Annual Game with CSU - wanted to get updated opinions

[Buffnik]

That's just not accurate. Marshall and West Virginia have played a grand total of 12 times and Marshall only moved from Division 1-AA in 1997. Further, the overall university profiles of Marshall and CSU are not even close. There is simply no comparison.

There isn't from the standpoint of the historical game. There is from the standpoint of programs that are similar in national stature and political forces pushing for a game that didn't necessarily makes sense in the way the series was ultimately set up.

If the CU-CSU series had been as follows, I don't think we'd see a lot of the issues we see today:

4-year contract
CU home years at Folsom
CSU home years at Mile High

Then take a couple years off and run the series again. CSU would have an option of moving its home years to Ft Collins if it could match the payout guarantees to CU that the Buffs would get from playing at Mile High.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Iowa State - Iowa is a very valid comparison in that Iowa has been a traditionally successfull program for a long time and ISU has not. Iowa has never reached the levels of some of their B1G conference mates like Michigan or tOSU or PSU but they have had and/or been in the running for Rose Bowls and other major bowls, been highly ranked over multiple eras etc. while ISU has had some limited success but traditionally been in the lower end of their conference and sometimes been at or near the bottom of the college football world.

There are a couple of big differences as well though. One is as you mentioned ISU is in a major conference. When they are bad it is because they are losing to Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas, etc. CSU when they are bad is losing to Wyoming, UNLV, and Utah State, much less notable programs.

The other big difference is that Iowa and Iowa State are the two significant sports enterprises in Iowa. Yes lots of people in Iowa are fans of pro sports franchises with strong interest in those located in Chicago, St. Louis, and Minneapolis but within the state Iowa and ISU are the two top dogs.

In Colorado CU isn't competing with CSU for top dog position or even close. This is first and foremost a Bronco state with the other pro franchises also drawing a huge degree of allegiance. CU is easily the top non-pro sports enterprise but they aren't competing with CSU for interest they are dealing with the pros. It could be argued that CSU isn't even next in line since the AFA draws bigger crowds, better TV numbers, and more national interest and respect.

Iowa is also a different situation since a much higher percentage of Iowans have family and cultural ties to the state. It is not close to as transient a population as Colorado. The Iowa schools are also not dealing with competing with the array of other entertainment/recreational options that CU (and CSU) have to.

The core fans of CU-CSU do dislike each other but unfortunately for both schools the majority of people don't care that much. College football simply isn't a big piece of the fabric of life like it is in many other places.

I went to CSU, did my master program there. I like the school and a lot of the people associated with the school. My personal view is that CSU is throwing money down a rat hole trying to maintain a major college football program in an environment where the powers of college football don't want them and the majority of the people who would be their supporters don't care.

This is not to say that CSU doesn't have a core of very dedicated and interested fans, they clearly do. This core has stuck with them through disappointments and lousy seasons, through conference turmoil, through repeated coaching changes, etc. Unfortunately this core is not large enough and more importantly financially viable enough to justify CSU continuing to try to enter and compete in the world of major college football.

I think that CSU would actually be much better off to build a 18-20k stadium on campus and go after success in the world of FCS football. Be a big fish in a smaller pond instead of a bait fish in a swarm of sharks.

This is an excellent breakdown and is spot on when it comes to the overall football culture in Iowa. Although if you talk to Iowa fans they still think they are the only game in town even though Iowa State's attendance has seen a significant jump in the last decade. Saturdays really are a special time in that state. There are some season ticket holders that drive 2-4 hours for every home game - religiously. In many ways, it is unfortunate that the Bronco's steal so much of the spotlight here in Colorado.

 

[CsquaredCC]

There isn't from the standpoint of the historical game. There is from the standpoint of programs that are similar in national stature and political forces pushing for a game that didn't necessarily makes sense in the way the series was ultimately set up.

If the CU-CSU series had been as follows, I don't think we'd see a lot of the issues we see today:

4-year contract
CU home years at Folsom
CSU home years at Mile High

Then take a couple years off and run the series again. CSU would have an option of moving its home years to Ft Collins if it could match the payout guarantees to CU that the Buffs would get from playing at Mile High.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing an every other year type scenario if CSU is able to get this stadium built. Home game Boulder - skip a year. Home game in Fort Collins - skip a year. Neutral game in Denver - skip a year. It would make the games bigger again when CU and CSU actually played and it would give CSU an opportunity to start scheduling other BCS programs in the off years which is something I think the administration and staff know they need to start doing, especially out of the Big 12. It would also open up far more scheduling flexibility for CU moving forward.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I really wouldn't mind if we never played CSU again.

 

[skibum]

I think C squared and Nik both presented reasonable scenarios, and both understandably skewed them a little bit in favour of their respective allegiances. There's an agreement to be had somewhere between the proposals.

The good news I suppose is that it seems a consensus is developing on both sides that the current arrangement sucks donkey balls...

 

[dio]

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing an every other year type scenario if CSU is able to get this stadium built. Home game Boulder - skip a year. Home game in Fort Collins - skip a year. Neutral game in Denver - skip a year. It would make the games bigger again when CU and CSU actually played and it would give CSU an opportunity to start scheduling other BCS programs in the off years which is something I think the administration and staff know they need to start doing, especially out of the Big 12. It would also open up far more scheduling flexibility for CU moving forward.

I understand your POV, but from CU, we're equivocating a series with a non-BCS school. There should be no games in Denver, and any games with CSU should be balanced at least 2 at CU, 1 at CSU.

But even then, I find that this game hurts CU far more than it helps. We tied up one of our few non-conference games against a emotionally charged non-BCS opponent. CU would be far better served opening the season against an FCS team, getting a win (hopefully) and getting tuned for beginning of the season. Not too mention CU should be playing as many games in Folsom as possible.

 

[PAHIBuff]

I think that the Mountain West is a pretty good pool from which to draw an annual OOC opponent that, right now, is neither a cupcake win or an overmatched loss (Chaz Southern or Michigan/Nebraska, etc). I don't really care if it's CSU or another MW team. What would suck would be cancelling the CSU game in favor of a boring downscale win or a sure ass-whipping. So any change that involves one of those scenarios would be unwise.

 

[CUAviator]

I see the series as a Notre Dame/Navy deal - mostly charity, national stage, totally lopsided record, "BCS" vs non-BCS, and if Notre Dame loses...HOLY S&@T!!!
And to a lesser extend, Ohio State/Cincy or Utah/Utah State


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BlackNGold]

I like the way Dick Tharp was going with it. When it is our turn to host it the game will be at Folsom. When CSU hosts it they can have it where ever they want.

The financial payout is about the same for CU rather the game is at Folsom or Mile High. The real hit would come on years it is in the Fort. Attendance is declining and I think having the game on Friday Night will not benefit attendance.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I think that the Mountain West is a pretty good pool from which to draw an annual OOC opponent that, right now, is neither a cupcake win or an overmatched loss (Chaz Southern or Michigan/Nebraska, etc). I don't really care if it's CSU or another MW team. What would suck would be cancelling the CSU game in favor of a boring downscale win or a sure ass-whipping. So any change that involves one of those scenarios would be unwise.

With the BIG-PAC scheduling alliance falling through, there are many PAC programs drawing from the MWC for their OOC schedules. The MWC provides good match-ups that generate regional interest. The CSU games in 2004 and 2005 are still the largest crowds ever at Folsom. I don't think cancelling the series is in any program's best interest. However, the series does need to be tweaked in some manner to rejuvenate interest.

 

[Quattro]

Why would a Friday night game on a holiday weekend not see high attendance? It's not interfering with kids sports on Saturday's/Sunday's and only work...and let's be real, how much work are you going to be doing the day before Labor Day weekend? I'll wager that this years game will have the best attendance in a while because of the start time and date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Buffnik]

Why would a Friday night game on a holiday weekend not see high attendance? It's not interfering with kids sports on Saturday's/Sunday's and only work...and let's be real, how much work are you going to be doing the day before Labor Day weekend? I'll wager that this years game will have the best attendance in a while because of the start time and date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about how much better it would be if the first weekend of school for the incoming freshmen included a football game at Folsom, though. The home opener is a big deal for connecting students to the program.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I understand your POV, but from CU, we're equivocating a series with a non-BCS school. There should be no games in Denver, and any games with CSU should be balanced at least 2 at CU, 1 at CSU.

But even then, I find that this game hurts CU far more than it helps. We tied up one of our few non-conference games against a emotionally charged non-BCS opponent. CU would be far better served opening the season against an FCS team, getting a win (hopefully) and getting tuned for beginning of the season. Not too mention CU should be playing as many games in Folsom as possible.

PAC schools just aren't getting 2-1's with MWC opponents outside of UCLA, USC or Oregon. And even UCLA just scheduled a home-home series with SDSU in 2019 and 2020: http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/03/ucla-rutgers-update-future-football-schedules/

 

[sackman]

PAC schools just aren't getting 2-1's with MWC opponents outside of UCLA, USC or Oregon.

I'd expect that to change with this new "division" of football. MWC schools will need to schedule 2-1's if they want to play any BCS school.

 

[MtnBuff]

PAC schools just aren't getting 2-1's with MWC opponents outside of UCLA, USC or Oregon.

Then we should be playing somebody else.

CSU needs this game much more than CU needs it.

It simply doesn't make sense for CU to treat CSU as an equal in this deal. For CSU to play this game it should have to make it worthwhile for CU to do so. This means either 2 for 1 games on campus or CSU guaranteeing CU payouts from the games in Ft. Collins similar to what they could get playing elsewhere, an option which at this point CSU can't afford to do.

 

[slider]

Now that CSU's stadium is being delayed... we have another year in Denver at least. I hope RG tells Graham to pound say when CSU asks to move back to campus now that they finally have a campus stadium

 

[sackman]

Now that CSU's stadium is being delayed... we have another year in Denver at least. I hope RG tells Graham to pound say when CSU asks to move back to campus now that they finally have a campus stadium

Don't be completely surprised if 2014 is the last year this series is played in Denver.

 

[Quattro]

Think about how much better it would be if the first weekend of school for the incoming freshmen included a football game at Folsom, though. The home opener is a big deal for connecting students to the program.

Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CsquaredCC]

I'd expect that to change with this new "division" of football. MWC schools will need to schedule 2-1's if they want to play any BCS school.

I think MWC will still be able to get a number of BCS schools to agree to home and home arrangements going forward. Time will tell, but I think the MWC's geography to the PAC and BIG12 put the conference in a unique position for scheduling purposes. The American conference is the one that could really be impacted the most on the scheduling front moving forward.

 

[sackman]

I think MWC will still be able to get a number of BCS schools to agree to home and home arrangements going forward. Time will tell, but I think the MWC's geography to the PAC and BIG12 put the conference in a unique position for scheduling purposes. The American conference is the one that could really be impacted the most on the scheduling front moving forward.

I think you overestimate the MWC's leverage. For Pac 12 teams, home games are a premium. When you have to play 9 conference games a year, your OOC becomes very limited. In years when you only have four home conference games, you absolutely need two OOC home games, and three would be better. If, say, CSU isn't willing to do a 2-1, then I'm sure Wyoming or Utah State or UNM or NMSU or somebody will.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I think you overestimate the MWC's leverage. For Pac 12 teams, home games are a premium. When you have to play 9 conference games a year, your OOC becomes very limited. In years when you only have four home conference games, you absolutely need two OOC home games, and three would be better. If, say, CSU isn't willing to do a 2-1, then I'm sure Wyoming or Utah State or UNM or NMSU or somebody will.

You might be right. Its hard to tell right now. Like I noted above, UCLA just agreed to a home-home with SDSU in 2019/2020. SJSU, probably the weakest overall "program" in the MWC, recently set home-home series with Oregon State (2015/2020) and Utah (2016/2017). Wyoming has a home-home with Washington State (2015/2018) set. New Mexico has a home-home with Arizona State (2014/2015). This isn't even close to a complete list.

Maybe that scheduling dynamic will change, but it looks like it will take a while given how far out some of these series are set. Just browsing the future schedules it looks like most PAC programs are going with 1-FCS opponent, 1-MWC opponent and 1-BCS opponent as a part of their OOC schedule. Once you eliminate FCS opponents, which most BCS conferences appear to be doing, it actually gives the MWC some additional leverage. If you rotate the home-home series between the MWC and other BCS opponents, the home schedule slate fills up just fine. http://www.fbschedules.com/

 

[DexBuffsteen]

Right now CSU is one of the teams we have a good chance of beating. We need six W's for a bowl game and beating the goats is way more likely than beating Oregon. We need to play them, beat them, and send them back to their goat overlords in a box. I absolutely hate the game at SportVesco, play the damn game on campus. Once we're pummeling them 55-10 every year, CSU will pay to get out of the series.

 

[BlackNGold]

Why would a Friday night game on a holiday weekend not see high attendance? It's not interfering with kids sports on Saturday's/Sunday's and only work...and let's be real, how much work are you going to be doing the day before Labor Day weekend? I'll wager that this years game will have the best attendance in a while because of the start time and date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will take that wager (I am betting Sackman's bike rack). Since you are not in the work force I will forgive you a little. We will be very busy that Friday, people will be taking vacation so the ones that don't will have to fill in the gaps. It is also end of the month so we will be having a ton of month end activities to prepare for closing. We will want to get revenue recognition for the month so we will be trying to get invoicing out.

Many fans come from places Like Vail, Colorado Springs, etc. I think some of them will decide not put up with the traffic and have to drive back in the middle of the night (or try to get a room). Then factor in the people from Ft. Collins and the lack of much tailgating. I think attendance will be down....we will see.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

Without some magic from RG, the best way out of this is to just pound the sand out of CSU year in and year out. We all know CSU, with a loss to CU falls off the map for the year. A win over NMSU or NM (who isn't fired up to beat big brother) is a good tune up for us, not a big deal, and CSU winning over some other small team makes everyone happy. CSU has had one run with Sonny and dicknose the QB (a perfect 'love him if he plays for you, hate him if he doesn't' guy).

What I hate is that CU succumbed to the pressure from the Capitol to do this. The same people that give us less and less money every year, and still want control over what CU does. RG needs to tactfully tell them that he is bringing back CU football to be something nationally recognized again, and adding a no-win game (where even a win doesn't move the needle to respectability, but a loss is a big deal to the nationwide perception) is not the way to do that. Plus, if the Colorado government wants to up the perception of football in Colorado, forcing one team to have a loss on the first day isn't the best way to do it. The longer each team is undefeated the better the perception is.

But CC trying to find a way to justify this is funny. It is a BCS vs. a non-BCS team, forced into a neutral venue, year after year after year. CSU gets more money from it, that is the draw for CSU at this point, and they need the money. CU hates it, but Bohn screwed us. I hope RG will fix this, and soon. All CU 'home games' need to be at CU period. Then the next person to fix this needs to be MM. Pound them by 30 or 40 year after year, and take some of the money away by going home to CU, and the lammies will be bleating to end the series soon enough.

 

[Buffnik]

According to sources, Bohn and Plati have been of the opinion that the CU fan base would not support 7 home games with a pro rata increase to season ticket prices.

I disagree with that and say that it absolutely depends on the product being provided.

Regardless, it's silly to say we won't support 7 in Folsom but then to believe that we will support 6 in Folsom plus march right along with it when told we are obligated to purchase a 7th in Denver where our parking and seating won't be honored without paying for an additional upgrade.

Give me 7 at Folsom every year.

Heck, do an NFL model and give me 7 at Folsom with a $20 Spring Game kicker that gets me a ticket to some sort of event inside the IPF for season ticket holders every year. Give me an option to increase my donation with my tickets to get a ticket for every football luncheon, awards banquet and the post-signing day event... with me having to RSVP if I choose to attend any of them.

Also, sell me a Football Club Card that allows me to purchase concessions and CU gear while earning priority points and/or a small discount for each transaction. If the Denver Zoo can figure that out, CU should be able to.

Monetize this thing, dammit!

 

[hokiehead]

According to sources, Bohn and Plati have been of the opinion that the CU fan base would not support 7 home games with a pro rata increase to season ticket prices.

I disagree with that and say that it absolutely depends on the product being provided.

Regardless, it's silly to say we won't support 7 in Folsom but then to believe that we will support 6 in Folsom plus march right along with it when told we are obligated to purchase a 7th in Denver where our parking and seating won't be honored without paying for an additional upgrade.

Give me 7 at Folsom every year.

Heck, do an NFL model and give me 7 at Folsom with a $20 Spring Game kicker that gets me a ticket to some sort of event inside the IPF for season ticket holders every year. Give me an option to increase my donation with my tickets to get a ticket for every football luncheon, awards banquet and the post-signing day event... with me having to RSVP if I choose to attend any of them.

Also, sell me a Football Club Card that allows me to purchase concessions and CU gear while earning priority points and/or a small discount for each transaction. If the Denver Zoo can figure that out, CU should be able to.

Monetize this thing, dammit!

I would like to see the analysis that came to this conclusion. As much as I wish I worked in the sports industry, I don't, but I spend far too much time thinking about this stuff (and giving away my brilliant ideas at no charge on fan site message boards, no less). I believe that the one thing that improves fan interest in college football more than anything else is attending games. Scheduling more home games per year gives more fans (including the future boosters known as "students") more opportunities to enjoy the product. Is there a point of diminishing returns -- sure, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the point is crossed between 6 and 7.

Your comment about the seeming contradiction of fans not supporting 7 in Folsom but supposedly would support 6 in Folsom and 1 at Mile High is spot on. And, yes, of course, the quality of the product is a huge factor.

 

[MtnBuff]

According to sources, Bohn and Plati have been of the opinion that the CU fan base would not support 7 home games with a pro rata increase to season ticket prices.

I disagree with that and say that it absolutely depends on the product being provided.

Regardless, it's silly to say we won't support 7 in Folsom but then to believe that we will support 6 in Folsom plus march right along with it when told we are obligated to purchase a 7th in Denver where our parking and seating won't be honored without paying for an additional upgrade.

Give me 7 at Folsom every year.

Heck, do an NFL model and give me 7 at Folsom with a $20 Spring Game kicker that gets me a ticket to some sort of event inside the IPF for season ticket holders every year. Give me an option to increase my donation with my tickets to get a ticket for every football luncheon, awards banquet and the post-signing day event... with me having to RSVP if I choose to attend any of them.

Also, sell me a Football Club Card that allows me to purchase concessions and CU gear while earning priority points and/or a small discount for each transaction. If the Denver Zoo can figure that out, CU should be able to.

Monetize this thing, dammit!

You almost could argue that to few games is worse than to many. People are buying season tickets, give them enough that they can get into the swing of going to games as a series of events.

Also makes no sense to have a facility like Folsom and not maximize full use of it.

In addition more games mean the potential for higher fees from in stadium advertisers, etc. Also a lot of the businesses in Boulder are supporters of CU athletics and CU overall. Give them the extra payday and see how much comes back.

Bottom line stop thinking like a small time program. Think and act like you are a big time program and people will pick up on it and support it.

 

[Highlander]

According to sources, Bohn and Plati have been of the opinion that the CU fan base would not support 7 home games with a pro rata increase to season ticket prices.

I disagree with that and say that it absolutely depends on the product being provided.

Regardless, it's silly to say we won't support 7 in Folsom but then to believe that we will support 6 in Folsom plus march right along with it when told we are obligated to purchase a 7th in Denver where our parking and seating won't be honored without paying for an additional upgrade.

Give me 7 at Folsom every year.

Heck, do an NFL model and give me 7 at Folsom with a $20 Spring Game kicker that gets me a ticket to some sort of event inside the IPF for season ticket holders every year. Give me an option to increase my donation with my tickets to get a ticket for every football luncheon, awards banquet and the post-signing day event... with me having to RSVP if I choose to attend any of them.

Also, sell me a Football Club Card that allows me to purchase concessions and CU gear while earning priority points and/or a small discount for each transaction. If the Denver Zoo can figure that out, CU should be able to.

Monetize this thing, dammit!

I am speechless (unless I am missing something). They are forcing the Denver game into a season package as 6+1, but somehow season ticket holders won't go for 7 at home? That is either ignorance or a terrible PR spin attempt.

 

[MtnBuff]

I am speechless (unless I am missing something). They are forcing the Denver game into a season package as 6+1, but somehow season ticket holders won't go for 7 at home? That is either ignorance or a terrible PR spin attempt.

I would be interested in knowing how many potential season ticket holders make the decision not to buy because they don't want to be forced into paying for the Denver game with lousy seats, extra for parking, and a bad atmosphere.

 

[Buffnik]

I am speechless (unless I am missing something). They are forcing the Denver game into a season package as 6+1, but somehow season ticket holders won't go for 7 at home? That is either ignorance or a terrible PR spin attempt.

The "7 home games" spin was in relation to the money grab at Ohio State, iirc. Couldn't make any money by adding a game at Folsom because CU fans wouldn't pay for 7 home games in a season. Bull**** and part of a deeper issue within that culture.