Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Chicago Sun-Times: CU on Big Ten radar

@Junk
I agree with your double post. FWIW, I have no agenda to keep CU in the B12. I have way more Texas fatigue than you could imagine. When it comes to the B12; Been there. Done that. I welcome a change. As this is a B10 thread, I'm making a case that the B10 > Pac10 finacially. TV coverage rules CFB, not geographic alumni distribution. I'm not turning my nose down at the B10 due to some spurrious cultural or mostly inconsequential alumni arguement.

The fundraising potential of the California's alum would get me more excited if CU had more success winning the support of Colorado based alum. There's no excuse for CU to have a smaller endowment than Baylor, Texas Tech, Mizzou, or Wazzou.

CU's endowment is $593M, placing it 9th in the B12 and 7th in the Pac 12.
Both UT and Stanford have endowments in excess of $12Billion. A&M and Cal are around $5Billion each.
The Billion dollar club also includes NU, UW, USC and UCLA, with KU knocking on the door.
 
Skidmark said:
@Junk
I agree with your double post. FWIW, I have no agenda to keep CU in the B12. I have way more Texas fatigue than you could imagine. When it comes to the B12; Been there. Done that. I welcome a change. As this is a B10 thread, I'm making a case that the B10 > Pac10 finacially. TV coverage rules CFB, not geographic alumni distribution. I'm not turning my nose down at the B10 due to some spurrious cultural or mostly inconsequential alumni arguement.

The fundraising potential of the California's alum would get me more excited if CU had more success winning the support of Colorado based alum. There's no excuse for CU to have a smaller endowment than Baylor, Texas Tech, Mizzou, or Wazzou.

CU's endowment is $593M, placing it 9th in the B12 and 7th in the Pac 12.
Both UT and Stanford have endowments in excess of $12Billion. A&M and Cal are around $5Billion each.
The Billion dollar club also includes NU, UW, USC and UCLA, with KU knocking on the door.
Click to expand...

What double post??? :lol:

I totally agree with this post. If you'd only made your point this well earlier, this thread would be a lot shorter... :smile2: Given the difference between the Big Televen and the Pac-10 in terms of TV and other revenue at this point, I don't see that decision coming down to alumni $, alumni relations, alumni preferences or anything else alumni related. But assuming we're right that the Big Televen isn't really likely to be interested in bringing in CU, the choice is more likely to come down to Big XII vs Pac-10. The numbers there are much more likely to be close enough that the alumni issue could be significant.
 
Junction said:
What double post??? :lol:

I totally agree with this post. If you'd only made your point this well earlier, this thread would be a lot shorter... :smile2: Given the difference between the Big Televen and the Pac-10 in terms of TV and other revenue at this point, I don't see that decision coming down to alumni $, alumni relations, alumni preferences or anything else alumni related. But assuming we're right that the Big Televen isn't really likely to be interested in bringing in CU, the choice is more likely to come down to Big XII vs Pac-10. The numbers there are much more likely to be close enough that the alumni issue could be significant.
Click to expand...

Rule #1. As long as admins have the ability to delete posts, they'll never double post.

Rule #2. Never pass an opportunity spice up a thread by insinuating that Californians are old and stingy, or unemployed, cheap and snooty bandwaggon jumping slackers.
 
Skidmark said:
Rule #2. Never pass an opportunity spice up a thread by insinuating that Californians are old and stingy, or unemployed, cheap and snooty bandwaggon jumping slackers.
Click to expand...


Lets also not forget they are 1 earthquake from being in the ocean
 
The Big 10 seems cool and I wouldn't mind watching more CU games against the Big 10...it just doesn't make sense but you cannot discount how much DIA has done to this state.
 
bigdaddybuffs said:
According to the Wall Street Journal, CU's endowment was over 825m when moved last year. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124899621426295335.html
Click to expand...

That is excellent news. It'll be nice to see CU finally get into the $1B club. The WSJ info is dated July 2009, so it doesn't take into account the recent volitility. I was citing Wikipedia earlier in the thread, which references older 2006 data.

^ "2006 NACUBO Endowment Study". National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Click to expand...

Way to go donors...whereever you may be. Putting the whole enchilata with one boutique investment firm, however, sounds kinda risky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[URL="http://www.cufund.org/wp-content/themes/cufoundation/images/financial/investment%20primer%20file%2012-31.pdf]CU Foundation Annual Report[/URL]
 
The foundation took a big hit with one of the recent ponzi schemes. I'm trying to recall the details.
 
I'm curious whether the news from today that the Big 10 is concerned about demographic shifts to the South (and presumably the West) as a consideration for expansion actually does make us a target for consideration for them. Particularly if Texas is still in play and needing bridge states.
 
@skiddy. iowa city ain't blah. that is probably the best destination to see a game in the big11. they start partying at 4 am for the game, nicest people in the world, beautiful girls (you wouldn't believe me unless you made the trip) and they love football. iowa city ****ing rawks.
 
Bob Loblaw said:
@skiddy. iowa city ain't blah. that is probably the best destination to see a game in the big11. they start partying at 4 am for the game, nicest people in the world, beautiful girls (you wouldn't believe me unless you made the trip) and they love football. iowa city ****ing rawks.
Click to expand...

Next time CU plays in Iowa City, I'll check it out.

How different is the Hawkeye experience from what you get at ISU? I've not heard many rave reviews coming out of Ames.
 
Skidmark said:
Next time CU plays in Iowa City, I'll check it out.

How different is the Hawkeye experience from what you get at ISU? I've not heard many rave reviews coming out of Ames.
Click to expand...
night and day. isu tailgates pretty well but iowa is on a whole nother level. i went down there for a game with some buds from minnesota we partied at the bars til 2, passed out, and i was awoken two later to go to a party. kid you not there was three hundred people there getting ready for the game.
 
Bob Loblaw said:
night and day. isu tailgates pretty well but iowa is on a whole nother level. i went down there for a game with some buds from minnesota we partied at the bars til 2, passed out, and i was awoken two later to go to a party. kid you not there was three hundred people there getting ready for the game.
Click to expand...


I can second that Iowa City is really fun. While I've never been there on a game day, it is always a required stop when driving the I-80. It's a really fun town with great bars and a good music/arts scene.
 
I will third this. Iowa City is the bomb diggity. Nothing like Ames. You are tempted to write them off because, after all, its Iowa, which is nothing but cornfields and small towns. However, UIowa is populated by MANY Chicago kids. And most of these hot girls are from the Chicago suburbs, most likely Naperville. Honestly, there are no bad Big Ten towns... they are all BIG party towns with major bar scenes.

Daaah said:
I can second that Iowa City is really fun. While I've never been there on a game day, it is always a required stop when driving the I-80. It's a really fun town with great bars and a good music/arts scene.
Click to expand...
 
They are both awesome, but nothing alike. Iowa City is your traditional college town... like Columbia, Champaign, Bloomington, East Lansing. Madison is a campus within a bigger city, with the state capitol and 500,000 people... like Columbus, Austin, Lincoln. In the latter case its always tough to determine if the school should get credit for cool surroundings (i.e. USC is in the ghetto, but the beach is close by). Camp Randall is smack in the middle of campus, which makes a fun gameday atmosphere. There are two big lakes surrounding the area to give it an aesthetic appeal. It is a very liberal environment, so the hipster movement is alive and well there.

I do think Madtown is still more hype than substance. You'll hear the ESPN crowd drooling over it, probably because its fun even for 40-year old men. But the fact is, the coolest parts of Madison are off campus, with the downtown bar scene and lakes. Furthermore, Badger fans are pretty obnoxious to visitors (think Cheeseheads/Packer fans). And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the girls are heavier than normal due to the high dairy diet of the region.


Skidmark said:
How does Iowa City compare to Madison?
Click to expand...
 
I haven't been to many Big 10 cities, but Madison is an awesome place to visit.
 
Skidmark said:
@Junk
I agree with your double post. FWIW, I have no agenda to keep CU in the B12. I have way more Texas fatigue than you could imagine. When it comes to the B12; Been there. Done that. I welcome a change. As this is a B10 thread, I'm making a case that the B10 > Pac10 finacially. TV coverage rules CFB, not geographic alumni distribution. I'm not turning my nose down at the B10 due to some spurrious cultural or mostly inconsequential alumni arguement.

The fundraising potential of the California's alum would get me more excited if CU had more success winning the support of Colorado based alum. There's no excuse for CU to have a smaller endowment than Baylor, Texas Tech, Mizzou, or Wazzou.

CU's endowment is $593M, placing it 9th in the B12 and 7th in the Pac 12.
Both UT and Stanford have endowments in excess of $12Billion. A&M and Cal are around $5Billion each.
The Billion dollar club also includes NU, UW, USC and UCLA, with KU knocking on the door.
Click to expand...

The endowment shortfall is not really a football issue, that is a CU management and administration issue.
 
Buffsfan09 said:
The endowment shortfall is not really a football issue, that is a CU management and administration issue.
Click to expand...

True enough. So here's a breakdown of 2007-2008 Athletic Department revenue. Either way you slice it, endowment or athletic revenue, Texas is head and shoulders above everyone else.

RankSchoolTotal RevenueConference
1stTexas$120,288,370 Big 12
2ndOhio State$117,953,712 Big Ten
3rdFlorida$106,030,895 Southeastern Conference
4thMichigan$99,027,105 Big Ten
5thWisconsin$93,452,334 Big Ten
6thPenn State$91,570,233 Big Ten
7thAuburn$89,305,326 Southeastern Conference
8thAlabama$88,869,810 Southeastern Conference
9thTennessee$88,719,798 Southeastern Conference
10thOklahoma State$88,554,438 Big 12
11thKansas$86,009,257 Big 12
12thLouisiana State$84,183,362 Southeastern Conference
13thGeorgia$84,020,180 Southeastern Conference
14thNotre Dame$83,352,439 Independent
15thIowa$81,148,310 Big Ten
16thMichigan State$77,738,746 Big Ten
17thOklahoma$77,098,009 Big 12
18thStanford$76,661,466 Pac-10
19thUniversity of Southern California$76,409,919 Pac-10
20thNebraska$75,492,884 Big 12
21stTexas A&M$74,781,640 Big 12
22ndKentucky$71,186,184 Southeastern Conference
23rdDuke$67,820,335 ACC
24thSouth Carolina$66,545,953 Southeastern Conference
25thUCLA$66,088,264 Pac-10
26thVirginia$65,400,485 ACC
27thArkansas$64,197,470 Southeastern Conference
28thCalifornia$63,884,710 Pac-10
29thMinnesota$63,782,454 Big Ten
30thPurdue$62,093,614 Big Ten
31stNorth Carolina–Chapel Hill$61,263,269 ACC
32ndBoston College$61,203,340 ACC
33rdWashington$60,729,016 Pac-10
34thClemson$59,126,212 ACC
35thIllinois$57,167,843 Big Ten
36thOregon$56,623,902 Pac-10
37thVirginia Tech$56,029,172 ACC
38thIndiana$54,839,398 Big Ten
39thConnecticut$54,721,742 Big East
40thWest Virginia$54,262,716 Big East
41stMaryland$54,171,741 ACC
42ndArizona State$53,479,441 Pac-10
43rdColorado$52,631,896 Big 12
44thLouisville$52,203,604 Big East
45thRutgers$50,181,300 Big East
46thMissouri$49,113,786 Big 12
47thKansas State$48,160,113 Big 12
48thOregon State$47,185,827 Pac-10
49thGeorgia Tech$47,126,247 ACC
50thArizona$46,988,400 Pac-10
51stMiami (Fla.)$46,849,990 ACC
52ndVanderbilt$45,521,855 Southeastern Conference
53rdFlorida State$45,414,953 ACC
54thSyracuse$44,702,831 Big East
55thNorth Carolina State$44,553,795 ACC
56thBaylor$44,151,763 Big 12
57thTexas Christian University$43,439,777 Mountain West
58thTexas Tech$42,844,855 Big 12
59thNorthwestern$41,835,733 Big Ten
60thWake Forest$39,961,624 ACC
61stPittsburgh$39,741,621 Big East
62ndWashington State$39,621,059 Pac-10
63rdIowa State$38,642,013 Big 12
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude...how about a better format?

edit - nicely done...thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we are less than $1M behind Arizona State and they are like one of the biggest universities in the world, I feel bad for them.
 
I hate to point out the fact that Stanford is #1 in the Pac-10 in revenue, but would be 5th in the Big XII.... :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top