What's new
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!

Should CU End Their Series With csu?

Should CU Axe The Series With csu?

  • Yes

    Votes: 58 46.4%
  • No

    Votes: 67 53.6%

  • Total voters
    125
I would prefer to keep the game. I really don't give a crap what the idots at lamenation have to say on the subject. I think it's good for football in the state. We can always schedule other teams from other conferences. That's what the OOC schedule is for. The CU/CSU game is always before the beginning of the regular NFL season, and it focuses all of the football attention in the state for one day on one game. That's a good thing. The fact that CU dominates the series is largely irrelevant. It's a spectacle.
 
In state games are great and they make a lot of sense.
The RMS at Invesco, however, is less than ideal. My preference is to work both AFA and CSU into the schedule on a rotating basis and have the games played on campus, where they belong.

I'd very much like to make a trip to the Springs and see the Buffs play at the academy, see the cadets on their turf, get the fly over, and have an excuse to spend time taking in what the AFA campus and Springs area has to offer.

I'd also like to see the Buffs play again at that converted cow pasture called Lubbock Field. Nothing reinforces the blessing of Folsom more than experiencing CSU. And some of the Texas players might get nostalgic playing in Ft. Collins as the architecture may remind them of Friday Nights back at their high school stadiums.

But so long as CU picks up an additional $650K or whatever it is for playing at Invesco, then I don't see the series going away any time soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with scheduling a different opponent, probably a cupcake. The way our schedule is for the next 5 years, we could use a game like Missouri State or North Texas. Playing CSU, although great theater, is a no win situation for the Buffs on many fronts. First, they are expected to win and if they lose, it is catastrophic for CU recruiting instate. Plus, right away a Colorado based team has a loss. The only reason it is good and the only reason to keep the game is the revenue it generates for each school. A weak game like E. Washington this year probably brings nothing in compared to a game at invesco. Either way, the risks out weigh the rewards.
 
First, they are expected to win and if they lose, it is catastrophic for CU recruiting instate.

:confused:

Kidding, right? CU never has problems recruiting against CSU. Never.

We have this same discussion every year. The bottom line is that the game puts money in CU's coffers and is a showcase for college football in Colorado. It's not going anywhere.
 
CSU is a cupcake. We get paid a lot of money to play that cupcake. Why go through the trouble of finding another cupcake and then get paid less for the trouble?


I don't consider an opponent who has won 4 of our last 9 contests to be a "cupcake."

By cupcake, I meant Akron, Alabama Birmingham, Ball State, Buffalo, Duke, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Idaho, Kent State, Louisiana - Lafayette, Memphis, Middle Tennessee State, New Mexico State, North Texas, Northern Illinois, Ohio, San Jose State, SMU, Toledo, Tulane, Utah State, or Western Michigan.

All of those teams are NCAA Div. IA teams. None of them would consider a game against CU to be a "super bowl" game like the Rams do. None of them would be happy losing every other game on their schedule, provided they beat CU. None of those teams would require a return trip to their stadium. None of those teams would require a game to be played in Denver.
 
I don't consider an opponent who has won 4 of our last 9 contests to be a "cupcake."

By cupcake, I meant Akron, Alabama Birmingham, Ball State, Buffalo, Duke, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Idaho, Kent State, Louisiana - Lafayette, Memphis, Middle Tennessee State, New Mexico State, North Texas, Northern Illinois, Ohio, San Jose State, SMU, Toledo, Tulane, Utah State, or Western Michigan.

All of those teams are NCAA Div. IA teams. None of them would consider a game against CU to be a "super bowl" game like the Rams do. None of them would be happy losing every other game on their schedule, provided they beat CU. None of those teams would require a return trip to their stadium. None of those teams would require a game to be played in Denver.

Selective memory. CSU has won one of the last five games and has a snowballs chance in hell of winning this year and the forseeable future. As far as competition goes, CSU is right up there with Utah State at this point. Playing Middle Tennessee State doesn't pay as well as playing CSU, and we can still have them on the schedule if we want to.

The idea that the game is "required" to be in Denver is also a falsehood. We still get 6 home games a year at Folsom. Nothing has changed there. The game in Denver is like a 7th home game. That's a good thing.

The game isn't going anywhere. The series isn't going to be discontinued. It's a ridiculous argument to have. The argument that it doesn't do CU any good is ludicrous given the economics of the situation.
 
:confused:

Kidding, right? CU never has problems recruiting against CSU. Never.

kory sperry
dion and damon morton
ricky brewer
jake portoff

yeah we always get our man :huh:

EDIT: and we pay the asshat pat for the right to play in a stadium funded by colorado taxpayers
 
Last edited:
kory sperry
dion and damon morton
ricky brewer
jake portoff

yeah we always get our man :huh:

We recruited Kory Sperry? If so, we must not have recruited him hard. The other guys would have never seen the field at CU so I'm not concerned.
 
add michigan.... i just want to see the maize and blue at Folsom Field, that is the only reason
 
We recruited Kory Sperry? If so, we must not have recruited him hard. The other guys would have never seen the field at CU so I'm not concerned.

I guarantee you that the morton twins would have player receiver at CU.

barnett recruited sperry as a DE
 
kory sperry
dion and damon morton
ricky brewer
jake portoff

yeah we always get our man :huh:

EDIT: and we pay the asshat pat for the right to play in a stadium funded by colorado taxpayers

Not much of a list to disprove sacky's point. And didn't we have Brewer in the fold until Barnett was let go?
 
Not much of a list to disprove sacky's point. And didn't we have Brewer in the fold until Barnett was let go?

just some names off the top of my head ( check with buffs in 2008 I would bet he has the whole list)

correct on brewer, I dont know if Hawk recruited him
 
just some names off the top of my head ( check with buffs in 2008 I would bet he has the whole list)

correct on brewer, I dont know if Hawk recruited him

Yes I've talked to Brewer personally and he said he really liked Hawk but decided on Csewe for "stability" :lol:
 
Selective memory. CSU has won one of the last five games and has a snowballs chance in hell of winning this year and the forseeable future. As far as competition goes, CSU is right up there with Utah State at this point. Playing Middle Tennessee State doesn't pay as well as playing CSU, and we can still have them on the schedule if we want to.

The idea that the game is "required" to be in Denver is also a falsehood. We still get 6 home games a year at Folsom. Nothing has changed there. The game in Denver is like a 7th home game. That's a good thing.

The game isn't going anywhere. The series isn't going to be discontinued. It's a ridiculous argument to have. The argument that it doesn't do CU any good is ludicrous given the economics of the situation.


Since when is playing in Denver considered a "home game."

And you only have to look to next year (2009 season) to see that if the Colorado State game is played in Denver - the Buffs will only have FIVE (5) games in Folsom. How does that benefit the University of Colorado?

Looking ahead to the 2011 season, the Buffs already have SIX (6) home games scheduled, and CSU isn't currently on the slate. If CSU is willing to play that game in Folsom - great. Otherwise, go find a smaller Div. IA school who is willing to play in Boulder, thereby giving the Buffs SEVEN (7) games in Folsom. (And why on earth we agreed to go play Hawaii AT Hawaii for the first game of the year in 2011, I have no idea.)
 
I've been in favor of ending the series since it restarted. It is a no win for CU and I don't believe that the money brought in is significantly higher than any other home game. Also, the games at Invesco do squat for the Boulder businesses that support the team year after year.
 
$$$$

We get overpaid to play CSU, and for most other lower tier teams, we'll have to play them for a one-for-one deal, and we don't have the money to pay off our end of it.


How do you figure that?

The only way it is a money making deal is when the game is played in Denver and it is supposed to be played in Ft. Collins. When that occurs, CU makes more money because of the corporate sponsorship and so forth.

When it is a CU home game, it is basically a financial wash. i.e. CU doesn't make any more money playing CSU in Denver than they would if they played in Boulder.
 
Last edited:
CSewe is a no win for CU. If they win, they get no credit for beating a mtn. weenie also ran. If by some miracle the goats win, you never hear the end of it. Add in Joe Williams giving CSewe a perpetual rimjob to drum up interest in the game and I, for one, could move on to play a real team.
 
How do you figure that?

The only way it is a money making deal is when the game is played in Denver and it is supposed to be played in Ft. Collins. When that occurs, CU makes more money because of the corporate sponsorship and so forth.

When it is a CU home game, it is basically a financial wash. i.e. CU doesn't make any more money playing CSU in Denver than they would if they played in Boulder.

I thought we got a gate cut if the game is played at Mile High.... I could be wrong though.

I just figured we lose money if we play some other cupcake since there's pretty much no way we'll fill folsom for that or draw any TV, and then we have to return the favor another year, which won't be on TV either.
 
In state games are great and they make a lot of sense.
The RMS at Invesco, however, is less than ideal. My preference is to work both AFA and CSU into the schedule on a rotating basis and have the games played on campus, where they belong.

I'd very much like to make a trip to the Springs and see the Buffs play at the academy, see the cadets on their turf, get the fly over, and have an excuse to spend time taking in what the AFA campus and Springs area has to offer.

I'd also like to see the Buffs play again at that converted cow pasture called Lubbock Field. Nothing reinforces the blessing of Folsom more than experiencing CSU. And some of the Texas players might get nostalgic playing in Ft. Collins as the architecture may remind them of Friday Nights back at their high school stadiums.

:rofl: Only thing is some of those high schools stadiums that the Texas players played are probably bigger than the pasture.

To your earlier point, I agree 110% that the college games belong on campus. I really dislike this recent trend of moving all these games to pro stadiums - KU-Missou, CU-FSU, Mizzou-Illini, etc. That's the perfect way to kill the atmosphere of a college game.

I've been in favor of ending the series since it restarted. It is a no win for CU and I don't believe that the money brought in is significantly higher than any other home game. Also, the games at Invesco do squat for the Boulder businesses that support the team year after year.

Amen!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
I would definitely like to see the Buffs move on. As noted by several, this game is a no-win situation for CU.

The only way that this game would be palatable would be if it were moved to the 3rd or 4th game of the season (Iowa/Iowa State always play in mid-September). The first game of each season should be against a team with a nickname you have to look up on the internet. Why should there be so much riding - all downside, little upside - on the first game of the season?:gobuffs:
 
I would definitely like to see the Buffs move on. As noted by several, this game is a no-win situation for CU.

The only way that this game would be palatable would be if it were moved to the 3rd or 4th game of the season (Iowa/Iowa State always play in mid-September). The first game of each season should be against a team with a nickname you have to look up on the internet. Why should there be so much riding - all downside, little upside - on the first game of the season?:gobuffs:

Even then Iowa/Iowa State are both in BCS conferences with potential benefits from the game to each. It is not CU's job to pull other Non-conference teams up.
 
We recruited Kory Sperry? If so, we must not have recruited him hard. The other guys would have never seen the field at CU so I'm not concerned.

CU offered and he picked CSU. Same goes for Potorff. CSU does win recruiting battles from time to time. Not often, but it does happen.
 
Back
Top