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!
Future of football series vs CSU
- Thread starter cmgoods
- Start date
There will never be such a thing as a new team for me. Colorado is in my blood.
'Twas a joke. When we're firing on all cylinders these games will be great
That's what you think this is about?
As expensive as it is to have season tickets, I want to see interesting games. I also want to see the University of Colorado doing what is necessary to be good enough to win most of those games.
I'm ok with this creampuff scheduling we've had during the rebuild. I support it, but I don't really like it. Glad to see that RG is easing our way out of that.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Standard Operating Procedure for OOC should not sustain the cupcake approach that CU is doing as part of the rebuild. Going forward CU can do better.
This pansy scheduling we have now was deployed for the single purpose of helping CU become bowl eligible. Guess what happened? Failure. CU failed to get to a bowl game with cream puffs. And CU missed out on revenue at home due to poor attendance against no-name teams. And CU missed out on engaging an optimum number of CU fans during away games due to the scheduling of pillow fights in obscure locations. And CU failed to generate additional TV exposure that comes from playing teams that can draw a good TV audience.
This patsy scheduling added up to millions in lost revenue plus additional loss of brand equity. The OOC schedule ADDED to CU's irrelevancy. It did not facilitate any aspect of the rebuild.
Nothing good came from scheduling cream puffs and CSU over the past six seasons.
That is six seasons of OCC pissed down the drain.
This pansy scheduling we have now was deployed for the single purpose of helping CU become bowl eligible. Guess what happened? Failure. CU failed to get to a bowl game with cream puffs. And CU missed out on revenue at home due to poor attendance against no-name teams. And CU missed out on engaging an optimum number of CU fans during away games due to the scheduling of pillow fights in obscure locations. And CU failed to generate additional TV exposure that comes from playing teams that can draw a good TV audience.
This patsy scheduling added up to millions in lost revenue plus additional loss of brand equity. The OOC schedule ADDED to CU's irrelevancy. It did not facilitate any aspect of the rebuild.
Nothing good came from scheduling cream puffs and CSU over the past six seasons.
That is six seasons of OCC pissed down the drain.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can never tell, you have such a visceral reaction to any talk of adding tougher teams to the schedule. Can never understand it.
Then it appears that you have not read or understood any of my posts in this thread
I just think the fact that we're already playing 1 more (sometimes 2 more) P5 opponent/s every year than the SEC and Big 10 schools, by nature of our conference, makes people question why adding 1-2 more P5 games per year makes sense competitively. I would love for CU to have 1 marquee, OOC game per year with 2 or 3 more "Hawaii, CSU, Fresno, Wyoming, AF, etc."
If by 2020 CU is talked about in the national conversation, why would we want to be at a competitive disadvantage to SEC and Big 10 schools who only play 9 P5 games a year?
You think we are at a severe competitive disadvantage. I got that part, but beyond that point, it really does seem like you enjoy tougher non-conference games.
For the 3 games, I'd like to see 1 P5 bowl level opponent, 1 P5 mediocre or lower opponent and then 1 G5 that is strategically located (Hawai'i, Tulane, SMU, San Diego State, etc.).
So something like aTm, Kansas, and SDSU?
Deleted member 807
Guest
The alternative is being known as the school that screwed the pooch against Montana State, Sacramento State, Hawaii, Fresno State and Toledo. Those close shave wins against Eastern Washington and UMass, didn't look good and didn't help in getting to a bowl game.
The odds are long that CU will get screwed out of a playoffs opportunity in 2020 because of tough OOC scheduling. It's best to put LSU and Ole Miss on the schedule, hope for the upset, and just move on from pussy non-con arrangements.
Yeah.
Or Georgia, Wake Forest and Rice (to give an example where location isn't necessarily factored into the P5 selection).
Exactly. That is not exactly a daunting slate. But people will freak out due to TWO P5 teams being on the schedule.
Assuming we're good enough to be close to a college football playoff birth, we wouldn't be losing to FCS teams. Playing LSU and Ole Miss along with our conference slate, the odds are that CU would end up with a loss or two on their record and get screwed out of the playoff that way.
I've accepted that we are going to be playing one P5 team OOC regardless, none of my posts in this thread are about that one game, it's about adding another for no reason. it's not going to be healthy for the program in the long run to be running schedules that are comprised of 91.7% P5 teams when few, if any other P5 teams are doing the same. This isn't 1990 anymore.
Georgia series was great a few years ago. Athens is a great college town, easy to get to by air, and I spend early September there every year. :thumbsup:
fify
The deeper we get into the offseason the more people go off the deep end even when the discussion is about things that aren't going to happen in the near future or that may never happen.
Ideas are also taken way out of context.
My understanding is that we may be seeing certain OOC scheduling changes imposed by the PAC12. This means that everyone in the league will be impacted, not just us. This makes a lot of sense from the standpoint that OOC schedules can have a big impact on how the league is percieved nationally. Also it has an impact on the TV desirability.
The yearly games between USC, Stanford, and sometimes UCLA against Notre Dame bring the conference a lot of attention. The Oregon win over Michigan State had a huge number of mentions last year whenever playoff position was mentioned.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else. Other than CU being from my native state, there was one reason I started following. They would play anyone, anyplace, anytime. That was enough. Didn't realize it mistyped, my fault.
Last edited:
LOL, come on Duff. This whole debate was sparked by the notion that, along with our 9 game conference schedule, CU could be playing BOTH aTm and TCU in the same season. There's a difference between that and the slate Buffnik or I listed.
smh.
Did I miss the part where Texas A&M is anything special outside of one great player over the last two decades? Not as much difference as you think. The other part of this is people acting like playing a good to very good G5 is such a big step down from the mediocre to bad P5 teams.
I'd certainly rather take my chances against Northwestern instead of East Carolina. Especially if doing so actually carries a perception of having played more of a "big boy" schedule.
Schedule whoever, I love that. Damn, now our fans are scared lol. Jk.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Many assumed this conventional wisdom in 2005 and 2006. Turns out this thinking was neither conventional nor wise.
Loser teams churn out loser fans. tini keeps telling us that it isn't 1990 any longer. We know, we used to be good back then.
I say bring it on but that's me.