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!

CSU stadium

I posted in this thread way back that there's plenty of new stadiums that have been built very recently in the $50-100 million range. That's less than half of what they originally shot for, so I would think they could make that. Especially when you consider some of the schools that are building these stadiums. (Tulane, N. Texas, UNCC,....)
 
sackman said:
I don't think CSU has a lot of options, and the ones they do have aren't very good. They tried for the Hail Mary, and it fell incomplete. I expect a lot more stories like this, as their athletic department is slowly dismantled over the next 20 years or so. It won't happen quickly, but they are in a slow death spiral.
Click to expand...

Buffnik said:
I've always thought the scaled down but expandable on-campus stadium made the most sense. I think CSU fans disparagingly refer to this as the "erector set" option. It's a shame that Graham so over-promised that they are now unable to get excited about that option.
Click to expand...

I just don't see a realistic long-term option for CSU other than FCS or the future equivalent. Even if by some miracle they had been able to find the money to build their 35-40k on campus stadium and by a bigger miracle come close to filling it they would still be on the tail end of the BCS level and would not be attractive to a power conference.

As it stands they regularly draw less than 20k even playing well compared to their historical averages and are being subsidized huge amounts of money to maintain an athletic budget that is near the bottom of the MWC.

I think their best bet would be to build a reasonable quality 18-20k on campus stadium that could be expanded if continued BCS play could somehow be made financially viable but that would put them near the top of FCS.

It isn't completely nuts to think that they might actually have more fan interest being a championship contending FCS team than they do as a BCS team that occasionally threatens to win the MWC but mostly tries to get low end bowl games and is just as often below .500 even at that level.
 
boulder77 said:
I had to giggle at the sponsorship of the Coloradan video being by University of Colorado Health. :rofl:
Click to expand...

They own 2 of 3 hospitals in Larimer county including the biggest one in Ft Fun. Still quite ironical. Should pickup a lot of heart attacks next week.
 
SMU is an interesting case study for CSU. The ponies AD realized that playing in the Cotton Bowl across town was a problem, so they built a beautiful 35,000 seat stadium on campus. They paid big dollars for June Jones. One big reason Jones left Hawaii was because UH didn't invest in facilities. SMU's AD was putting their money where their mouth was. June brought SMU to bowl games, restoring some respectability.

Their cross town rivals, TCU, were also upping their value with a hot coach and facilities investments.

TCU made the jump to the P5. Despite facilities investment and big name coach, SMU missed a window.

Jones is now gone. SMU is a bottom of the barrel D1 team. They are winless, with one of the worst D's and O's in NCAA.

The lesson here is that there are no guarantees even when you try harder than CSU, have better booster support, reside on a more fertile recruiting area, and are in a major TV market.

Looks to me like CSU will hang on as long as McElwain sticks around, but is at risk of an SMU collapse the season after Sparkles bugs out.
 
MtnBuff said:
I just don't see a realistic long-term option for CSU other than FCS or the future equivalent. Even if by some miracle they had been able to find the money to build their 35-40k on campus stadium and by a bigger miracle come close to filling it they would still be on the tail end of the BCS level and would not be attractive to a power conference.

As it stands they regularly draw less than 20k even playing well compared to their historical averages and are being subsidized huge amounts of money to maintain an athletic budget that is near the bottom of the MWC.

I think their best bet would be to build a reasonable quality 18-20k on campus stadium that could be expanded if continued BCS play could somehow be made financially viable but that would put them near the top of FCS.

It isn't completely nuts to think that they might actually have more fan interest being a championship contending FCS team than they do as a BCS team that occasionally threatens to win the MWC but mostly tries to get low end bowl games and is just as often below .500 even at that level.
Click to expand...

Someone seems threatened. CSU will draw close to 28k next week against Tulsa. Which is 86% to capacity. Not bad for a CSU team that's finally starting to play legit football. The people in Fort Collins are starting to take notice, and the crowds will continue to grow as season goes on. The FCS argument is a complete joke and would never happen, CSU has beaten the last 3 P5 schools they have faced, none of those being a home game. There's no doubt CSU can and will be competitive at the current level they are at in the MW and beyond.
 
ramU said:
Someone seems threatened. CSU will draw close to 28k next week against Tulsa. Which is 86% to capacity. Not bad for a CSU team that's finally starting to play legit football. The people in Fort Collins are starting to take notice, and the crowds will continue to grow as season goes on. The FCS argument is a complete joke and would never happen, CSU has beaten the last 3 P5 schools they have faced, none of those being a home game. There's no doubt CSU can and will be competitive at the current level they are at in the MW and beyond.
Click to expand...

How long does Sparkles stay ? If csu ends up with 9 or 10 wins he will be a hot candidate for a P5 school. If the stadium debacle remains and the writing is on the wall I can't see him staying in a dead end job.
 
ramU said:
Someone seems threatened. CSU will draw close to 28k next week against Tulsa. Which is 86% to capacity. Not bad for a CSU team that's finally starting to play legit football. The people in Fort Collins are starting to take notice, and the crowds will continue to grow as season goes on. The FCS argument is a complete joke and would never happen, CSU has beaten the last 3 P5 schools they have faced, none of those being a home game. There's no doubt CSU can and will be competitive at the current level they are at in the MW and beyond.
Click to expand...
Football isn't going to be sustainable for non-AQ schools with how the money is flowing. Invest in basketball, you'll be better off.
 
ramU said:
Someone seems threatened. CSU will draw close to 28k next week against Tulsa. Which is 86% to capacity. Not bad for a CSU team that's finally starting to play legit football. The people in Fort Collins are starting to take notice, and the crowds will continue to grow as season goes on. The FCS argument is a complete joke and would never happen, CSU has beaten the last 3 P5 schools they have faced, none of those being a home game. There's no doubt CSU can and will be competitive at the current level they are at in the MW and beyond.
Click to expand...

sheep.JPG

Worth reading. The source, Dr. Tony Frank in a transcript of a speech published on his university website.

I'm not threatened by CSU, instead I am posting some reality.

As much as the limited number of CSU fans wish it wasn't so the face of college athletics is changing. Those with access to the revenue streams will continue to be viable at the top levels of competition financially. This means that even schools that traditionally haven't won a lot will have the revenues to make playing football profitable. Those without these streams, regardless of on field success, will find it harder and harder to justify the expense involved in trying to complete with the schools that have those dollars coming in.

A few schools can hold out hope that they will be invited to the table and be allowed to share in the media dollars and other revenues that come with being in a major conference. CSU is a long way from providing the kind of benefits to a major conference to prompt an invitation. In other words CSU doesn't come close to providing enough enhancement of conference revenue to justify getting a share of it.
 
Frank backpedaling, Capt. Jack pulling the pin and lobbing a grenade, fans clamoring for an invite to the big time, this is entertaining.
 
Given the arrogance of their fans, it's amusing to see this unfold. Jack Graham was their best hope to make it big. Now he and Tony Frank can't get along and his editorial today seems to be a slap in the face of the admin there.

Let's all give little brother a pat on the head and some encouragement as they go forward. They will need it.

leftybuff said:
Frank backpedaling, Capt. Jack pulling the pin and lobbing a grenade, fans clamoring for an invite to the big time, this is entertaining.
Click to expand...
 
90sBuff said:
Given the arrogance of their fans, it's amusing to see this unfold. Jack Graham was their best hope to make it big. Now he and Tony Frank can't get along and his editorial today seems to be a slap in the face of the admin there.

Let's all give little brother a pat on the head and some encouragement as they go forward. They will need it.
Click to expand...

cat.jpg
 
add-on-prop_full-res_191.jpg
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
****ing learn to read.

It is a partnership. Total estimated cost is $225Mil. Total estimated impact to general fund is $55mil. The school would be in debt $55Mil.
Click to expand...

Jeez sensitive sally. Calm down.

Didn't read, just knew Option 4 was for the $250million stadium
 
CsquaredCC said:
For those who are interested, I talked to some people with knowledge of the stadium process at the New Mexico game on Saturday and would expect to hear some news this week from Dr. Frank. CSU will likely be moving forward with option 4 as laid out by Frank a few weeks back for the construction of a 36k stadium on-campus: http://www.colostate.edu/stadium/summary-four-stadium-options-csu.pdf. Not sure of the funding details right now.
Click to expand...

Congrats ... I guess

csu will be playing some barn burners against San Jose St, New Mexico & UNLV in that place -
that's not getting them an invite to the Big 12 (10) or Pac12-
 
InTheBuff said:
Congrats ... I guess

csu will be playing some barn burners against San Jose St, New Mexico & UNLV in that place -
that's not getting them an invite to the Big 12 (10) or Pac12-
Click to expand...
They may get invited once all the first tier teams are taken: Boise State, BYU, UCF, Louisville...
 
CsquaredCC said:
For those who are interested, I talked to some people with knowledge of the stadium process at the New Mexico game on Saturday and would expect to hear some news this week from Dr. Frank. CSU will likely be moving forward with option 4 as laid out by Frank a few weeks back for the construction of a 36k stadium on-campus: http://www.colostate.edu/stadium/summary-four-stadium-options-csu.pdf. Not sure of the funding details right now.
Click to expand...


Option 3 makes the most sense. That's the direction they should go. Option 4 is filled with assumptions and projections that may or may not materialize. At least with Option 3, your costs are covered by recognized sources of revenue. If they wanted Option 4, they shouldn't have fired Captain Jack. That was his baby.
 
sackman said:
Option 3 makes the most sense. That's the direction they should go. Option 4 is filled with assumptions and projections that may or may not materialize. At least with Option 3, your costs are covered by recognized sources of revenue. If they wanted Option 4, they shouldn't have fired Captain Jack. That was his baby.
Click to expand...

Since it is a public-private, doesn't it also cut into profit margins?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top