What's new
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!

The implications of Jack Graham being fired at CSU

RSSBot

News Junkie
By Jack Barsch

A look at the firing of CSU's AD from the angle of CU's faithful.Last week, CSU president Tony Frank fired the biggest supporter of CSU athletics and their AD, Jack Graham. An unexpected move to almost everyone involved with CSU, the timing and suddenness of the move has gotten a lot of press. Three weeks before your first football game is not a great time to fire the person in charge of...

Click the link above or visit http://www.ralphiereport.com for more.

Originally posted by Ralphie Report
Click here to view the article.
 
I hope the RMS goes to a traditional home/away format. Playing at Mile High is lame...I love Folsom Field and wouldn't mind travelling to Hughes...Ft. Collins is a pretty cool town.
 
There is a real question about the long term viability of CSU trying to remain a BCS level program.

I think the stadium plan was a last ditch, hail mary attempt at making and keeping the program relevant. With their attendance figures, lack of significant media revenues, and no realistic hope of getting an invitation to a major conference at some point soon they have to look at the roughly $15 million dollar subsidy coming from the school and student fees every year to maintain a program that isn't giving them national attention and exposure.

Tony Frank may be looking at the failure of Jack Graham to come even close to the fundraising target as a form of referendum on the future of CSU football. It doesn't matter much if the target was $75 or $110 million in seed money when the total in solid donations was around $20 million. Even the pie in the sky $45 million figure that Graham claimed was grossly short of either target.

The question has to be asked about the ongoing value of trying to run a shoestring program in a day and age that the power conference schools are collecting more in media money in one year than you could collect in a one time program saving drive in close to two.

CSU fans may not want to hear it but eventually the questions have to be answered and I don't think they will like those answers but this failure to make a stadium a reality may signal a bigger look at the future of football in the future.
 
There is a real question about the long term viability of CSU trying to remain a BCS level program.

I think the stadium plan was a last ditch, hail mary attempt at making and keeping the program relevant. With their attendance figures, lack of significant media revenues, and no realistic hope of getting an invitation to a major conference at some point soon they have to look at the roughly $15 million dollar subsidy coming from the school and student fees every year to maintain a program that isn't giving them national attention and exposure.

Tony Frank may be looking at the failure of Jack Graham to come even close to the fundraising target as a form of referendum on the future of CSU football. It doesn't matter much if the target was $75 or $110 million in seed money when the total in solid donations was around $20 million. Even the pie in the sky $45 million figure that Graham claimed was grossly short of either target.

The question has to be asked about the ongoing value of trying to run a shoestring program in a day and age that the power conference schools are collecting more in media money in one year than you could collect in a one time program saving drive in close to two.

CSU fans may not want to hear it but eventually the questions have to be answered and I don't think they will like those answers but this failure to make a stadium a reality may signal a bigger look at the future of football in the future.

How 'bout become a BCS program?
 
There is a real question about the long term viability of CSU trying to remain a BCS level program.

I think the stadium plan was a last ditch, hail mary attempt at making and keeping the program relevant. With their attendance figures, lack of significant media revenues, and no realistic hope of getting an invitation to a major conference at some point soon they have to look at the roughly $15 million dollar subsidy coming from the school and student fees every year to maintain a program that isn't giving them national attention and exposure.

Tony Frank may be looking at the failure of Jack Graham to come even close to the fundraising target as a form of referendum on the future of CSU football. It doesn't matter much if the target was $75 or $110 million in seed money when the total in solid donations was around $20 million. Even the pie in the sky $45 million figure that Graham claimed was grossly short of either target.

The question has to be asked about the ongoing value of trying to run a shoestring program in a day and age that the power conference schools are collecting more in media money in one year than you could collect in a one time program saving drive in close to two.

CSU fans may not want to hear it but eventually the questions have to be answered and I don't think they will like those answers but this failure to make a stadium a reality may signal a bigger look at the future of football in the future.
With all the money coming into CFB and changes benefiting the Power 5, I see a real struggle for the non-P5 schools and a larger gap growing between the 2 BCS "divisions". I could see new divisions in CFB: Power 5, a new FBS of non-P5 conferences and FCS. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing...I'm old school and like the fact money wasn't such a huge part of football back in the day.
 
Short term implications: Either no new stadium or a dramatically scaled back stadium. Forget the P5 invite. I simply isn't going to happen. There will be a PR hit they'll have to endure. They may find that they can't afford to be paying Sparkles and Eustachy as much as they're getting paid.

Long term implications: a probable end to the CU/CSU series in Denver. If the new AD decides to play hard ball, RG will likely smile, accept the spot we're in, and then never put CSU on the schedule for anything again. No football, no basketball, no volleyball, no soccer - nothing. RG has no particular affinity for CSU. He doesn't give a rip about their success or failure. More likely than this, though, is a renegotiation of the contract that will involve home/home or 2-1 deals with CSU going forward. That's going to be as good as they can realistically expect.
 
How 'bout become a BCS program?

You mean an FCS program?

To me that would be the most likely scenario. Scholarship limit of 63 instead of 85, majority of your recruiting in-state or at least in a limited region. Coaching staffs are smaller and coaching salaries are significantly lower. Travel is more often by bus and you don't have to use first class lodgings to have any chance in future recruiting so travel cost go way down.

I think it is very likely that CSU could have an elite level FCS program for a fraction of what they spend now trying to hang onto the bottom end of the BCS division.

The Big Sky Conference would take them in a flash and they would be able to maintain recruiting connections on the west coast and play regional games as well.

Cal Poly 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Eastern Washington 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Idaho State 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Montana 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Montana State 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
North Dakota 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Northern Arizona 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Northern Colorado 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Portland State 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Sacramento State 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Southern Utah 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
UC Davis 0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Weber State 0-00.0000-00-00-0---

A decision by CSU to go FCS may also hasten Wyoming to seriously consider the same decision which would allow them to maintain their longest standing traditional rivalry as Wyo is facing some of the same issues in terms of financial support and competitiveness at the BCS level.

CSU could build a very nice FCS level stadium on campus for a fraction of what they are looking at with their current stadium fantasies. Having a winning FCS program playing on campus would give the students a reason to go to games instead of ignoring the mostly losing team they have now.
 
You mean an FCS program?

To me that would be the most likely scenario. Scholarship limit of 63 instead of 85, majority of your recruiting in-state or at least in a limited region. Coaching staffs are smaller and coaching salaries are significantly lower. Travel is more often by bus and you don't have to use first class lodgings to have any chance in future recruiting so travel cost go way down.

I think it is very likely that CSU could have an elite level FCS program for a fraction of what they spend now trying to hang onto the bottom end of the BCS division.

The Big Sky Conference would take them in a flash and they would be able to maintain recruiting connections on the west coast and play regional games as well.

Cal Poly0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Eastern Washington0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Idaho State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Montana0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Montana State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
North Dakota0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Northern Arizona0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Northern Colorado0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Portland State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Sacramento State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Southern Utah0-00.0000-00-00-0---
UC Davis0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Weber State0-00.0000-00-00-0---

A decision by CSU to go FCS may also hasten Wyoming to seriously consider the same decision which would allow them to maintain their longest standing traditional rivalry as Wyo is facing some of the same issues in terms of financial support and competitiveness at the BCS level.

CSU could build a very nice FCS level stadium on campus for a fraction of what they are looking at with their current stadium fantasies. Having a winning FCS program playing on campus would give the students a reason to go to games instead of ignoring the mostly losing team they have now.
we.know.
 
You mean an FCS program?

To me that would be the most likely scenario. Scholarship limit of 63 instead of 85, majority of your recruiting in-state or at least in a limited region. Coaching staffs are smaller and coaching salaries are significantly lower. Travel is more often by bus and you don't have to use first class lodgings to have any chance in future recruiting so travel cost go way down.

I think it is very likely that CSU could have an elite level FCS program for a fraction of what they spend now trying to hang onto the bottom end of the BCS division.

The Big Sky Conference would take them in a flash and they would be able to maintain recruiting connections on the west coast and play regional games as well.

Cal Poly0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Eastern Washington0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Idaho State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Montana0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Montana State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
North Dakota0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Northern Arizona0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Northern Colorado0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Portland State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Sacramento State0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Southern Utah0-00.0000-00-00-0---
UC Davis0-00.0000-00-00-0---
Weber State0-00.0000-00-00-0---

A decision by CSU to go FCS may also hasten Wyoming to seriously consider the same decision which would allow them to maintain their longest standing traditional rivalry as Wyo is facing some of the same issues in terms of financial support and competitiveness at the BCS level.

CSU could build a very nice FCS level stadium on campus for a fraction of what they are looking at with their current stadium fantasies. Having a winning FCS program playing on campus would give the students a reason to go to games instead of ignoring the mostly losing team they have now.

Yikes, even I feel like that is a slap in CSU's face
 
Thread content was tl;dr

In case anyone deals with scrolling down this far (especially if you're on your mobile), it boils down to this:

1. ADs who negotiated and championed the RMS have been fired.
2. Bunch of gibberish and speculation over whether this means anything on the future of RMS.
 
Thread content was tl;dr

In case anyone deals with scrolling down this far (especially if you're on your mobile), it boils down to this:

1. ADs who negotiated and championed the RMS have been fired.
2. Bunch of gibberish and speculation over whether this means anything on the future of RMS.

How do you feel about cats?
 
I'm gonna be bummed if we continue to play CSU (even if it moves on campus and is 2 for 1). We have precious few OOC games now. No need to waste one on CSU.
 
I could live with 1 for 1 as long as the CU home game is at Folsom. 2 for 1 would be better, not playing the goats every year, better still.
 
Back
Top