Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Aug 2, 2010.
My new all-time favorite journalistic line: "If you don't want to deal with drunk fans, then you'll have to schedule BYU 12 times a year."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...tate/index.html?eref=si_writers#ixzz0vSGWGFxs
No. He doesn't have a valid point. One team cancelled a series with another team. This is what would happen if CU cancelled the series with CSU.
Yes. I agree with the article. Idaho has one good season and all of a sudden BSU wants no part of them. What a joke.
I think he does have a point. BSU now thinks they're a big boy, so they can no longer cry foul when teams refuse to play them in Boise.
I don't agree with the article because schools aren't obligated to play fellow in-state schools that are in lesser conferences. I'm not a fan of Boise and their delusions of thinking they're a legitimate top-5 team despite playing a WAC schedule, but I admire them in this case for not falling to political pressure to continue the series with Idaho. (Are you listening, CU?)
Boise wants to be big time. They've made no secret of that desire. In order to get there, they need to upgrade their scheduling. I see nothing wrong with this move.
I honestly think they're trying to make a play to get into the Pac once it expands again. They see what happened with Utah, and they know it's possible. They're running the Utah playbook. They still have a long way to go, and the city of Boise needs to add another half million or so people, but I think this is ultimately their goal. Don't be surprised if they don't re-paint their field green here pretty soon. They don't want to be branded as goofy.
They cut off little brother. Good move. We should too. Only CSU gains in the CU/CSU game. Dump them for an annual tilt with NU at Invesco. I love beating the Huskers.
BSU's academics are not good so they would need to improve there as well. Boise was a community college up until 1965.
Now way Boise ever gets in the PAC or a major conference. There are like 4 TVs in Idaho. I think PAC will now only add schools east of us. Got to get the central time zone for national TV exposure.
Like I said, they still have a long way to go. But I think they know (or at least think they know) what needs to be done. Their biggest obstacle will be the lack of TV sets in Idaho. With 1.5MM people, that's not enough. I think they'll want to have double that.
When did they say they were a top 5 program? I think there is more to this story than meets the eye. They are a rising program for sure and, since they are playing better than us, probably want to open up their schedule to play some better teams.
Here's what they have to do in order to join the Pac.
Add about a million people to the state of Idaho.
Increase the academic stature of Boise State University to at least the same level of, say Washinton State or Oregon State.
Expand the stadium to hold 50,000+
Win. A lot.
Three of those four things are within the ability of the University to accomplish. Whether they get those TV sets remains unknown. I think that if given the choice, the Pac would prefer to avoid Texas, based on the shenanigans they played during this latest round of expansion. The West is where the majority of the population growth in the US is going to take place over the next 50 years. The Pac isn't going to want any other major players in it's backyard. UNLV, UNM, Boise, and yes, even CSU all could, if they play their cards right, end up in the Pac once it's all said and done. A lot will depend on population migration and area demographics.
I just don't see how UNLV, UNM, Boise and CSU would add anything to the bottom line $$. UNLV maybe at some point. But CSU? Why? Already have the Denver market now, why bother adding another mouth to feed that doesn't really bring anything. Plus none of those schools have the "academic reputation" that the PAC likes to pretend to covet.
I suppose if you are talking extremely long term then anything can happen. But that would be pretty far off in my opinion.
This is stupid. Boise is turning its nose up to a natural rival because of ego.
The last time I showed interest in what was happening in potato land, CU ended up hiring Hawk. Just to be on the safe side, I am not repeating that mistake....
I'm definitely talking extremely long term. But here's the deal - if Boise can do all these things - they would fill a nice gap in the Pac footprint. Assuming there are 2.5MM people in Idaho at some point, they'd be a decent fit. CSU has a long, long way to go, I'll admit. I don't think their administration has the motivation to do what's necessary to put them in a position to make the move. They just don't care. UNM is in a large-ish (and growing rapidly) metropolitan area, sits at the intersection of two major interstate highways, is supported by a population base of over 2MM, and is a decent school. I personally think Albuquerque is a dump, but there's no debating it's size, location and growth potential. I'd suspect that UNM is on the Pac's radar for future expansion.
Albuquerque is a dump. Location and growth potential could make it attractive at some point. One problem is that I have always found that New Mexico people seem to fancy themselves as Texas people. Everyone I have run into down there seems to think they have much more in common with Texas than Colorado. If they were invited somewhere and if it became a political issue, I wouldn't be surprised if they preferred to go wherever the Texas schools go.
Furthermore, with Larry Scott, I think almost everybody is on his radar with varying levels of timing and attractiveness. He clearly values population demographics and growth as well, evidenced by obtaining Colorado and Utah.
You know what city could really be huge, if it wanted to be? Cheyenne. I remember hearing from somebody who knew about the situation up there that the reason there aren't a whole lot more people living in Wyoming is because there's a small group of very wealthy and influential landowners who like things just the way they are. They manage to keep new development from happening, and keep primary employers from locating there. Cheyenne, if it had the mind to do so, could be every bit as big as Denver. Geographically, it's got all the same adavantages. It's actually at a better spot in terms of the interstate that runs through town. I-80 is a far more well travelled highway than I-70 is. It's basically the highway that connects New York to San Francisco, via Chicago.
I guess they like things just fine up there, and have no desire to grow. Maybe that'll change someday, maybe it won't. There's lots of land, though.
Texas? WTF. The only people that think we are Texas-like are those near West Texas. Even then, a lot of people here in this state would disown those, much like the Nebraskans that have moved to Colorado.
The state doesn't have much in common with either Colorado or Texas. However, people here tend to like Colorado.
And I agree, Albuquerque is a huge dump of a city.
What makes you think that is the reason.....That is an assumption on your part. They were both members of the WAC and now Boise is leaving the WAC and the WAC schedule. If they were not in the same state no one would give it a second thought. Boise does not gain anything by playing the Vandals - not financially, not prestige wise, not anywhere. So why should they have to play them.
Much ado about nothing.
Must of just been the group of people I was dealing with at the time. It was a business deal and they just seemed to want to lump themselves with Texas the whole time (it was kind of an interstate semi-political deal). I am glad to hear that is not the case straight from the horses mouth. I am not from NM so I appreciate you setting the record straight.
I have always heard a lot of drugs are run through Wyoming from California due to the impressive highway system you mention. I was on a plane to Tulsa about 6 years ago sitting next to a guy who owned a thrift store in Tulsa. He was all bent out of shape because he was arrested for transporting drugs through Wyoming. Apparently the cop told him they pull a lot of people over (especially those with CA plates; he was in a rental car) for drug running.
Don't know why Wyoming has never grown much. I go up every year for an annual guys trip that consists of tons of golf, a little fishing and a little shooting (oh and a lot of booze). I like it up there.
Cheyenne needs to add jobs before it's going to get major development. It would take some major pro-growth players to get that ball rolling at the state and municipal level and will take decades not years.
I just saw that a Gallup poll has identified Wyoming as the most conservative state in the country. Not sure if that means anything, but found it interesting.
Those nobodies from nowhere of the blue turf are number 5
This has been covered adnaseum and proven time and again that the series CU/CSU is boon for both programs. Both financially and in terms of exposure. In fact, the CSU game at Folsom last season was the most highly attended game of the year, and my guess is that it was one of the most well attended games at Folsom in the last 5 years. Now the RMS moves back to Mile High where 60,000+ will show and each school walks away with a greater pay day. How is this even a debate among Buff fans? I seriously don't get it.
Getting a series with Nebraska sounds great on a chat board, but given the Huskers' scheduling practices - I think that is a pipe dream.
Boulder may be close to Denver, but it certainly does not command the Denver market. Pro sports is and always will be the "Denver Market." CSU's best argument in the coming years (if there is one to make) is that it would help the PAC X strengthen its hold in the Denver. 45,000+ CSU alumni, establish a presence in the Northern Colorado region that is continuing to experience large population growth, and adds an academic tradition that is not out of line with the likes of Utah, Washington State, and Oregon State.
I think it's a debate because we feel it legitimizes a program that does not deserve to be legitimized.
Also, it can only hurt CU in perception and on the field. If we win, so what? If we lose (which we have been doing of late) it's a total embarrassment. A loss hurts our in state recruiting. CU has a tradition of playing tough OOC schedules and there is no reason to lock ourselves into a game that really can't do much for us. You can argue that CU playing CSU garners interest within Colorado for CU, but I'd argue CU playing a big name BCS team would do the same.
The MWC has made CSU "legitimate" regardless of the series with CU. The MWC now has an established track record whereby if a program can rise up in that conference - national attention will follow. Frankly, I think there is a strong case to be made that a win over BYU, Boise State (fka Utah), and TCU would do more for the CSU program at this point than a win in the RMS.
Buff fans that continue to think this way are the ones that grew up watching them in the '90s. However this view ignores the realities of modern day college football. Today, the BCS has only worked to strengthen the roughly 5-10 "major" programs in college ball. After that, parity is the name of the game and the recruiting talent is essentially getting spread throughout second-tier BCS programs and non-BCS programs with kids looking for good coaching and playing time so they can try and make that leap to the NFL.
At the end of the day - it sounds great to say that CU should schedule a big-time BCS program in CSU's place, but it just doesn't work that way. The 5-10 "Big-time" programs are basically scheduling one marquee out of conference game a year and usually against each other. In reality CU would be casting off CSU for an Idaho, Fresno State, Hawaii....what does that do for their program? A Saturday in front of a half empty stadium?
At the end of the day CU gets everything out of the RMS. Unequal revenue sharing, television exposure, a game at a Pro stadium, and an opponent that their program has every advantage over (i.e. money, recruits, and facilities).
Denver is definitely a pro market, but playing CSU does nothing for CU, except, perhaps, a small monetary advantage. Nobody outside of CO watches this game with any interest. CSU doesn't bring anything recognition wise, CSU can't even fill it's stadium when Cal comes to Hughes for cryin out loud. Aside from making ~10% more in revenue, the game is a cluster for CU. Win: everyone yawns because CSU is a non-entity FB wise. Lose and it's Montana St. part two. I vote ****can the game and play a team from a BCS conference. I'd love to see CU play a ACC, Mack 10 OOC opponent every year. Maybe we could throw CSU a bone and rotate them every third year with New Mexico and Wyoming as the third OOC game.
Separate names with a comma.