NCAA vs the Big 6 conferences - a divide might be coming

[MtnBuff]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2947981
Actually we were # 49 in football overall rankings in 2007 - Right behind Colorado State.

Again, read the post. The comment was about football revenue, not percieved on field success.

On the field you can argue that the time frame covered in that article was the high point of CSU's history of football. That said they still didn't consistently sell out a small stadium, even with relatively low ticket prices.

This is all about money, that is why a school like Boise which has won more than 90% of their games would be left out and schools like Iowa State, Indiana, Vandy, etc. are in.

 

[77buff]

Again, read the post. The comment was about football revenue, not percieved on field success.

On the field you can argue that the time frame covered in that article was the high point of CSU's history of football. That said they still didn't consistently sell out a small stadium, even with relatively low ticket prices.

This is all about money, that is why a school like Boise which has won more than 90% of their games would be left out and schools like Iowa State, Indiana, Vandy, etc. are in.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sp...ke-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html
Everything I find has CU around #43 in football revenue, according to U.S. Department of Education.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

DII CSU! DII CSU! I like that chant. Even better if they hire Hawk.

 

[Daaah]

Huge difference, Title IX was seen as a womens rights issue. Regardless of the political climate of a state no politician is willing to risk alienating 1/2 of the voters who are women and a big chunk of the other half who have daughters, sisters, and wives.

What about repealing the 19th Amendment?

 

[77buff]

DII CSU! DII CSU! I like that chant. Even better if they hire Hawk.

Hawkins is big time damaged goods. Nobody is going to hire him as a head coach - maybe DII. He's laughing all the way to the bank - thanks to a contract extension by Bohn.

 

[MtnBuff]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sp...ke-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html
Everything I find has CU around #43 in football revenue, according to U.S. Department of Education.

The US DOE figures are incomplete. They also don't reflect the fact that over the past couple of years CU has been proportionately down in revenues due to their situation in the Big XII which was on the tail end of an old media package which greatly reduced total revenue. Add to that CU being in a down cycle and not have the same level of TV appearances as normal, no bowls, and the cost involved in leaving the Big XII and you see a temporary slide downwards. If you look at the historical figures over the past 20+ years CU has normally been in the top 30 and with the move to the PAC 12 will be again.

Even if somehow they were to have continued the slide and ended up around #50 that still would have put them at least 40 spots ahead of CSU in terms of revenues generated.

Beyond this CU has traditionally done well in drawing TV ratings and in having appeal an opponent when they are on the road. CSU does neither, their last bowl appearance the bowl had the second lowest ratings of any bowl that year, beating only the bowl with the Sun Belt champion.

There is a reason that the PAC 12 invited CU and not CSU, actually lots of reasons, and they all say FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE on them.

 

[MtnBuff]

What about repealing the 19th Amendment?

I'll let you try to explain to my wife why she can no longer vote, let me know when so I can have the video camera out. I'm guessing 2 million hits on YouTube the first couple days.:lol:

 

[77buff]

The US DOE figures are incomplete. They also don't reflect the fact that over the past couple of years CU has been proportionately down in revenues due to their situation in the Big XII which was on the tail end of an old media package which greatly reduced total revenue. Add to that CU being in a down cycle and not have the same level of TV appearances as normal, no bowls, and the cost involved in leaving the Big XII and you see a temporary slide downwards. If you look at the historical figures over the past 20+ years CU has normally been in the top 30 and with the move to the PAC 12 will be again.

Even if somehow they were to have continued the slide and ended up around #50 that still would have put them at least 40 spots ahead of CSU in terms of revenues generated.

Beyond this CU has traditionally done well in drawing TV ratings and in having appeal an opponent when they are on the road. CSU does neither, their last bowl appearance the bowl had the second lowest ratings of any bowl that year, beating only the bowl with the Sun Belt champion.

There is a reason that the PAC 12 invited CU and not CSU, actually lots of reasons, and they all say FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE on them.

CSU means nothing to me. I just don't think we were ever a consistent top 30 revenue producing football program with a 50,000 seat stadium. If we were I'd like to see where we ranked?
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/
$26 million is middle of the road. If we were higher in the past, I'd like to see those figures.

 

[MtnBuff]

CSU means nothing to me. I just don't think we were ever a consistent top 30 revenue producing football program with a 50,000 seat stadium. If we were I'd like to see where we ranked?

I don't have the reference in front of me at the moment but I have seen the listings. From the late 80's through the early 2000's CU was consistently in the top 30 for total football revenues. This included media revenues, ticket revenues, road payouts, bowl moneys, and other football associated revenues such as concessions, seat licenses, etc.

You have to consider that for most of this time period CU was one of the most televised programs in the country. CU also played a lot of major road games at high prices. The big differentiator (other than being in a good TV situation is that although the stadium is not large by BCS standards it was consistently close to full and at high ticket prices and substantial seat license fees, etc.

To say that we have been, and should be in the top 30 is significant. That said the gap between the schools just inside the top 30 and the schools inside the top 20 is pretty significant and the schools inside the top 10 have a huge lead. Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and some others make our revenues look like chump change. Even with that although CU is not one of the "Elite" programs, it is one of the big time programs and unless you were to cut out all but the top few CU would be included in the upper division of college football from a money standpoint.

In response to your ending statement I don't think that it is as much CU being higher in revenues in prior years as it is other schools revenues growing faster than CU. The Big XII media contract was not particularly favorable to CU in that it paid a premium to teams appearing on the major network slots and for the past 5 years CU hasn't had a lot of appeal in that regard. It was also an outdated contract well behind some other conferences. In addition while attendance at Folsom field has been fairly steady it has been inflated with seats sold at promotional prices.

With the combination of the new PAC media contract plus the reported additional conference contract money we should see a major jump in that area. If Embree and Co can bring the program back to respectability we should see the interest in CU ticket come back and see those revenues rise substantially. Either one of these factors takes your #43 ranking and moves it up at least 10 places easily.

 

[BlackNGold]

Four total BCS programs (Utah, CU, Arizona and ASU) in eight of the Mountain States? How is that anything but a wasteland? Hell the state of Iowa....Iowa mind you, would be sitting on half as many BCS programs as the states of Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico combined. That is not exactly a recipe for generating a lot of passion for college sports in this part of the country at the end of the day IMO.

My guess is pro-sports will see simply increase its hold on this state as opposed to CU seeing a large increase in overall interest in its programs simply due to the fact that it is receiving more money.

And last year there were 3 BCS programs in those States. It has been that way for years. Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana fans are not going to become CUs all of a sudden so that has nothing to do with it.

The system that is in place today is not very different than what the article is talking about. The non-BCS conferences are struggling to compete financially with the BCS schools. As the divide gets bigger with these new media contracts the situation only gets worse.

 

[77buff]

I don't have the reference in front of me at the moment but I have seen the listings. From the late 80's through the early 2000's CU was consistently in the top 30 for total football revenues. This included media revenues, ticket revenues, road payouts, bowl moneys, and other football associated revenues such as concessions, seat licenses, etc.

You have to consider that for most of this time period CU was one of the most televised programs in the country. CU also played a lot of major road games at high prices. The big differentiator (other than being in a good TV situation is that although the stadium is not large by BCS standards it was consistently close to full and at high ticket prices and substantial seat license fees, etc.

To say that we have been, and should be in the top 30 is significant. That said the gap between the schools just inside the top 30 and the schools inside the top 20 is pretty significant and the schools inside the top 10 have a huge lead. Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and some others make our revenues look like chump change. Even with that although CU is not one of the "Elite" programs, it is one of the big time programs and unless you were to cut out all but the top few CU would be included in the upper division of college football from a money standpoint.

In response to your ending statement I don't think that it is as much CU being higher in revenues in prior years as it is other schools revenues growing faster than CU. The Big XII media contract was not particularly favorable to CU in that it paid a premium to teams appearing on the major network slots and for the past 5 years CU hasn't had a lot of appeal in that regard. It was also an outdated contract well behind some other conferences. In addition while attendance at Folsom field has been fairly steady it has been inflated with seats sold at promotional prices.

With the combination of the new PAC media contract plus the reported additional conference contract money we should see a major jump in that area. If Embree and Co can bring the program back to respectability we should see the interest in CU ticket come back and see those revenues rise substantially. Either one of these factors takes your #43 ranking and moves it up at least 10 places easily.

When Rick "Slick" Neuheisel left CU to sign with Washington, he said the biggest reason he was signing with UW was that they were a have and CU was a have not. This was at a time when CU was at a peak in fan support and popularity. I would like to see some data to back up your claims that CU was a consistent top 30 revenue producing football program. CU was on national TV five times in 1998, "The Weasel's" last year as head coach.

 

[MtnBuff]

When Rick "Slick" Neuheisel left CU to sign with Washington, he said the biggest reason he was signing with UW was that they were a have and CU was a have not. This was at a time when CU was at a peak in fan support and popularity. I would like to see some data to back up your claims that CU was a consistent top 30 revenue producing football program. CU was on national TV five times in 1998, "The Weasel's" last year as head coach.

I don't have the figures for the entire time frame, just as an example however, around the time the weasel called us a have not we were in the top 25. Pasted below is a table from 2008-09,

BCS Football Programs Net Revenue
Source: U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics report for the 2008-09 school yearRankUniversityNet RevenueConference
1Texas$65.02Big 12
2Georgia$45.38SEC
3Florida$43.29SEC
4Penn State$42.63Big Ten
5LSU$39.12SEC
6Notre Dame$38.18Independent
7Alabama$38.16SEC
8Nebraska$37.29Big 12
9South Carolina$37.23SEC
10Ohio State$35.89Big Ten
11Michigan$34.21Big Ten
12Auburn$29.81SEC
13Michigan State$27.64Big Ten
14Texas A&M$22.29Big 12
15Oklahoma$21.84Big 12
16Arkansas$20.33SEC
17Tennessee$19.84SEC
18Oregon State$18.35Pac-10
19Wisconsin$17.29Big Ten
20Clemson$16.36ACC
21Minnesota$16.34Big Ten
22Washington$15.64Pac-1
023Illinois$15.22Big Ten
24Colorado$14.78Big 12
25Oklahoma State$14.04Big 12
26USC$13.83Pac-10
27Boston College$13.26ACC
28West Virginia$13.05Big Eas
t29Kentucky$12.90SEC
30Arizona State$12.64Pac-10
31Iowa$11.99Big Ten
32N.C. State$10.77ACC
33Texas Tech$9.62Big 12
34Virginia Tech$9.47AC
C35Ole Miss$9.17SEC
36Indiana$8.99Big Ten
37Oregon$8.92Pac-10
38North Carolina$8.80ACC
39California$8.62Pac-10
40Missouri$8.46Big 12
41Arizona$8.31Pac-10
42UCLA$8.25Pac-10
43Northwestern$8.22Big Ten
44Florida State$8.17ACC
45Louisville$7.43Big East
46Kansas State$7.36Big 12
47Iowa State$6.86Big 12
48Georgia Tech$6.71ACC
49Miami$6.18ACC

This table shows net revenues but shows a CU program already deep in its decline under Hawk in the top 25.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/30/for-longhorns-money-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/

The following link is for the 2004 -2005 year and I count 22 teams ahead of CU. I don't have the figures easily in front of me but I have seen the rankings over the years and CU has traditionally been at worst top 30.

http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/ncaa-football-revenue.html

 

[ScottyBuff]

When Rick "Slick" Neuheisel left CU to sign with Washington, he said the biggest reason he was signing with UW was that they were a have and CU was a have not. This was at a time when CU was at a peak in fan support and popularity. I would like to see some data to back up your claims that CU was a consistent top 30 revenue producing football program. CU was on national TV five times in 1998, "The Weasel's" last year as head coach.

Well Slick Rick did his part to bring Washington into "have not" land then.

 

[77buff]

Well Slick Rick did his part to bring Washington into "have not" land then.

This will also probably be his last year at UCLA.

 

[ScottyBuff]

This will also probably be his last year at UCLA.

We can only hope that the certain doom of hiring the Weasel will be visited upon Texas and their conference-killing ways will meet the program-killing force that only karma could have brought together!

 

[BlackNGold]

When Rick "Slick" Neuheisel left CU to sign with Washington, he said the biggest reason he was signing with UW was that they were a have and CU was a have not. This was at a time when CU was at a peak in fan support and popularity. I would like to see some data to back up your claims that CU was a consistent top 30 revenue producing football program. CU was on national TV five times in 1998, "The Weasel's" last year as head coach.

So you are basing all of you argument on someones statement (one that you rephrased) who had an agenda and was trying to justify his actions. The real story was that Tharp had told Neuheisel that he would not get one of the multi-year contracts unless the football performance on the field improved. RN's act was wearing thin and some of the boosters would of been happy to see him leave. CU is a top producer in football but lacks any reasonable revenue from any other area.

 

[Buffnik]

So you are basing all of you argument on someones statement (one that you rephrased) who had an agenda and was trying to justify his actions. The real story was that Tharp had told Neuheisel that he would not get one of the multi-year contracts unless the football performance on the field improved. RN's act was wearing thin and some of the boosters would of been happy to see him leave. CU is a top producer in football but lacks any reasonable revenue from any other area.

This is why it's such a huge deal for basketball to be on the upswing. It can take so much pressure off football revenue if we're doing well there. If we can ever get it to the point where MBB + WBB + Volleyball = Break Even, we're going to havea lot of financial breathing room even before we take the new Pac-12 media deals into consideration. If you want more sports at CU, the best way to get there is to go to some basketball games.

 

[77buff]

So you are basing all of you argument on someones statement (one that you rephrased) who had an agenda and was trying to justify his actions. The real story was that Tharp had told Neuheisel that he would not get one of the multi-year contracts unless the football performance on the field improved. RN's act was wearing thin and some of the boosters would of been happy to see him leave. CU is a top producer in football but lacks any reasonable revenue from any other area.

You obviously didn't read the links to data on CU's revenue producing that I provided - which has been middle of the road for years. They are not a top revenue producer, and as a matter of fact have been middle of the road in the Big 12. They had some productive years under Mac and a few with Neuheisel but before Mac they were never a top revenue producer. Furthermore I can't stand Neuheisel, but at that time Washington was making more revenue than CU. You don't know what in the hell you are talking about - do some research under top football revenue schools. Oh, like I have to quote Neuheisel word for word - he's a rat - end of story.
Mt. Buff did come up with data that CU was a top 30 producer in the 90's, I'll agree with him on that. I can guarantee you that was not the case until about 1989. I graduated from CU in 1977 and back then the big money makers were OU and our Red Neck friends to the east.

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/

 

[MtnBuff]

You obviously didn't read the links to data on CU's revenue producing that I provided - which has been middle of the road for years. They are not a top revenue producer, and as a matter of fact have been middle of the road in the Big 12. They had some productive years under Mac and a few with Neuheisel but before Mac they were never a top revenue producer. Furthermore I can't stand Neuheisel, but at that time Washington was making more revenue than CU. You don't know what in the hell you are talking about - do some research under top football revenue schools. Oh, like I have to quote Neuheisel word for word - he's a rat - end of story.
Mt. Buff did come up with data that CU was a top 30 producer in the 90's, I'll agree with him on that. I can guarantee you that was not the case until about 1989. I graduated from CU in 1977 and back then the big money makers were OU and our Red Neck friends to the east.

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/

Actually my data was from the 2000's although in the past I have seen the data from the 90's and the 80's and we are in the 20's throughout. If I had an easy source to get to those and show you I would at this time. I don't have the figures on Washington but they have been similar to CU over the years, in certain years I am sure ahead but not by a huge margin. Slick Rick as usual was looking for an excuse to jump ship and justify his actions in the face of breaking his word.

I haven't seen the figures (or don't remember if I did) but would assume that CU was fairly high in the 60s and 70s as well.

As far as your comment on our old Big 8 conference mates in Stinkin and abNorman I think you would easily be correct. For CU to be in the 20's in revenue is actually doing a pretty good job considering that in Colorado CU is faced with a highly migrant population and a lot of other competition for sports and recreational interest. In Nebraska there is nothing else, the college football team is the start and finish of the states sporting interest, they fill that concrete temple to soviet design to capacity for opponents that nobody has ever heard of before and if they can't get in they are watching on TV or listening on the radio. The hord of fans who manage to escape the state and go elsewhere maintain their allegiance so they tend to be a big draw on the road and nationally on TV.

OU is similar with the exception of having OSU to distract some attention as well as some diverted attention to those things happening it Texas, this is balanced by the oil money that is produced by Oklahoma and its alums.

With a decent team in the future I expect CU to remain in the top 30 as a revenue producer, do well and we should move up into the early twenties, beyond that our posibilities of moving higher are limited. We do not have the full 100k stadiums like in Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, etc. We don't have the statewide focus of a Texas or a Penn State. Compared to most of the schools playing D1 football we are a have. That said there is still a divide between us and those schools on the top of the list that go past have into being money machines.

 

[77buff]

Actually my data was from the 2000's although in the past I have seen the data from the 90's and the 80's and we are in the 20's throughout. If I had an easy source to get to those and show you I would at this time. I don't have the figures on Washington but they have been similar to CU over the years, in certain years I am sure ahead but not by a huge margin. Slick Rick as usual was looking for an excuse to jump ship and justify his actions in the face of breaking his word.

I haven't seen the figures (or don't remember if I did) but would assume that CU was fairly high in the 60s and 70s as well.

As far as your comment on our old Big 8 conference mates in Stinkin and abNorman I think you would easily be correct. For CU to be in the 20's in revenue is actually doing a pretty good job considering that in Colorado CU is faced with a highly migrant population and a lot of other competition for sports and recreational interest. In Nebraska there is nothing else, the college football team is the start and finish of the states sporting interest, they fill that concrete temple to soviet design to capacity for opponents that nobody has ever heard of before and if they can't get in they are watching on TV or listening on the radio. The hord of fans who manage to escape the state and go elsewhere maintain their allegiance so they tend to be a big draw on the road and nationally on TV.

OU is similar with the exception of having OSU to distract some attention as well as some diverted attention to those things happening it Texas, this is balanced by the oil money that is produced by Oklahoma and its alums.

With a decent team in the future I expect CU to remain in the top 30 as a revenue producer, do well and we should move up into the early twenties, beyond that our posibilities of moving higher are limited. We do not have the full 100k stadiums like in Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, etc. We don't have the statewide focus of a Texas or a Penn State. Compared to most of the schools playing D1 football we are a have. That said there is still a divide between us and those schools on the top of the list that go past have into being money machines.

That's not true at all - get out your Colorado media guide, and you will see that from 1977 - the year I graduated from CU until 1990 season home attendance was less than 50,000. In 81, 83, 84, 85, 88 home attendance was in the 30's. Also, in 79, 80, 82, 86, 87 attendance was in the low 40's. That's 10 years where their is no way in hell we were a top revenue producer. I got these figures out of a CU media guide - so check it out yourself. Plus there is a huge disparity in revenue between middle producers depending upon which conference your team is in. Middle procucers in the SEC and Big 10 make much more money than CU. I'm through debating this - believe what you want, but the truth is CU never was a consistent top 30 money maker outside of the Mac era.

 

[Wyo Buff]

Buffs and Utes will rule the mountain region and the rest of the schools will ****ing die off

Sounds good to me!

They won't die they will be reborn in a form they can afford and a form that will still provide good football. They will simply look a lot like D1-AA schools and the fan-base will actually end up being better served. They will be more competitive and will be able to take more "local" recruits. I think it is natural and right. I'm just glad CU is one of the "big boys."

 

[MtnBuff]

That's not true at all - get out your Colorado media guide, and you will see that from 1977 - the year I graduated from CU until 1990 season home attendance was less than 50,000. In 81, 83, 84, 85, 88 home attendance was in the 30's. Also, in 79, 80, 82, 86, 87 attendance was in the low 40's. That's 10 years where their is no way in hell we were a top revenue producer. I got these figures out of a CU media guide - so check it out yourself. Plus there is a huge disparity in revenue between middle producers depending upon which conference your team is in. Middle procucers in the SEC and Big 10 make much more money than CU. I'm through debating this - believe what you want, but the truth is CU never was a consistent top 30 money maker outside of the Mac era.

First you said that the Buffs were never in the top 30, I proved otherwise, then you said it was only once or twice, I proved otherwise. I don't have the time or inclination to bother proving you wrong again but simple fact is that CU has historically been a top 30 revenue producing program. There have been a few times when they were outside of that number but those are far and away the exception. I have seen the numbers on paper, this is not just supposition. I would love it if CU were a top 20 or top 10 revenue producer but they are not and are a substantial distance from those programs but top 30 is a reality and should continue to be a reality.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

First you said that the Buffs were never in the top 30, I proved otherwise, then you said it was only once or twice, I proved otherwise. I don't have the time or inclination to bother proving you wrong again but simple fact is that CU has historically been a top 30 revenue producing program. There have been a few times when they were outside of that number but those are far and away the exception. I have seen the numbers on paper, this is not just supposition. I would love it if CU were a top 20 or top 10 revenue producer but they are not and are a substantial distance from those programs but top 30 is a reality and should continue to be a reality.

How about we raise a glass to the Buffs consistently being in the top 30 in future years and be done with this nonsensical debate that has been going just a few days too long...

 

[MtnBuff]

How about we raise a glass to the Buffs consistently being in the top 30 in future years and be done with this nonsensical debate that has been going just a few days too long...

Do you one better, lets raise a glass to the Buffs being back in the rankings on the field were they belong. We are one of the top 20 teams of all time in wins but haven't done a lot lately to maintain that spot. Time to get back to winning a bunch more games than we lose again.

 

[77buff]

First you said that the Buffs were never in the top 30, I proved otherwise, then you said it was only once or twice, I proved otherwise. I don't have the time or inclination to bother proving you wrong again but simple fact is that CU has historically been a top 30 revenue producing program. There have been a few times when they were outside of that number but those are far and away the exception. I have seen the numbers on paper, this is not just supposition. I would love it if CU were a top 20 or top 10 revenue producer but they are not and are a substantial distance from those programs but top 30 is a reality and should continue to be a reality.

Maybe you can explain how a team that drew in the 30's and low 40's for the 10 years I documented from the CU media guide produced enough revenue to be in the top 30? CU has had many other seasons where home attendence made it impossible for them to produce that kind of revenue. And I never said they were never in the top 30. I said they were never a consistent top 30 in revenue. Lastly, are you going to tell me that if CU's program has produced that kind of money consistently that the university has never built an indoor practice facility to take care of a cash cow like that? Show me some data that we have been in the top 30 the last
6 straight years? And provide links to prove it's not BS.
Explain this? A weight training facility with one dumbell in the 80's - "rock bottom" says Embree, but you say consistent top 30 money producer?
http://www.coloradanmagazine.org/2011/03/01/cu-strives-to-level-the-playing-field/

 

[MtnBuff]

I have seen the figures on paper from credible sources, I am not going to bother digging those out for you but if you would wish to find real statistics that counter this I would be happy to consider it. You are confusing attendance with revenue. We all know that there are a number of programs that fill 70k, 80k or 100k stadiums for each home game. There aren't however that many of those. many more teams have attendance similar or even less than CU has had over the years. What you are also failing to consider is that attendance and revenue are not the same thing. CU has consistently maintained a higher ticket cost than most of the other teams with similar attendance and even higher ticket prices than many schools that sell more tickets. CU also has done very well in terms of seat licenses, and other stadium revenues. The big factor is that in the old Big 8/12 the media contracts have always rewarded those schools that made multiple appearances on national TV and CU has always been a popular choice for those games.

Your comment on the indoor practice facility would have some weight if you ignore the fact that CU has in other ways been out front on some spending areas. When the Dal Ward center was built it was a leap ahead of much of college football, CU also has higher expenses due to travel and recuiting cost due to location. The biggest factor is that football revenue at CU is relied upon to carry the entire athletic department budget. At many schools basketball can be relied upon to provide at least some funding, at CU it has been a drag on the budget instead of contributing. Womens basketball and volleyball also produce less revenue than at many similar schools to CU. My statement which I stand by deals stricktly with football revenue, not total AD revenue or football budget.

At this point if you can provide some quantifiable evidence to counter to numbers I have seen I will be happy to consider, otherwise I am through with this discussion and will follow the excellent suggestion of TimmyDUBs and focus on the Buffs getting back into an upcycle in winning on the field again. We are also one of the 20 winningest programs of all time (or were before our recently departed coach gave everyone else five years to catch up) and I look forward to us getting back to adding substantially to those win totals each year.

 

[77buff]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sp...ke-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/
http://buffzone.pmpblogs.com/2010/10/22/cu-facing-revenue-challenges/
http://www.cuatthegame.com/2011/the-colorado-daily-march/

 

[MtnBuff]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sp...ke-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/

Again interesting but doesn't contradict what I have seen and said. The first link has nothing about top football revenue producers, the second deals with overall revenues (thus the presence of Kansas in the top 20, they make a ton on basketball) and the third again not showing the listing of top revenue producers but by logic if CU is in the middle of the third highest revenue conference it would put CU in the top 30.

 

[77buff]

Again interesting but doesn't contradict what I have seen and said. The first link has nothing about top football revenue producers, the second deals with overall revenues (thus the presence of Kansas in the top 20, they make a ton on basketball) and the third again not showing the listing of top revenue producers but by logic if CU is in the middle of the third highest revenue conference it would put CU in the top 30.

Bull **** - the Forbes article clearly states football revenue. You haven't provided one link that proves anything you have said.
Anybody can shoot off his mouth without backing it up. You still haven' responded to Coach Embree's statements about how bad conditions were throughout the 80's.

 

[Buffnik]

CU's issue in revenue is not with football and I'm not sure that it ever has been. Every time I see a list, we seem to be a Top 30 football revenue program. It's not where it should be (never has been), but it just goes to show how much opportunity there is if we do a better job of maximizing the football asset while also growing our basketball program and donation levels. CU is literally a sleeping giant.