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

Yeah, the comments on the Coloradoan article are amazing. That John Hanna guy is such a tool and all his postings on his FB are either pro-Nebraska or anti-CU. That is the problem with your fanbase. They like and hate other teams far more that their own. At least CU both loves and hates it's own team.
 
dply said:
Yeah, the comments on the Coloradoan article are amazing. That John Hanna guy is such a tool and all his postings on his FB are either pro-Nebraska or anti-CU. That is the problem with your fanbase. They like and hate other teams far more that their own. At least CU both loves and hates it's own team.
Click to expand...


I've never met a CSU "fan" that didn't have a second college football team they cheered for.


I can't tell you how many CSU "fans" I've met that have gotten in my face about how great Nebraska is. They think it's great, I think it's sad that's what they have to fall back since CSU has nothing on CU.
 
The article is pretty condescending to the opponents of the new stadium with comments like "You know it's time for the tiny but vocal minority of under-educated opponents to punt." and "Enough time has been wasted being polite to the shortsighted opponents of the project"

Furthermore the group of those who are opposed is not a tiny minority, it's closer to a 50-50 split from what it sounds like.
 
Dovetailing with nik's other CSU thread, I think THE problem with the "rivalry" is sort of being showcased here: a lot of us (CU fans) like to see them do well outside of the one game a year. That feeling does NOT translate on their end. It used to, and I think it would again if the series were stopped for a while, and was only brought back sporadically.

Hell, I would even go to a CSU game in an on campus stadium and even cheer for them if the buffs weren't playing and the level of vitriol was brought down a couple dozen notches. Just like it's actually a pretty fun Saturday right now to go to an AFA home game and then go home/out somewhere and watch CU play an away game when the schedules line up.

If the stars align and CSU could move into a P5 conference, and the RMS could match the level of, say, Clemson-USC, that could be cool. But, what we have now sucks, and by most accounts it looks like they are making long shot desperation bets to try and get there quickly, rather than a more long term build (think Boise State - that did nit happen quickly, but was a long slow build). Unlike some folks, I think there is always time for a slow methodical build (power structures are never permanent), but what they're doing now is likely to set them back rather than move them forward.
 
Tour of CSU's facilities:

[video=youtube;du0f_pT6vSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du0f_pT6vSc[/video]

Credit to smash mouth buff for finding this one (Rivals post).

As mentioned in the thread over there, these facilities are not even good for a non-P5 program. Also, it's telling how much focus is on CU. So many of the photos in the locker room, coach office and elsewhere are about playing CU. If RG ends the RMS, it would force CSU to completely change its program identity. I think in the long run that would be a good thing for them. As one of our CSU fans posted on AB, they need to be focused on Boise State and Utah State.
 
From the same video series:

[video=youtube;rW_mQsRbuR0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_mQsRbuR0[/video]

Northern Colorado has better facilities than CSU.
 
Okie St is successful because they have access to a billionaire who financially supports their vision. CSU has their billionaire, but why does Graham not put his money where his mouth is?
 
Buffnik said:
From the same video series:

[video=youtube;rW_mQsRbuR0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_mQsRbuR0[/video]

Northern Colorado has better facilities than CSU.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that their (CSU) football facilities are as bad as they are. Those locker rooms remind me of a YMCA or the lockers at the Longmont Rec Center.
The leather couches and tv area look just as bad. The indoor practice facility at first glance is nice until you notice it's condensed size. Seriously...
70 yards ? who approved that idea ?
 
Last edited:
Come on, Taylor Barton. Where a polo one time for me, please. He dresses like an an a**hole in these videos. Get real.
 
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. My fear is that they will somehow manage to bypass the funding requirements through donations and get it done in a way that puts them even deeper in the hole financially. It seems their revenue projections are outrageously optimistic and the support is just not there. Like many have said this is high risk with no guarantee of high reward.

I went to HS with a friend who played up there and a year ago he assured me the project was a go, no matter what. I called him overly optimistic but he was adamant that is was a sealed deal. I'll chalk it up to him being delusional but if this falls through the already scant loyal fan base could erode completely.
 
JJBuff said:
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. My fear is that they will somehow manage to bypass the funding requirements through donations and get it done in a way that puts them even deeper in the hole financially. It seems their revenue projections are outrageously optimistic and the support is just not there. Like many have said this is high risk with no guarantee of high reward.

I went to HS with a friend who played up there and a year ago he assured me the project was a go, no matter what. I called him overly optimistic but he was adamant that is was a sealed deal. I'll chalk it up to him being delusional but if this falls through the already scant loyal fan base could erode completely.
Click to expand...

Oh it's gonna happen. They will push back the October fundraising deadline to get it done
 
With folsom getting upgraded, their is no way CSU doesn't do something to compete. They have already spent a ton on getting the design done. It is going to happen.
 
Buffnik said:
Tour of CSU's facilities:

[video=youtube;du0f_pT6vSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du0f_pT6vSc[/video]

Credit to smash mouth buff for finding this one (Rivals post).

As mentioned in the thread over there, these facilities are not even good for a non-P5 program. Also, it's telling how much focus is on CU. So many of the photos in the locker room, coach office and elsewhere are about playing CU. If RG ends the RMS, it would force CSU to completely change its program identity. I think in the long run that would be a good thing for them. As one of our CSU fans posted on AB, they need to be focused on Boise State and Utah State.
Click to expand...

Seriously - every photo in that place is from the CU game
 
The article was terrible, but the author at least had the sense of urgency correct. CSU can't afford to be patient in deciding whether they want to go all in on being a P5 big boy, or eat a piece of humble pie and try being the best in-the-mold-of-Boise St. possible.
 
onealcd said:
I agree it will happen and on schedule I just think Frank will scale it back which is the smart move IMO.
Click to expand...

Hasn't it already been substantially scaled back? If the stadium does nothing to enhance the program from a P5 perspective then why waste the money? They are already heavily subsidizing the AD budget with student fees as it is.
 
buffedup said:
Hasn't it already been substantially scaled back? If the stadium does nothing to enhance the program from a P5 perspective then why waste the money? They are already heavily subsidizing the AD budget with student fees as it is.
Click to expand...

Because it will cost a bunch of money to fix hughes so it makes more sense to build a smaller like 25,000 - 30,000 seat stadium on campus I thought.
 
my fears

JJBuff said:
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. My fear is that they will somehow manage to bypass the funding requirements through donations and get it done in a way that puts them even deeper in the hole financially. It seems their revenue projections are outrageously optimistic and the support is just not there. Like many have said this is high risk with no guarantee of high reward.

I went to HS with a friend who played up there and a year ago he assured me the project was a go, no matter what. I called him overly optimistic but he was adamant that is was a sealed deal. I'll chalk it up to him being delusional but if this falls through the already scant loyal fan base could erode completely.
Click to expand...

From the start, my worry has been that they screw this up creating a political reaction that hurts CU.
When they put in their practice field, their fans were gloating on Buff sites. Their focus needs to be on what's best for CSU. If they focus on sticking it to CU, they've lost. If the buffs are competing with them for players or facilities, we're destined to remain a four win team.
 
dio said:
Isn't it already delayed? I thought they were blabbing about 2015/2016 originally.
Click to expand...

They delayed based on finishing those academic experiments that were going on for agro, I think. (Convenient excuse since the same article said that funding wasn't where it needed to be.)

They also scaled back.

Honestly, they need to go back and re-think this entire thing. Not because they shouldn't build an on-campus stadium, but because the motivations for building it may have changed and the feasibility data is highly questionable.

If the motivation is that it would improve campus life and fan/booster life by having an on-campus stadium, I agree with that and support it.

Then, the question is what kind of facility supports that worthy goal.

If, however, the motivation is to build something that makes the Pac-12 or the Big 12 or the B1G want to invite CSU to join their conference, then I think they have to realize that they are tilting at windmills.

Accomplish the first motivation I listed above. Make sure it's financially sustainable and fits well to better the Fort Collins community and get its residents excited for the project. Include in the plans that there could be a Phase 2 or Phase 3 to expand the stadium that is being built up to 45k or more if that would ever become justifiable.
 
I actually think they do need a new stadium, because Hughes cannot continue much longer in its current state.

But they need to be realistic about it with something small and with the understanding that it isn't going to be a revenue producer.
 
dio said:
I actually think they do need a new stadium, because Hughes cannot continue much longer in its current state.

But they need to be realistic about it with something small and with the understanding that it isn't going to be a revenue producer.
Click to expand...

+1

They average under 20k in attendance now, and looking at game pictures many games probably around 12k. Why they think a new stadium on campus will result in 40k showing up makes no sense.
 
Every time I read about this, I wounder if Jack bit off more than he could chew. I have wondered why he had to swing for the fences with a $180+ million project, and not start with a better base, but expandable option.

AT SMU we built the new stadium in 1999 - 2000 for $42 million (estimated comparable cost of $57 million in 2014). The capacity is 32,000 seats, and open space in the south endzone (highest attendance of 36K). There are two potential phases for expansion, with the first one increasing seat capacity to 45K.

I know there are other costs associated with the CSU project, and SMU had other costs as well (underground parking, roads, training facility, other).

Choosing this path for the stadium seems more logical to me. This allows for lower levels of funding, less risk of failure, and expanding something that already exists is much easier than trying to get it all at once.
 
20 minute video of CSU facilities, and not one shot of shrubs, sidewalks, or the new gate ..... :wtf:
 
Skidmark said:
The fatal cultural misalignment came in 1999, when the Rams joined the MWC. The 1999, 2000 and 2002 seasons were CSU's golden era, winning their new conference and enjoying entry into the top 25 and some nice bowl invitations. There was nothing wrong with CSU culture at that moment.
Click to expand...

At that time, there was no where else for CSU to go. Conference USA? Stay in the WAC when all their peers were leaving? The horrible 16 team WAC had to be rebooted and the MWC that came out of it was actually better than the pre-expansion early 90's WAC (trading UNLV for Hawaii was a decent move). Just like now, no big money conferences were knocking on CSU's door. They could have begged all they wanted, but the B12 or P12 invites were never coming. Seems like now there is a slight window with the B12 at 10 teams and no CCG. And it's definitely slight. Instead of building a B12 worthy stadium w/ no Big 12 invite, they should build a much cheaper stadium that has lots of pretty pictures on how to expand if that elusive invite ever comes their way.

States like Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa are definitely a little lucky to have two teams in big conferences - I don't see that happening now when it's all about TV markets. But they also do not have a local NFL team to compete with, so the base level of support for ISU and KSU might be more than CSU could ever get in a big conference.

With the uncertainty around the O'bannon lawsuit over name and likeness (TV?) rights, and the push for full cost scholarships, it could be very hard for CSU (or many other non Big5 schools) to even field a D1 football team in the near future without a invite to a big conference. And there just won't be many of those, if any at all.
 
Last edited:
The part of this that I will never understand is that they're trying to do this backwards. They need to have both on-field success and good fan support before they even think about building a new 45K on-campus stadium. And when I say on-field success, I'm not talking about going to the New Mexico Bowl or Poinsettia bowl a couple of years in a row, I'm talking about consistent top 10 rankings, a couple of BCS bowls, and flirting with the real possibility of sneaking into the MNC game (playoff now, but you get the idea). And Boise is still on the outside looking in and that probably won't change. That worked for TCU, but that was more of a factor of them being in Texas where the culture is football minded and they support it well. Fort Collins will never be like that.
 
Buff_since76 said:
Every time I read about this, I wounder if Jack bit off more than he could chew. I have wondered why he had to swing for the fences with a $180+ million project, and not start with a better base, but expandable option.

AT SMU we built the new stadium in 1999 - 2000 for $42 million (estimated comparable cost of $57 million in 2014). The capacity is 32,000 seats, and open space in the south endzone (highest attendance of 36K). There are two potential phases for expansion, with the first one increasing seat capacity to 45K.

I know there are other costs associated with the CSU project, and SMU had other costs as well (underground parking, roads, training facility, other).

Choosing this path for the stadium seems more logical to me. This allows for lower levels of funding, less risk of failure, and expanding something that already exists is much easier than trying to get it all at once.
Click to expand...

SMU provides a valid case study. Prior to building The Ford, their games were in Fair Park at the Cotton Bowl, which is a relatively similar distance from the hilltop that CSU is from Hughes.

The stadium project was designed to elevate SMU's profile as a candidate to join a BCS conference. One major benefit SMU enjoys is close proximity to DFW's fertile recruiting grounds. An other benefit is a DART rail station less than 1/2 mile away. They are in the middle of the 6.5 million DFW MSA and could potentially draw viewership. The SMU endowment is $1.26B.

All that said, SMU has wandered in a BCS desert from SWC to WAC to American Athletic Conference. If SMU can't get a BCS invite, then it's naive to believe CSU has an easier path, especially by starting so late.
 
I don't think it is naive. When understand the dynamics of this state, but if you're the Big12, CSU offers something that SMU and BSU don't - the Denver market that they lost when we moved to the Pac-12. If CSU had rabid fan support and a strong history of on-field success, they would easily find a home in the Big-12 and would have built a bigger stadium ages ago.

They don't have that, but if they can get to that point, then I would think they would have a good profile for the Big-12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top