getting to see 7 home games, or at least, 7 games I can get to easily during the season wihtout traveling out of state. As long as that is there, I like it. Now, I would like it better with CSU one year, AFA the next.

Whatever makes CU the most money so we can continue to invest in facilities for the sports teams is ok with me I guess.

This is the source of the rub with Mike Bohn right now. He's not willing to schedule the game in Denver next year because that would mean only 5 true home games at Folsom. So long as CU gets 6 home games a year, he's said he's fine playing the game wherever.

 

[Buffarino]

Nowainaminit. How come CU outsells CSU 5 to 3 at the box office, but both programs come home with the same payday? CU is subsidizing little bro'. Shouldn't CU be pulling $625K? If it's about the money, let's make this about the money!

CU gets 55% of the gate. CSU gets 45%.

 

[sackman]

Nowainaminit. How come CU outsells CSU 5 to 3 at the box office, but both programs come home with the same payday? CU is subsidizing little bro'. Shouldn't CU be pulling $625K? If it's about the money, let's make this about the money!

CU gets 55% of the gate. CSU gets 45%.

This brings up an interesting point. In the past, there wasn't a big discrepancy between the 55% and 45% in terms of ticket sales. CU would sell roughly 55% of the tickets to CSU's 45%. This year, that figure appears to be highly skewed. If CSU doesn't sell more tickets, then CU will, indeed, be subsidizing the game.

 

[Buffarino]

The seating deal sucks ass. My father has been a season ticket holder for about damn near 40 years now. We sit on the 50yd line in Folsom. Yet when we recieved our tickets for the game, I'm on the 20 yd line. Only 10 rows from the top. That really pisses me off. Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not expecting luxury suits here. But i think the top bowl, somewhere relatively close to the 40 shouldn't be a reach. Come on. Anyone else have this issue?

I've been ranting about the seating issue ever since the game moved to Invesco. My dad is also a 40+ year season ticket holder (has had tickets continuously since he graduated CU in 1962). The seats in Folsom are far superior to the seats in Invesco every year.

Add in that the atmosphere and overall experience of Invesco sucks and I wish they'd quit playing there.

 

[Buffarino]

This brings up an interesting point. In the past, there wasn't a big discrepancy between the 55% and 45% in terms of ticket sales. CU would sell roughly 55% of the tickets to CSU's 45%. This year, that figure appears to be highly skewed. If CSU doesn't sell more tickets, then CU will, indeed, be subsidizing the game.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how they do the 55%.

If they give CU 55% of the tickets and CSU 45% and tell them to sell them and keep the money, then CU isn't subsidizing anything. If they have to take the total gate and then retroactively make it 55/45, then CU would be subsidizing CSU's piss poor ticket sales.

 

[66BUFF]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how they do the 55%.

If they give CU 55% of the tickets and CSU 45% and tell them to sell them and keep the money, then CU isn't subsidizing anything. If they have to take the total gate and then retroactively make it 55/45, then CU would be subsidizing CSU's piss poor ticket sales.

I am pretty sure that CU gets 55% of the tickets to sell and keep the money and csu gets the remaining 45%. what sucks is if the CU side is soldout and CU fans buy tickets from ticket master on the csu side, csu keeps the money.

 

[BUFFSROCKS]

I went to see how much the tickets were and tried to get club level ( I need to drink during the game) and the only club level you can buy is on the lammies side, none left for the BUFFS. Talk about piss poor, maybe they know how bad their team is and they can't even get up for their Super Bowl this year. Weak ass fans.

 

[66BUFF]

I've been ranting about the seating issue ever since the game moved to Invesco. My dad is also a 40+ year season ticket holder (has had tickets continuously since he graduated CU in 1962). The seats in Folsom are far superior to the seats in Invesco every year.

Add in that the atmosphere and overall experience of Invesco sucks and I wish they'd quit playing there.

my seats are better at invesco(still prefer Folsom)

 

[sackman]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how they do the 55%.

If they give CU 55% of the tickets and CSU 45% and tell them to sell them and keep the money, then CU isn't subsidizing anything. If they have to take the total gate and then retroactively make it 55/45, then CU would be subsidizing CSU's piss poor ticket sales.

I was just going off of your comment that CU gets 55% of the gate. I have no specific information other than what I read here about how the revenues are apportioned.

 

[Buffarino]

I was just going off of your comment that CU gets 55% of the gate. I have no specific information other than what I read here about how the revenues are apportioned.

I don't know either. I was just pointing out a couple ways they might do it. I think it's probably most likely that they give out the tickets and just tell the respective schools to keep the money. Trying to retroactively apportion revenues sounds like a nightmare.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I've been ranting about the seating issue ever since the game moved to Invesco. My dad is also a 40+ year season ticket holder (has had tickets continuously since he graduated CU in 1962). The seats in Folsom are far superior to the seats in Invesco every year.

Add in that the atmosphere and overall experience of Invesco sucks and I wish they'd quit playing there.

I received a letter from the AD several years ago explaining that seating at Folsom is the 2nd criteria for determining seating at Invesco. The first priority is donation level, doesn't matter how long you have had your seats at Folsom. CU uses seating priority in this game to try to increase personal donations. While they will try to get you as close to your seats at Folsom as possible, the better your Folsom seats and the lower your donation the more likely you will be upset with your Invesco location. I usually get better seats at Invesco but still think this criteria sucks ass.

 

[Buffarino]

I received a letter from the AD several years ago explaining that seating at Folsom is the 2nd criteria for determining seating at Invesco. The first priority is donation level, doesn't matter how long you have had your seats at Folsom. CU uses seating priority in this game to try to increase personal donations. While they will try to get you as close to your seats at Folsom as possible, the better your Folsom seats and the lower your donation the more likely you will be upset with your Invesco location. I usually get better seats at Invesco but still think this criteria sucks ass.

That's the exact opposite of what we have been told on several occasions by the ticket office. They've straight up lied to our faces and we know it, but there is nothing that can be done.

That would all be fine and good if the CSU game wasn't required as part of the season ticket package. But since it is, it's BS.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

That's the exact opposite of what we have been told on several occasions by the ticket office. They've straight up lied to our faces and we know it, but there is nothing that can be done.

That would all be fine and good if the CSU game wasn't required as part of the season ticket package. But since it is, it's BS.

This was from the first game in Denver so it may no longer be true, but it sure seems to fit.:huh:

 

[unionbuff]

This was from the first game in Denver so it may no longer be true, but it sure seems to fit.:huh:

They've now added a section to your renewal form that you have to fill out for the CSU game -- whether you want to be down low or up high with better sightlines. Most people I know overlooked that this year so we're all up on the 5th level after being down on the 1st level for the past couple of seasons.

We tried exchanging them - nope, we're trying to sell them (hard to do when it's not sold out), and now we're just stuck in really crappy seats while our friends w/ tickets for only their 2nd year are like 15 rows up from the field.

*(&#$*(&%*_)$(#(%*$& issed3:

 

[Buffarino]

This was from the first game in Denver so it may no longer be true, but it sure seems to fit.:huh:

Yep, it definitely seems to fit. My dad isn't a wealthy guy, but he pays for his tickets every year since 1962. But aside from the cheesy little deal they did last season, they've never really seemed to care about their longtime season ticket holders all that much.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

They've now added a section to your renewal form that you have to fill out for the CSU game -- whether you want to be down low or up high with better sightlines. Most people I know overlooked that this year so we're all up on the 5th level after being down on the 1st level for the past couple of seasons.

We tried exchanging them - nope, we're trying to sell them (hard to do when it's not sold out), and now we're just stuck in really crappy seats while our friends w/ tickets for only their 2nd year are like 15 rows up from the field.

*(&#$*(&%*_)$(#(%*$& issed3:

I saw that check box and don't remember what I chose.:wow:

 

[BlackNGold]

They've now added a section to your renewal form that you have to fill out for the CSU game -- whether you want to be down low or up high with better sightlines. Most people I know overlooked that this year so we're all up on the 5th level after being down on the 1st level for the past couple of seasons.

We tried exchanging them - nope, we're trying to sell them (hard to do when it's not sold out), and now we're just stuck in really crappy seats while our friends w/ tickets for only their 2nd year are like 15 rows up from the field.

*(&#$*(&%*_)$(#(%*$& issed3:

I did not see that on my form....I renewed online and did not see any option for that.