I think a lot of people are allowing their distaste for CSU fans cloud their judgement of the institution itself. It's not a bad school. In fact, it's pretty good. Colorado wouldn't be as strong as it is, economically, if not for the high level of higher education offered here. CSU is a solid school with a piss poor athletic department.
No kidding. Hey, I'm no fan of theirs either but I'm able to step back and think of what CSU *COULD* be if it had better leadership. And it wouldn't take much to start turning things around. They have a huge advantage already -- being one of the two big state schools in a state. As you look across conference standings, you'll see a lot of "University of" and "______ State University" names out there, which is for a reason: that's where the state's populations focus on sending their kids to school and have the support of the state funding apparatus (no matter how small). So, just based off that, CSU has a shot.
It sounds like sacky and I are the visionaries on this board on this topic. If he and I ran the school we'd get it going in the right direction for sure.
I think you're being a little short sighted. As an example, I give you Utah. 20 years ago, Utah was in the exact same spot CSU is in today. They made a serious commitment to athletics, and got a little lucky with the Olympics building them some new facilities. Now they're in the Pac 12. As they stand today, CSU doesn't offer much to a BCS conference other than some alumni and the promise of a lot of TVs in the Denver market. If (and I agree it's a huge IF) they can make the same kind of commitment that Utah made 20 years ago, there is the potential for them to move up in the world. The problem is that I just don't get the impression that their leadership is willing to do what it takes.
Do you want to know what's the difference-maker between one school and another? Conference affiliation. They're pretty respected now and have great facilities, but for a long time Oklahoma State was a joke. In fact, other than its Big Eight history, it really had no business being in the Big 12. But they improved Gallagher-Iba Arena by doubling its seating and adding facilities inside the new walls. Then, Daddy BooneBucks started to make it rain in Stillwater and now its football team is consistently in the Top 20. I realize that situation of a major benefactor enters the scene and changes it all is rare and CSU likely doesn't have that option, but the point is this: if one backwater ag school can turn it around, so can CSU, a school in a much better state closer to a great metro area.
You all know my arguments at this point. CSU is in a perfect spot. An hour from a major metro area, large alumni base, desireable location. CSU has invested nearly $100 Million in campus upgrades with more to come. I think CSU realizes the clock is running. The most interesting comment from the attached article is that CSU is planning to increase enrollment significantly over the next few years. Rumors are CSU is targeting somewhere in the 35,000 range for on-campus enrollment. There are also preliminary discussions of a stadium expansion somewhere in the 45,000 capcacity range. However, with limited support from alumni and no large television payouts its difficult to make the needed investment. If the A&M is out of the Big12, CSU will be in the conversation as a potential replacement, but only if the league expands to 12 or more. I think the people making the decisions realize this could be CSU's one and only opportunity. Things will have to break the right way in terms of realignment, but I think there is an outside shot CSU becomes a part of the Big12 and would probably see and increase in revenue in the range of 5 times what the University is seeing now on an annual basis.
http://coloradoan.com/article/20110815/NEWS01/108150319/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE02
I'm with you on all that, squared. If CSU could somehow come up with a "This is our Do Better Plan Vision 2025" or something and proved to the Big 12 it was willing to use that new BCS money to catch-up, the Big 12 would HAVE to consider them. Why? An absolute utter lack of other options geographically. Yeah, they're gonna try to poach Louisville or add BYU, but its best options to raise its numbers is adding Tier B schools athletically.
IMO, the first choice will be Houston. That is the third-biggest school in the state by enrollment and it's in the fifth-biggest city in the nation. Yes, they're a commuter school and have no fanbase, but that would change once folks saw that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and OSU would be coming to town. UH will allow the league to keep a presence in SE Texas and member schools will want this because it will help recruiting in Houston.
So, working under the assumption the 10th team will be Houston beginning next season or in 2013, I believe the conference KNOWS it needs to get back to a 12-team, two-division, title-game setup. If it's so bad (like some conference brass were saying after we and NU left) then why did the two stodgy conferences, the Pac-12 and Big Ten, add it? BECAUSE IT'S GOOD FOR THE LEAGUE. So they, I believe, will HAVE to add two more just to stay relevant. And I believe the two choices will come from the Mountain West and be a bit of a gamble, but could be very nice in the long run -- CSU and New Mexico.
Despite what today's insane college football world things, geography still matters in building conferences. And when you pull out a map of the Great Plains states, there aren't really many options. Can't be all Texas schools, as that has been tried before and didn't work (SWC). Other states don't have viable options (Tulsa? lol they only have 4,200 students!) and worthy choices (Iowa, Arkansas) are very happy in their current leagues. So the league has no choice but to take a flier on spots 11 and 12.
Looking ahead 25 years, I could totally see CSU doing well in the Big 12 (just go with me here). That league will need to add new media markets, and CSU can absolutely claim Denver because it's in the same state. That's really all they need to have. So what if Denver doesn't care for CSU or college football? It still counts in the TV deals. That's why my 12th school is UNM, because, while they don't really care about football on the college level, they are a quickly-growing area and have a media market that is not claimed by another big league. And in 25 years, I suspect Albuquerque to be a LOT bigger than it is. I remember when Unser Rd. on the west side of town was the absolute END of that city. Now, Unser is well-developed and it goes 4-5 miles past that. My point is to not arrest yourself with present realities, as that doesn't always mean similar future results. So both schools would have a shot at admission just because of the few extra TV sets they can claim -- which the Big 12 will need moving forward. Adding more than one new Texas team does nothing for the league. Adding Houston mitigates losing A&M, while UNM and CSU bring in new TVs (albeit CSU is claiming our old allotment, but it still counts). Believe me, they'll both have a shot. Especially UNM because of The Pit and the Lobos' GREAT hoops tradition. Kansas will especially like this, I believe.
So, if CSU gets it going now and pleads its case, the Big 12 really has NO choice but to listen. They aren't going to pluck a team already in a BCS conference and BYU is really too far away and doesn't play on Sundays. So I believe the Rams will have a chance because: 1. They'd effectively replace CU, which the league badly needs; 2. The Big 12 needs to get to 12 teams again; 3. CSU (and UNM) would be MUCH easier competition than CU and NU, which has to make OU and UT happy; 4. The league needs that title game back.
Look, I know CSU is a joke and we all like to make fun of them. But rivalry aside, CSU is a good school with Ag roots. It is an unassuming state school, which meshes with the likes of KSU, ISU and OSU. All three of those schools are unassuming, have an Ag past and are the only things going in their hometowns. I could absolutely see this happen.
For the Big 12, it's a "Chicken and Egg" deal. Yes, the Rams aren't BCS-worthy and would probably take 10 years to get to that point. But the point is I could see them getting there because of reasons listed above. And if the school was smart with the newfound money coming into the league, they could throw 85 percent of that into facilities upgrades and, in time, build up to an ISU level and at least stay on the field with the rest of the league. But until CSU gets that BCS-money, the Rams will probably always suck and be a mess. So it's a huge investment for the Big 12, but one I feel they have no choice but to make and one that, years down the line, will have proven to transform CSU to an ISU/KSU-level situation, which would be great for them, the state of Colorado in general and for the RMS, which could really become a really fun deal if CSU went to a BCS league, invested in itself and took advantage of the new reality.
