Future of football series vs CSU

[Uncle Ken]

Has any proponent of the RMS actually provided a reason why the neutral site game is good for CU? Seriously, what incentive does CU have to continue this series?

Also, regarding the timing of Rick George's announcement.

The point was to generate as much excitement as possible, at one time, in front of a concentration of donors. New class. Check. New Coaches. Check. End of the hated RMS. Check.

I'm not sure how anybody could draw the conclusion that RG was making it about himself.

 

[Buffnik]

Has any proponent of the RMS actually provided a reason why the neutral site game is good for CU? Seriously, what incentive does CU have to continue this series?

Also, regarding the timing of Rick George's announcement.

The point was to generate as much excitement as possible, at one time, in front of a concentration of donors. New class. Check. New Coaches. Check. End of the hated RMS. Check.

I'm not sure how anybody could draw the conclusion that RG was making it about himself.

Reasonable people couldn't. Emotions are high from some people, though. It's about both love and money for a CSU fan. Losing this game would be an unmitigated disaster. We aren't going to get a reasoned response in that situation. Especially since if you look at it from a calculated business perspective it's impossible to make a good case for CU playing this game at Mile High every year (and CSU can't afford to guarantee a large enough payout to CU if the game is played in Ft Collins every other year).

 

[Uncle Ken]

Reasonable people couldn't. Emotions are high from some people, though. It's about both love and money for a CSU fan. Losing this game would be an unmitigated disaster. We aren't going to get a reasoned response in that situation. Especially since if you look at it from a calculated business perspective it's impossible to make a good case for CU playing this game at Mile High every year (and CSU can't afford to guarantee a large enough payout to CU if the game is played in Ft Collins every other year).

Which is why I asked the question I did.

Proponents of the RMS need to make a compelling argument why CU benefits from keeping the game. If they can't, they should probably admit that they're just sad that their charity dried up.

 

[dio]

Frei at least had an article with a refutation of Matt Stephens today, although his argument was that 'CU's scheduling issues aren't enough to end the CSU game'

 

[sackman]

I don't think the legislature can really do much of anything.

As for this being far from over - well, yeah. But here's the thing, as has been pointed out, CU holds all the cards here. I don't really get the impression that RG wants to keep this game at all. If he doesn't want to keep the game, the game is going away. Simple as that. This is all on RG, and he hasn't indicated any desire to play CSU annually once the contract expires.

Again, CSU can whine about it all they want. I really don't care. The Denver media is already preparing for the NFL draft. This is yesterday's news. They don't really care one way or the other if the game gets played. This gave them something to write/talk about for a day or two in a slow sports time.

Could something happen? Sure. Anything *could* happen. It ranges from RG renewing the series as-is to completely killing it. We're a lot closer to killing it than any other option.

 

[Buffnik]

Frei at least had an article with a refutation of Matt Stephens today, although his argument was that 'CU's scheduling issues aren't enough to end the CSU game'

That just underscores the whole situation.

1. CU can't schedule an appealing schedule for season ticket holders if it plays a neutral site game against CSU at Mile High every year.

2. CU revenues from the RMS have been well below the old numbers. The game lacks a title sponsor, CU no longer owns its media rights to get a big bonus from the Pac-12 if the game is nationally televised, and attendance is way down.

3. CU does not gain any benefit in prestige or with in-state recruiting by playing this game. In fact, a strong argument can be made that the game hurts both of those things from a CU perspective.

4. CU, as evidenced by the local media's coverage of this story and other things, gains zero benefit in terms of positive local media coverage by playing this game.

For CSU, it builds the brand, gains media coverage (overwhelmingly positive), gives it an important recruiting event, makes as much money as its conference media deal (more when the game gets picked up nationally in a CSU "home" year), and increases program prestige. That's great for them. I can see why they want so passionately to keep it in its current form.

But there is no argument for CU to play this game beyond "tradition" and "state pride". In other words, CU is being expected to do something that is against its current interests because it's a boon to CSU. **** that. For the same reason that Alabama didn't decide to save UAB football by giving them an annual game (and they're part of the same university system), CU can't run the business of its football program with helping out CSU as its top priority -- hell, it's nowhere on the priority list.

 

[AeroBuff99]

One way to guarantee that the series will end is to rip off 6 wins in a row against them, with the last couple being large margin of victory wins. It may be close again this year and next, but after that if we are truly on the rise, the series will become laughable again and no one will want to play it anymore.

 

[Buffnik]

One way to guarantee that the series will end is to rip off 6 wins in a row against them, with the last couple being large margin of victory wins. It may be close again this year and next, but after that if we are truly on the rise, the series will become laughable again and no one will want to play it anymore.

That wouldn't change a single thing in terms of the business reasons why CSU needs this series. It would lessen the boost it gives them for in-state recruiting (which it needs to out-recruit Wyoming in CO), but the money and chance to glad-hand with resident Denver CSU grads (potential or actual boosters) who never go up to Ft Collins for a game is HUGE for CSU regardless of whether they're competitive.

I guess CU blowouts would lessen the local media's support of the game.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Question for those of you more familiar with the logistical side of the event: How are the seats at Mile High determined for CU season ticket holders? Perhaps the biggest complaint from ST holders is the seat difference for tickets in Folsom, compared to the seemingly random seat assignment at Mile High. My parents are long time ST holders who have donated more and more over the years and moved into better seats at Folsom (currently about the 45 yardline on the east side about 50ish rows up), only to be given 500-level tickets or really bad corner endzone tickets for the RMS. Is CU assigning these tickets or is it some sort of third party associated with SAF @ Mile High that is generating the ticket assignments?

 

[Dark Bohner]

I had one person that I spoke to say that Colorado was acting like a bully in this situation. The irony is that this is how the media and CSU are making Colorado out to be a bully when it is the complete opposite. Colorado is wanting to walk away from the situation, not force it on CSU. Colorado State and other RMS proponents are threatening to bring in the legislature to force this game on Colorado. So basically Colorado is the one being bullied and forced into something that it does not want.

 

[ahoelsken]

Frei at least had an article with a refutation of Matt Stephens today, although his argument was that 'CU's scheduling issues aren't enough to end the CSU game'

Let me summarize/rip Frei's "refutation" (Using that term loosely-The only thing Frei refutes is Stephens' calling RG out on twitter for making himself the story) of Matt Stephens if I may. Frei uses our facility projects and their new stadium to justify moving the game back to campus-He says "One way to showcase the improvements would be for the Buffaloes to play host to CSU every other season." Showing it off to who? The fifteen Ram fans who pay attention to their football team more than one week a year? Playing UMass at home serves the same purpose. Other than that, his take is still the same-We are taking our ball and going home. Woelk is the only columnist in the area who understands this issue-We're dictating terms because we can.

 

[Buffnik]

No one arguing against RG on this issue bothers to address the elephant in the room: playing CSU in Denver every year does not make sense for CU.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

No one arguing against RG on this issue bothers to address the elephant in the room: playing CSU in Denver every year does not make sense for CU.

They can't.

From a business standpoint there is no positive for CU. None.

 

[sackman]

RG doesn't have to answer to anybody other than CU and it's fans. He needs to be somewhat politically correct when dealing with interviews, but he owes the Denver media exactly nothing and he owes CSU even less.

 

[AeroBuff99]

Question for those of you more familiar with the logistical side of the event: How are the seats at Mile High determined for CU season ticket holders? Perhaps the biggest complaint from ST holders is the seat difference for tickets in Folsom, compared to the seemingly random seat assignment at Mile High. My parents are long time ST holders who have donated more and more over the years and moved into better seats at Folsom (currently about the 45 yardline on the east side about 50ish rows up), only to be given 500-level tickets or really bad corner endzone tickets for the RMS. Is CU assigning these tickets or is it some sort of third party associated with SAF @ Mile High that is generating the ticket assignments?

Season ticket holders are assigned seating in the 500 level based on priority points with the exception that club level and suite level ticket holders are assigned club level seating by default (I believe the suites at SAF are still held by those suite holders). From there you can choose to upgrade price level, pay extra $10 and you can get 300 level corner tickets, extra $30 you can get 100 level tickets, extra $55 you get club level. Each level is assigned based on priority points, so they take all the requests for the 100 level and hand out tickets based on priority points, accommodating specific requests when they can. So a long time season ticket holder with a high priority point ranking can keep the standard 500 level nosebleeds, or pay extra and move to better seats. The past couple of years I was able to get near the 50 in the 100 level. Thinking of trying club level this year for the heck of it.

 

[boydbuff]

RG doesn't have to answer to anybody other than CU and it's fans. He needs to be somewhat politically correct when dealing with interviews, but he owes the Denver media exactly nothing and he owes CSU even less.

I would 100% agree if it weren't for the potential of the legislature getting involved. If they can intervene here, there is lobbying that needs to be done and RG would be one of the voices for the CU lobby.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Which is why I asked the question I did.

Proponents of the RMS need to make a compelling argument why CU benefits from keeping the game. If they can't, they should probably admit that they're just sad that their charity dried up.

Once you start feeding a stray animal, you've adopted it.

Can someone remind me how much CSU gets from the RMS? 40% of box office?

Ballpark calculation = 62K fans x $30-35 per ticket x 40% = $750-$870K payday. I'm not sure how TV rights and other game day revenue (parking/concessions) revenue is allocated. On thing for sure is that the Stadium isn't doing this for charity.


CSU's Total revenue from their AD is around $30M -vs - $60M at CU.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Season ticket holders are assigned seating in the 500 level based on priority points with the exception that club level and suite level ticket holders are assigned club level seating by default (I believe the suites at SAF are still held by those suite holders). From there you can choose to upgrade price level, pay extra $10 and you can get 300 level corner tickets, extra $30 you can get 100 level tickets, extra $55 you get club level. Each level is assigned based on priority points, so they take all the requests for the 100 level and hand out tickets based on priority points, accommodating specific requests when they can. So a long time season ticket holder with a high priority point ranking can keep the standard 500 level nosebleeds, or pay extra and move to better seats. The past couple of years I was able to get near the 50 in the 100 level. Thinking of trying club level this year for the heck of it.

Thanks for the explanation. So, from the sounds of it, this area of dissatisfaction from CU fans is actually self imposed by the way CU is allocating tickets, correct? Is there a better way for CU to assign RMS tickets to season ticket holders? If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the main fan complaints about the game being at Mile High, and it seems CU could do more to appease the ST holders at the very least. Then again, fan complaints only increases the likelihood of ending the series.

 

[ahoelsken]

No one arguing against RG on this issue bothers to address the elephant in the room: playing CSU in Denver every year does not make sense for CU.

Nobody that I heard, other than maybe Woody Paige, has attempted to argue that the game should remain in Denver. The bulk of the Denver media either a) doesn't like the game here (Nate Kreckman) b) believes its broken (Scott Hastings) or c) understands the rationale for RG wanting to play at least our "home" games on campus. What they don't understand is this-This is the only P5-Group of 5 game that takes place EVERY year. I don't want to compare it to Ohio State playing an in-state MAC school. Consider these two examples:

Stanford-San Jose State
These two have played 67 times. Four of these have been at San Jose State. This is a part of why this series has on hiatus since 2013-San Jose State wants a more equitable arrangement. Prior to 2013, they weren't playing every year.

The Utah examples I gave the other night are probably better-
They don't play Utah State and BYU every year since they have joined the Pac 12 (did so in '12 and '13, but I think we can chalk these up to them not having the time to replace one or both games after their conference change). They are not scheduled to play both teams in the same year as of now (They'll play Utah State this year, and BYU in 2016-18). Since they moved into the Pac 12, they have only played 2 for 1's with Utah State and BYU.

What makes this series so much different?

 

[ahoelsken]

Thanks for the explanation. So, from the sounds of it, this area of dissatisfaction from CU fans is actually self imposed by the way CU is allocating tickets, correct? Is there a better way for CU to assign RMS tickets to season ticket holders? If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the main fan complaints about the game being at Mile High, and it seems CU could do more to appease the ST holders at the very least. Then again, fan complaints only increases the likelihood of ending the series.

What drove me nuts prior to RG taking over was the fact that we HAD to buy worse tickets for this game in relation to what we had at Folsom at a higher price. As a season ticket holder, I'm going to take the option that RG made available this week and buy the additional tickets to a Folsom game.......I like it, and Oregon, Arizona, or USC is an easier sell than CSU.

 

[sackman]

I would 100% agree if it weren't for the potential of the legislature getting involved. If they can intervene here, there is lobbying that needs to be done and RG would be one of the voices for the CU lobby.

I'd be very, very surprised if the legislature gets involved in this. I suppose anything is possible, but legislative intervention seems very unlikely.

 

[tante]

Really excited too see the attendance in Denver this year.

 

[absinthe]

Thanks for the explanation. So, from the sounds of it, this area of dissatisfaction from CU fans is actually self imposed by the way CU is allocating tickets, correct? Is there a better way for CU to assign RMS tickets to season ticket holders? If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the main fan complaints about the game being at Mile High, and it seems CU could do more to appease the ST holders at the very least. Then again, fan complaints only increases the likelihood of ending the series.

For me it was part ticket (in Folsom I am at the 48yard line in row 25ish, some of I would argue the best seats int he house) in Denver I:
- Was in the upper deck
- was charged more for the ticket
- did not get to park in Franklin next to the stadium
- got harassed by cops
- dealt with stupid ram fans
- had half the concessions closed
- stared at 20K empty seats
- was surround by donkies "atmosphere"
So my objections were many fold, certainly the nosebleed seats were a large part of it, but the driver was the game not being in Folsom and not having my usual tailgate routine etc. I'd rather play charelston southern in boulder than the real CSU in Denver.

 

[Darth Snow]

Really excited too see the attendance in Denver this year.

Could go either way. Buffs go 2-0, Rams go 2-0, could be huge. It's gonna be a weird year with the game happening in the 3d week.

Could also go the other way if the Buffs blow either or both of the first games. Cause if they blow both, HCMM getting fired.

 

[boydbuff]

I'd be very, very surprised if the legislature gets involved in this. I suppose anything is possible, but legislative intervention seems very unlikely.

I hope you are right. But in this same thread others have commented that the legislature did intervene previously on this topic. If they don't get involved I would love for us to trash the **** out of them on the field every year until the media starts calling off the wolves saying it is unfair for CSU to have to play a P5 team with all of our resources every year.

 

[sackman]

The original intent of moving the game to Denver was to create a game like OU/UT and/or UGA/UF. The thought was that it would create a big-time atmosphere and really provide a springboard for college football in the state.

It has fallen ridiculously short of that ambition. It's now obvious that it will NEVER reach anywhere close to that level. While it IS the biggest thing for CSU fans, it's a mere annoyance for CU fans. There's nothing about the game in Denver that screams "big time". It does just the opposite, in fact.

Kill the game. It's outrun it's usefulness.

 

[Deleted member 807]

The original intent of moving the game to Denver was to create a game like OU/UT and/or UGA/UF. The thought was that it would create a big-time atmosphere and really provide a springboard for college football in the state.
.

This recounting of the origin of RMS is a good example of how shortsighted and out of touch community leaders are with how college football works.

Worrying about the future of the RMS is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Both football programs have serious issues.
CU de-emphasized their once dominant program to the point of inept irrelevance. No matter how much perfume CSU puts on the MWC, the conference is a dud when it comes to making money from networks. CSU will NEVER have a shot at a national championship in that conference. Just look at Boise for reference.

Both schools are simply playing catch up right now in a world where many others have blown on by.

Knowing what we know now, imaging going back in time to 1994 and providing guidance to the ADs. The last priority anyone should have cared about back then is the RMS. Instead, you would be screaming at CU to join the Pac12 and avoid the Big Tex drama. At that point, the legislature might have taken steps for CSU to come along as part of the package.

You would be hiring a business man as the AD similar to Rick George or Jack Graham, but 20 years earlier. You would be begging both schools to reach out for booster money, build nice on campus facilities and pay big bucks for coaches. You would plead with the administrations to not just coast on recent national rankings, but to push the envelope. Be Bold or to be Boulder by pacesetting the arms race with innovative approaches to media contracts, offensive schemes, IPFs, and even uniform design.

You would de-emphasize NCAA compliance, hire excellent legal and media consultants, and get in front of recruiting scandals and hacks in the local press. You'd be an early adopter of social media.

Instead both schools just ran on inertia and were content with treading water and playing make-believe that CSU-CU at Mile High is something more special than it is.

Leaders from Oregon, Alabama, TCU, Baylor, Auburn and Oklahoma State figured it out while leaders from CSU and CU were content to engage is a standoff of who could do the least for the football program and dig the deepest hole.

Prioritizing the RMS without first addressing conference affiliations was dumb then. It's even more dumb to revisit it again.

 

[whatthebuff]

The original intent of moving the game to Denver was to create a game like OU/UT and/or UGA/UF. The thought was that it would create a big-time atmosphere and really provide a springboard for college football in the state.

It has fallen ridiculously short of that ambition. It's now obvious that it will NEVER reach anywhere close to that level. While it IS the biggest thing for CSU fans, it's a mere annoyance for CU fans. There's nothing about the game in Denver that screams "big time". It does just the opposite, in fact.

Kill the game. It's outrun it's usefulness.

Honestly I think it would be a different story if we were any good. Did you go to the 2003 lightning game? It was a sellout, both teams were good that year, and the atmosphere was amazing. Easily one of the most memorable games I've been to. This game has no interest because we have sucked for years, and CSU hasn't been great either, except for last year.

With that said, I wouldn't care if they cancel the series. :lol:

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I agree the Lightning game was great. However, I really don't see the Rams being good again, what with the 'Have's and Have Not's' going in different directions in the college football landscape. I see CU getting better and it becoming an annual beatdown with little interest for CU fans even if it is a beatdown. I see no reason to keep it going when I want LSU, Georgia, FSU, Michigan, Auburn, teams like that coming here on 1 and 1's.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Honestly I think it would be a different story if we were any good. Did you go to the 2003 lightning game? It was a sellout, both teams were good that year, and the atmosphere was amazing. Easily one of the most memorable games I've been to. This game has no interest because we have sucked for years, and CSU hasn't been great either, except for last year.

With that said, I wouldn't care if they cancel the series. :lol:

That lightning game might have been the best all around RMS I've been around for. A sellout at the height of the rivalry and Klatt gave BVP a loss to end his career against CU. That one was right up there with JJ Billingsley and the goal line stand in 2004... Of course, that one was at Folsom.

http://www.cubuffs.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=3372716&db_oem_id=600