Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by ximianKernel, Dec 28, 2011.
If this means ANOTHER game at mile high, I ****ing hate it. Please kill college football in NFL stadiums.
I agree, but it could we worse if we get paired with Purdue in West Lafayette, IN. Yuck!
I hate it.
Yeah, but if we are playing Michigan at Soldier field rather than getting to go to the big house again, that would be totally lame. I would not have flown accross the country to see the game vs Ohio Stank last year if we had been playing them in Kansas City instead of the hoseshoe. Why kill what is great about college football?
Rose bowl idea: pretty cool. Playing big 10 OOC, pretty cool. Playing in NFL stadiums, AWFUL idea that I'm sure AD's will fall all over themselves to support because of the supposed windfall.
The only way the NFL stadium thing is a positive is if it gives us leverage to break the ****** contract with CSU, at least for our home games.
Looking forward to watching CU play the korn in Indianapolis :rolling_eyes:
as always, it's all about the $
My main problem here with this is: We now have 10 "league mandated" games out of 12. With a full Pac 12 schedule, a Pac mandated B1G opponent and possibly CSU this leaves little to no room for flexibility or fancy OOC games. I´d maybe like to play some SEC or ACC teams one day down the road and this partnership pretty much squashes that dream.
Assuming 9 pac-12 games, a big 10 game, and CSU, we still have an extra game left. With the addition of the Big 10 game, though, that last slot really needs to be a cupcake.
All the more reason to end the series with the lambs
That contract run through 2019?
I think it's a great idea.... assuming we drop the in-conference slate to 8. And allowing for the vast majority of games to be played at college stadiums, if not all.
michigan should come here
I have the same problem. I mean, realilstically, it means we have one open game a season that needs to be scheduled vs a patsy. If this happens, it needs to take the place of one pac 12 game. Even that sucks, though, if it means taking a game out of california.
I looked it up on Wiki.... Game is scheduled at Invesco until 2019. 2020 is TBA
September 1, 2012Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverAugust 31, 2013Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverAugust 30, 2014Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverSeptember 19, 2015Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverSeptember 3, 2016Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverSeptember 2, 2017Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverSeptember 1, 2018Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverAugust 31, 2019Sports Authority Field at Mile High, DenverSeptember 5, 2020TBD
By the time this rolls out in 2017, I fully anticipate that CSU will count as our 1AA warm up game.
The 2020 game is scheduled to be in Ft. Fun unless we extend the deal, thereby pushing it to a different site.
Sounds like another move towards the breakaway from the current FBS system to a new level of 64 teams.
If they don't schedule this one as the first interleague matchup for both teams, and put it at Invesco, they are morons....
I would much rather have a home and away at the home team stadium. Would love to play Wisconsin in Madison and then have them come here.
Indiana at CU in INvesco will be a hot seller. :lol:
Bohn is soooo bad at negotiating. SO bad. Why allow the contract to have a mini poison pill to incentivize us to extend? WTF
U guys need to drop it. CU is going to keep playing CSU for the time being unless we start embarrassing them 50-0 year after year and CSU wants out. There is no hard nosed negotiating to be done when both schools want to play each other.
Quit ****ing bitching about CSU and deal with it. At this point CU needs as many possible wins they can get in a season.
Absolutely correct. He did get us into a lame conference without any hullabaloo (eg. Missouri, A&M). :rolling_eyes:
I gotta agree with you on this one.
From other sites I have been reading and knowing someone in the Athletic department this idea of having a neutral site game is not something that will be happening for all schools. It was more of a thought to get maybe one or two of the interconference games at a acceptable neutral site. I think that basically means nothing is gonna happen for CU. They are gonna do things like put Michigan, OSU or Penn State vs Oregon, Cal or USC in a site like the Rose Bowl or maybe Indy. Honestly I bet part of the goal of the Big10 doing this is to get exposure in Cali for recruiting purposes. So I am guessing they are wanting to schedule one of the Big10 big boys against any cali school and it wouldn't shock me if they wanted to play the game in cali most years. And with CSU already being neutral site I don't think Bohn would be stupid enough to commit CU to playing another neutral site game. Having only 4-5 games at Folsom is unacceptable and I am sure Bohn would not do that. What I do think this means is there is a descent good chance that CU and NU would request to play each other on a regular basis (maybe every other year or something). The only part about the Big12 I miss was our annual game with the corn.... and if this gets us the ability to play them every few years I am all for it. Yes it does eliminate our flexibility in scheduling.... but lets be honest is there anyone you would rather go to Folsom and see than Nebraska? And I think it also opens up the opportunity for us to dump CSU in a few years. As for that one other game we would have every year..... I think it should be a semi-cupcake. I don't wanna go to Boulder to us take on teams like North Texas or La Lafayette etc. But I think playing a team like Fresno St or one of the lesser Big East or SEC schools like Vanderbilt would be great. Winnable game and still a big enough program that it is fun to watch.
Bohn did say that he wouldn't have done this deal if he knew that the Pac-12 was going to happen the way it has. CU's motivation for the RMS no longer exists. To say that both CU and CSU still want this game is not entirely accurate.
Separate names with a comma.