And one SI writer seems pissed. Does he have a point?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../07/30/boise.state/index.html?eref=si_writers
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../07/30/boise.state/index.html?eref=si_writers
No. He doesn't have a valid point. One team cancelled a series with another team. This is what would happen if CU cancelled the series with CSU.
Boise wants to be big time. They've made no secret of that desire. In order to get there, they need to upgrade their scheduling. I see nothing wrong with this move.
I honestly think they're trying to make a play to get into the Pac once it expands again. They see what happened with Utah, and they know it's possible. They're running the Utah playbook. They still have a long way to go, and the city of Boise needs to add another half million or so people, but I think this is ultimately their goal. Don't be surprised if they don't re-paint their field green here pretty soon. They don't want to be branded as goofy.
Boise wants to be big time. They've made no secret of that desire. In order to get there, they need to upgrade their scheduling. I see nothing wrong with this move.
I honestly think they're trying to make a play to get into the Pac once it expands again. They see what happened with Utah, and they know it's possible. They're running the Utah playbook. They still have a long way to go, and the city of Boise needs to add another half million or so people, but I think this is ultimately their goal. Don't be surprised if they don't re-paint their field green here pretty soon. They don't want to be branded as goofy.
BSU's academics are not good so they would need to improve there as well. Boise was a community college up until 1965.
I don't agree with the article because schools aren't obligated to play fellow in-state schools that are in lesser conferences. I'm not a fan of Boise and their delusions of thinking they're a legitimate top-5 team despite playing a WAC schedule, but I admire them in this case for not falling to political pressure to continue the series with Idaho. (Are you listening, CU?)
Now way Boise ever gets in the PAC or a major conference. There are like 4 TVs in Idaho. I think PAC will now only add schools east of us. Got to get the central time zone for national TV exposure.
UNLV, UNM, Boise, and yes, even CSU all could, if they play their cards right, end up in the Pac once it's all said and done. A lot will depend on population migration and area demographics.
I just don't see how UNLV, UNM, Boise and CSU would add anything to the bottom line $$. UNLV maybe at some point. But CSU? Why? Already have the Denver market now, why bother adding another mouth to feed that doesn't really bring anything. Plus none of those schools have the "academic reputation" that the PAC likes to pretend to covet.
I suppose if you are talking extremely long term then anything can happen. But that would be pretty far off in my opinion.
UNM is in a large-ish (and growing rapidly) metropolitan area, sits at the intersection of two major interstate highways, is supported by a population base of over 2MM, and is a decent school. I personally think Albuquerque is a dump, but there's no debating it's size, location and growth potential. I'd suspect that UNM is on the Pac's radar for future expansion.
Albuquerque is a dump. Location and growth potential could make it attractive at some point. One problem is that I have always found that New Mexico people seem to fancy themselves as Texas people. Everyone I have run into down there seems to think they have much more in common with Texas than Colorado. If they were invited somewhere and if it became a political issue, I wouldn't be surprised if they preferred to go wherever the Texas schools go.
Furthermore, with Larry Scott, I think almost everybody is on his radar with varying levels of timing and attractiveness. He clearly values population demographics and growth as well, evidenced by obtaining Colorado and Utah.
Yes. I agree with the article. Idaho has one good season and all of a sudden BSU wants no part of them. What a joke.
Texas? WTF. The only people that think we are Texas-like are those near West Texas. Even then, a lot of people here in this state would disown those, much like the Nebraskans that have moved to Colorado.
The state doesn't have much in common with either Colorado or Texas. However, people here tend to like Colorado.
And I agree, Albuquerque is a huge dump of a city.
You know what city could really be huge, if it wanted to be? Cheyenne. I remember hearing from somebody who knew about the situation up there that the reason there aren't a whole lot more people living in Wyoming is because there's a small group of very wealthy and influential landowners who like things just the way they are. They manage to keep new development from happening, and keep primary employers from locating there. Cheyenne, if it had the mind to do so, could be every bit as big as Denver. Geographically, it's got all the same adavantages. It's actually at a better spot in terms of the interstate that runs through town. I-80 is a far more well travelled highway than I-70 is. It's basically the highway that connects New York to San Francisco, via Chicago.
I guess they like things just fine up there, and have no desire to grow. Maybe that'll change someday, maybe it won't. There's lots of land, though.
They cut off little brother. Good move. We should too. Only CSU gains in the CU/CSU game. Dump them for an annual tilt with NU at Invesco. I love beating the Huskers.
I just don't see how UNLV, UNM, Boise and CSU would add anything to the bottom line $$. UNLV maybe at some point. But CSU? Why? Already have the Denver market now, why bother adding another mouth to feed that doesn't really bring anything. Plus none of those schools have the "academic reputation" that the PAC likes to pretend to covet.
I suppose if you are talking extremely long term then anything can happen. But that would be pretty far off in my opinion.
This has been covered adnaseum and proven time and again that the series CU/CSU is boon for both programs. Both financially and in terms of exposure. In fact, the CSU game at Folsom last season was the most highly attended game of the year, and my guess is that it was one of the most well attended games at Folsom in the last 5 years. Now the RMS moves back to Mile High where 60,000+ will show and each school walks away with a greater pay day. How is this even a debate among Buff fans? I seriously don't get it.
Getting a series with Nebraska sounds great on a chat board, but given the Huskers' scheduling practices - I think that is a pipe dream.
I think it's a debate because we feel it legitimizes a program that does not deserve to be legitimized.
Also, it can only hurt CU in perception and on the field. If we win, so what? If we lose (which we have been doing of late) it's a total embarrassment. A loss hurts our in state recruiting. CU has a tradition of playing tough OOC schedules and there is no reason to lock ourselves into a game that really can't do much for us. You can argue that CU playing CSU garners interest within Colorado for CU, but I'd argue CU playing a big name BCS team would do the same.
Boulder may be close to Denver, but it certainly does not command the Denver market. Pro sports is and always will be the "Denver Market." CSU's best argument in the coming years (if there is one to make) is that it would help the PAC X strengthen its hold in the Denver. 45,000+ CSU alumni, establish a presence in the Northern Colorado region that is continuing to experience large population growth, and adds an academic tradition that is not out of line with the likes of Utah, Washington State, and Oregon State.