Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

CSU going bankrupt? lolno

OMFGasm said:
That looks like a nice increase in attendance to me. Just what ICON said. Thanks for proving my point
Click to expand...
Seattle Population: 600,000.
FoCo Population: 150,000.

Again, no one is disputing that the new stadium will result in at least a small bump in attendance. It is the HUGE INCREASE that is being disputed. Given the population issues, I bet you get a 3-4k bump, mostly from students. That gets you up to 24k. :woot:
 
BuffNut99 said:
1. Your new coach is not named, and cannot be named, "Coach Mac." In case it comes up down the road, your RBs cannot be nicknamed "Whizzer" or "Speedy." And your LBs from Highlands Ranch cannot be named the "H Boys."

2. Scheduling better opponents is actually quite difficult these days. Here are your future schedules:


2013
08/31 - Colorado (Denver)
09/07- at Tulsa
09/14 - Cal Poly
09/21 - UTEP
09/28 - TBA or open date or MWC

2014
08/30 - Colorado (Denver)
09/06- Tulsa
09/13 - TBA or open date or MWC
09/20 - at UTEP
09/27 - TBA or open date or MWC

2015
09/05 - TBA
09/12- Minnesota
09/19 - Colorado (Denver)
09/26 - TBA or open date or MWC
10/03 - at Texas-San Antonio

2016
09/03 - Colorado (Denver)
09/10- TBA
09/17 - TBA or open date or MWC
09/24 - at Minnesota
10/01 - Texas-San Antonio

So, you are currently scheduling home-and-homes with the likes of Tulsa, Minnesota, and UT-SA. Those TBA dates, if you went after quality opponents (and/or big paydays), would only result in one-off away games (see Colorado @ Ohio State, 2011). Maybe you could grab some BCS teams to do 2-for-1s. But even if you pull off the stadium, your quality opponents won't start rolling into town for several years, best case scenario (due to how far out these contracts are signed). And if you take those 2-for-1s, you'll be getting you teeth kicked in on the away dates (and I think everyone is in agreement that CSU needs to start winning consistently to generate the revenue necessary to keep the stadium from being a financial pitfall).

I'll go on the record that I want to see CSU build a new stadium and have it succeed. The only way I see it succeeding are through 1) huge private donations and 2) a consistently full stadium, beyond the honeymoon phase. Considering how hard it has been for CU to get large private donations (and from a larger and wealthier alumni base), I'm not sure I see how CSU is going to get that kind of money (from a smaller and relatively poorer alumni base), unless Graham himself writes a HUGE check. I don't doubt that a new stadium would sell out the first year. But if the team struggles, you're looking at a North Texas-type situation.
Click to expand...

I really think CSU should focus on working Boise State and BYU back into the OOC schedule on a consistent basis. You likely would not have to do 2-1s and those fan bases travel as well as most Big 12 and Pac-12 programs.
 
Darth Snow said:
"Independently Verified" mean anything to you? How about "Sales Pitch"?
Click to expand...
And yet you could find any of that information on the school's website. How much $ they got from sponsorship/naming rights, # and $ of loge box, box seats, attendance increase.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
Scheduling better opponents sounds nice, but you are MWC and you get to play teams like UNLV, UNM, Nevada, and if you do merge with Conf USA those UAB, and UTEP games should be a really hot ticket. Just because you build a new stadium BCS teams are not going to line up to play there. Again you did not sell out the Cal or Univ of Minn games that you did host. You averaged around 22k for your conference games and have averaged that number for years. Do you honestly think a new stadium playing the same conference games will result in an increase in attendance of 60%.

Are you really trying to compare CSU football and a new stadium to the Rockies and Coors Field?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the feasibility study came down from God and placed in a burning shrubbery within the awesome Hughes landscaping. It was beautiful, divine, and really, really BOLD.

To challenge the premise of the feasibility study is downright blasphemous.

37,000 fans. Every game. No excuses. So it is said, so it shall be done.
 
BuffNut99 said:
1. Your new coach is not named, and cannot be named, "Coach Mac." In case it comes up down the road, your RBs cannot be nicknamed "Whizzer" or "Speedy." And your LBs from Highlands Ranch cannot be named the "H Boys."

2. Scheduling better opponents is actually quite difficult these days. Here are your future schedules:


2013
08/31 - Colorado (Denver)
09/07- at Tulsa
09/14 - Cal Poly
09/21 - UTEP
09/28 - TBA or open date or MWC

2014
08/30 - Colorado (Denver)
09/06- Tulsa
09/13 - TBA or open date or MWC
09/20 - at UTEP
09/27 - TBA or open date or MWC

2015
09/05 - TBA
09/12- Minnesota
09/19 - Colorado (Denver)
09/26 - TBA or open date or MWC
10/03 - at Texas-San Antonio

2016
09/03 - Colorado (Denver)
09/10- TBA
09/17 - TBA or open date or MWC
09/24 - at Minnesota
10/01 - Texas-San Antonio

So, you are currently scheduling home-and-homes with the likes of Tulsa, Minnesota, and UT-SA. Those TBA dates, if you went after quality opponents (and/or big paydays), would only result in one-off away games (see Colorado @ Ohio State, 2011). Maybe you could grab some BCS teams to do 2-for-1s. But even if you pull off the stadium, your quality opponents won't start rolling into town for several years, best case scenario (due to how far out these contracts are signed). And if you take those 2-for-1s, you'll be getting you teeth kicked in on the away dates (and I think everyone is in agreement that CSU needs to start winning consistently to generate the revenue necessary to keep the stadium from being a financial pitfall).

I'll go on the record that I want to see CSU build a new stadium and have it succeed. The only way I see it succeeding are through 1) huge private donations and 2) a consistently full stadium, beyond the honeymoon phase. Considering how hard it has been for CU to get large private donations (and from a larger and wealthier alumni base), I'm not sure I see how CSU is going to get that kind of money (from a smaller and relatively poorer alumni base), unless Graham himself writes a HUGE check. I don't doubt that a new stadium would sell out the first year. But if the team struggles, you're looking at a North Texas-type situation.
Click to expand...

Good post. I do think CSU has some high dollar donors lined up however (which is infuriating that CU can't find a few themselves).
 
CsquaredCC said:
I really think CSU should focus on working Boise State and BYU back into the OOC schedule on a consistent basis. You likely would not have to do 2-1s and those fan bases travel as well as most Big 12 and Pac-12 programs.
Click to expand...

BYU travels reasonably well to Colorado, lots of LDS here. Saying Boise travels comparable to Big XII or PAC 12 fanbases is giving you the benefit of a doubt a stretch. How many games against BYU did the Rams draw over 30k in the history of that series. Boise has some trouble filling their own 35,000 seat bandbox much less traveling well.

Unless you can get Nebraska to come in on a regular basis counting on your opponent to fill your stadium is a losing proposition.
 
OMFGasm said:
And yet you could find any of that information on the school's website. How much $ they got from sponsorship/naming rights, # and $ of loge box, box seats, attendance increase.
Click to expand...
I also saw a projection of 45-200 million in private donations. CSU hasn't even begun to ask for donations according to the reports from the president. And again, we've already said that all of those projections smack of absolute best case scenarios.

BTW, your average attendance is around 20k right? They projected a 22% increase in attendance based on the new stadium. 22% of 20k is 4,400. 24,400 attendance in your brand spanking new stadium is not going to get you anywhere near the max #s those guys are using for things like naming rights, boxes, etc. House of cards.
 
MtnBuff said:
BYU travels reasonably well to Colorado, lots of LDS here. Saying Boise travels comparable to Big XII or PAC 12 fanbases is giving you the benefit of a doubt a stretch. How many games against BYU did the Rams draw over 30k in the history of that series. Boise has some trouble filling their own 35,000 seat bandbox much less traveling well.

Unless you can get Nebraska to come in on a regular basis counting on your opponent to fill your stadium is a losing proposition.
Click to expand...

I would have to look at the BYU numbers. I don't know them off hand. However, I was at the Boise game last season. They brought around 5k. It was a solid showing.
 
OMFGasm said:
They said that was for the first year. And well if the RMS if moved there that is 44,800 right there (2k SRO). All depends on the quality of the team/opponents. But JG already stated he is going to schedule better opponents and the team will get better under Coach Sparkles.

A new stadium on-campus will obviously see a net increase in attendance just by pure quality/location (see Coors). 37k seems reasonable
Click to expand...

One thing about scheduling better opponents, as already mentioned. They have to agree to come to FoCo. Here's a hint - the ones that do are going to have CSU playing at their place twice for every trip to Odell Brewing Co. Stadium. Which means fewer chances to bring "big name" teams to town. See how that works? No, of course you don't... :lol:

Let me just share with you. I have been down this road before. I was on a board looking into building a new building for a church. We had a consulting firm do a feasibility study. That had a really fabulous track record on these things. We know because they told us so. And guess what? According to them, the decision to build was a slam dunk. A new building would increase our attendance by 200%, in spite of the fact that our current group was aging and attendance had been declining for years. And those new people were going to contribute to us at a pace that current members who were fairly well off and had been around for 50 years couldn't match. Why were those new people going to come? Why were they going to give us all that money? Were they going to stay around once the next new building came along? Well, they just were, that's why. You don't question these things, because the study says it will be so.

So when you say Icon predicts all these things, it makes me a laugh a little bit. As several people have already told you, that is what these people predict. It is what they do. Look at ICON's website. They offer services from this point in the process all the way through construction. If they say at this point that you can't pay for the stadium, they get no work from the rest of the project...

CsquaredCC said:
I think you can count on an increase in student attendance especially as the enrollment continues to grow towards the goal of 35k. After that, it seems hard to predict. What would be interesting those first two years is to see if you get an increase in opponent's attendance like WYO fans and AFA fans who may make the trip to check out the new facility.
Click to expand...

What do CSU student tickets cost? If a big part of the increase in attendance comes from students (which I agree seems pretty likely), how much would the other tickets have to cost to meet the ticket price averages Icon is assuming?
 
OMFGasm said:
That looks like a nice increase in attendance to me. Just what ICON said. Thanks for proving my point
Click to expand...

What you fail to realize is their average attendance has fallen drastically. "Thursday marked the 20th home game in the $634 million facility’s young history, and turnout (announced generously as 24,099) was strong, but not spectacular. It marked the seventh consecutive time the Marlins drew under 30,000 after exceeding that figure in 10 of their first 13 games." While you can't generally compare football/baseball attendance figures you can compare historical numbers between the fan bases. The Marlins have averaged around 19k for the last 10 years and now with a new stadium they are trending back towards that number because the area does not care about baseball. CSU might see a bump for a few games with a new stadium but at the end of the year you have no fan base. There is a reason that you only average 22k per game. It is because that is how many people care about seeing your product. At you pinnacle you did not sell out the current stadium because people in the region don't care about CSU football.
 
I look forward to the Fort Collins community going ape **** when this becomes a huge waste of money and the projections are wrong for attendance.
 
I would imagine a bump in attendance from being on campus. This bump could be ongoing as well.

I could see a short term bump from new stadium aspect.

The real, meaningful, long-term attendance bump would likely only come from on field success and attractive opponents.

I see where they are going with this. Build the stadium - achieve on field success - invitation to major conference. If all of that happens I could see a sustained bump in attendance. A lot of ifs, but you've got to at least try if that's where you want to be.
 
CUFan said:
I would imagine a bump in attendance from being on campus. This bump could be ongoing as well.

I could see a short term bump from new stadium aspect.

The real, meaningful, long-term attendance bump would likely only come from on field success and attractive opponents.

I see where they are going with this. Build the stadium - achieve on field success - invitation to major conference. If all of that happens I could see a sustained bump in attendance. A lot of ifs, but you've got to at least try if that's where you want to be.
Click to expand...

If the bump is purely from students, then they're in trouble. They need alums from Denver to come up, regularly.
 
While on the crapper, I read the DP story. Apparently at the epic Ft. Fun town meeting, some were ther with "Save our Stadium" shirts, while others were wearing the "Be Bold" slogan. Another layer of hilarity adds on to the mess when you consider ther isn't necssarily a united front on this.

Goat on goat conflict is pretty entertaining.

Signed, Mike Orapko.
 
Junction said:
So when you say Icon predicts all these things, it makes me a laugh a little bit. As several people have already told you, that is what these people predict. It is what they do. Look at ICON's website. They offer services from this point in the process all the way through construction. If they say at this point that you can't pay for the stadium, they get no work from the rest of the project...
Click to expand...

This is the entire issue with giving any credibility to this report.

If it is such a slam dunk ask ICON to guarantee their work. Put them on the hook for $100 million if the projections don't work out and the stadium doesn't generate the revenue streams to pay for itself. If they are so sure of their work this shouldn't be a problem.

Before advancing further it might be a good idea to check the consulting report that said the E-470 would not only pay for itself but probably require expansion to handle the traffic within 10 years of opening. Check the consultants report that told the city of Colorado Springs that building a new concourse on the airport would insure their status as a hub and drive airport traffic to record levels.

If you haven't noticed E-470 is mostly vacant asphalt despite promotion and advertising and the additional concourse at the Colorado Springs airport is closed off and gathering dust. I am sure that other posters here could name multiple other projects that had glowing prospects according to the consultants reports that never came to pass.
 
this thread is a bit hard to follow in terms of logic, but if I am reading everything correctly. Last year we averaged 50,355 fans at Folsom Field. If we build a new practice facility, club/suite seating in Balch and enclose the north zone we can expect a 22% increase in attendance (maybe more if we can plant some shrubs). Well check this out 50,355 *22% = 91,000 fans next year. HOLY COW!!!!! that would put us #1 in the PAC for attendance.
 
tante said:
this thread is a bit hard to follow in terms of logic, but if I am reading everything correctly. Last year we averaged 50,355 fans at Folsom Field. If we build a new practice facility, club/suite seating in Balch and enclose the north zone we can expect a 22% increase in attendance (maybe more if we can plant some shrubs). Well check this out 50,355 *22% = 91,000 fans next year. HOLY COW!!!!! that would put us #1 in the PAC for attendance.
Click to expand...
I don't math good, but something isn't adding up for me here :lol:
 
My understanding is that the 37k is the high end of a few different models used with a 22% attendance increase being predicted based on metrics generated from other similar projects. Here is my understanding of what was presented and how the attendance numbers were arrived at:

22% higher than the average for the last three years as the low estimate.
22% higher than the 10 year average as the middle estimate.
22% higher than the best year during the last 10 years as the high estimate.

That results in attendance numbers from 28K to 37K.
 
Last edited:
MtnBuff said:
This is the entire issue with giving any credibility to this report.

If it is such a slam dunk ask ICON to guarantee their work. Put them on the hook for $100 million if the projections don't work out and the stadium doesn't generate the revenue streams to pay for itself. If they are so sure of their work this shouldn't be a problem.

Before advancing further it might be a good idea to check the consulting report that said the E-470 would not only pay for itself but probably require expansion to handle the traffic within 10 years of opening. Check the consultants report that told the city of Colorado Springs that building a new concourse on the airport would insure their status as a hub and drive airport traffic to record levels.

If you haven't noticed E-470 is mostly vacant asphalt despite promotion and advertising and the additional concourse at the Colorado Springs airport is closed off and gathering dust. I am sure that other posters here could name multiple other projects that had glowing prospects according to the consultants reports that never came to pass.
Click to expand...

That's my thinking - Anybody have access to a "Feasibility Study" for RTD Lightrail, circa 1999?
 
tante said:
this thread is a bit hard to follow in terms of logic, but if I am reading everything correctly. Last year we averaged 50,355 fans at Folsom Field. If we build a new practice facility, club/suite seating in Balch and enclose the north zone we can expect a 22% increase in attendance (maybe more if we can plant some shrubs). Well check this out 50,355 *22% = 91,000 fans next year. HOLY COW!!!!! that would put us #1 in the PAC for attendance.
Click to expand...

And CSU considers it's engineering school and it's business school to be among the highlights of their academic offerings. I guess they have a new required class in each program
MTH 2035 Rammy Math A comprehensive course in how to make numbers that make no sense whatsover fit into the context of your irrational argument.
 
What's bothering me most about the CSU viewpoint is that it's the exact same logic used by Congress. Borrow heavily to buy stuff that pleases your constituency, tell everyone you have projections that show it will stimulate revenue and bring on the boon times... go $16 trillion in debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top