Long-term plan for CU facilities upgrades

[Shldr2Shldr]

Yes. And the point remains. CU has all the land it needs. This isn’t a land issue.

CU may own the land but they cannot build on it, because of Boulder.

The city will not issue water taps to CU to build on the south campus. The city wants that to remain open land as you enter Boulder.

So it isn't a real estate issue, but it is.

 

[Buffnik]

It's easier because baseball plays 3-game series, not one-off games in the early season and there a just 2 lacrosse programs west of the Mississippi. UNC played 11 of their first 15 at home so it's possible.

Have you seen DU's lacrosse schedule? They only played 5 home games and 12 road games which we're almost exclusively on the east coast. Oh and it's an outdoor sport that plays the same season as baseball, so you know, weather.

DU has a great hockey and lacrosse program because that's what they focus on. Football will always be the dominant program in Boulder so this idea that we'll be a good lacrosse program because DU is good - I don't buy it.

Right. Because weather impacts baseball and lacrosse the same way. And those 3, 4 and 5 game series don't add a ton of cost to keep a team in a hotel for a week.

Listen, I totally understand that people like baseball and would like to see it at CU for that reason. But if you think that it's a viable option without an unprecedented financial donation for facilities that would have a single purpose, you're just wrong. Even with that, CU would struggle to be good at it. We'd probably have a better chance of being good at softball given the in-state talent, but then you've got a whole other set of costs when you consider them as a pair due to the fact that they can't even play on the same field or practice fields.

In the big-money world of college sports, baseball finishes last on the bottom line. Division I-A baseball programs reported a median loss of nearly $700,000 in 2012, the highest among men's sports, according to the latest available NCAA report. Jun 6, 2014 http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_29eb808c-edd8-11e3-9f88-0017a43b2370.html

This is what I'm talking about. Even on top of the huge sunk costs and ongoing maintenance for dedicated facilities, even on top of it being paired with softball to add the biggest red ink sport on the women's side, and even on top of how difficult it is to compete in a warm weather sport when based in a cold weather climate, baseball is the biggest red ink sport in the NCAA men's offerings just on a median level. It would be beyond stupid if RG pursued it. However, we do need a featured men's sport for the spring schedule. There would be a benefit to that for the CU community. Lacrosse fits that bill. And since it's an emerging sport in the west, there's an opportunity for CU to quickly become good and to establish itself as a western elite -- just as it did in women's lacrosse.

 

[Buffnik]

CU may own the land but they cannot build on it, because of Boulder.

The city will not issue water taps to CU to build on the south campus. The city wants that to remain open land as you enter Boulder.

So it isn't a real estate issue, but it is.

Not true on the water taps for south campus. That's old news. City has approved CU's development of the south campus. It will be mostly housing for the university, though, while protecting a big chunk of it as wetlands and open space.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Yeah Nik I know baseball is a long shot, but there's plenty of reasons for baseball over lacrosse. Besides the above, we are the only Pac 12 school without baseball - that's weak. Plus it's dramatically more popular and has far better participation at the youth levels in Colorado than lacrosse.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Not true on the water taps for south campus. That's old news. City has approved CU's development of the south campus. It will be mostly housing for the university, though, while protecting a big chunk of it as wetlands and open space.

I had forgotten about that new development. However that is for student housing and some protected space. They would not approve the taps for athletic facilities.

 

[Buffnik]

I had forgotten about that new development. However that is for student housing and some protected space. They would not approve the taps for athletic facilities.

XC competes there and the tennis courts are also located there.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Right. Because weather impacts baseball and lacrosse the same way. And those 3, 4 and 5 game series don't add a ton of cost to keep a team in a hotel for a week.

Listen, I totally understand that people like baseball and would like to see it at CU for that reason. But if you think that it's a viable option without an unprecedented financial donation for facilities that would have a single purpose, you're just wrong. Even with that, CU would struggle to be good at it. We'd probably have a better chance of being good at softball given the in-state talent, but then you've got a whole other set of costs when you consider them as a pair due to the fact that they can't even play on the same field or practice fields.

In the big-money world of college sports, baseball finishes last on the bottom line. Division I-A baseball programs reported a median loss of nearly $700,000 in 2012, the highest among men's sports, according to the latest available NCAA report. Jun 6, 2014 http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_29eb808c-edd8-11e3-9f88-0017a43b2370.html

This is what I'm talking about. Even on top of the huge sunk costs and ongoing maintenance for dedicated facilities, even on top of it being paired with softball to add the biggest red ink sport on the women's side, and even on top of how difficult it is to compete in a warm weather sport when based in a cold weather climate, baseball is the biggest red ink sport in the NCAA men's offerings just on a median level. It would be beyond stupid if RG pursued it. However, we do need a featured men's sport for the spring schedule. There would be a benefit to that for the CU community. Lacrosse fits that bill. And since it's an emerging sport in the west, there's an opportunity for CU to quickly become good and to establish itself as a western elite -- just as it did in women's lacrosse.

I get all that and we're just not going to agree here, I'm simply arguing that there are more reasons than just "I like baseball" which is foolishness. How much does it cost for a 4-game series at Utah Valley, Nebraska, or South Dakota State versus a one-off lacrosse game in DC, Chapel Hill, or Providence?

Adding a sport and the facilities to go along with it for occasionally a 5 game home schedule doesn't seem worth the investment to me at all.

 

[SINKRATZ]

That's all great, but baseball still crushes lacrosse in total participation. Add softball and it's even more lopsided.

 

[Buffnik]

I get all that and we're just not going to agree here, I'm simply arguing that there are more reasons than just "I like baseball" which is foolishness. How much does it cost for a 4-game series at Utah Valley, Nebraska, or South Dakota State versus a one-off lacrosse game in DC, Chapel Hill, or Providence?

Adding a sport and the facilities to go along with it for occasionally a 5 game home schedule doesn't seem worth the investment to me at all.

If you can't acknowledge that baseball is a more costly sport that loses more money every year, has higher startup costs and is declining in popularity while lacrosse popularity is growing and that MLAX has been shown by DU & the CU women's team to be a sport that CU could be great at while comparative baseball programs are mediocre or worse... then I don't know what to tell you. Every pro baseball argument boils down to "but I like baseball". Anyone who liked neither baseball nor lacrosse would be able to logically argue for baseball.

 

[Buffnik]

That's all great, but baseball still crushes lacrosse in total participation. Add softball and it's even more lopsided.

But not enough popularity to drive fan support to the point where it isn't the biggest red ink sport in men's college athletics.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

See, I don't get why it matters what other Pac-12 programs do for non revenue sports. Does it bother you that Utah is the only member of the Pac-12 that doesn't play women's golf?

And, yes, more people play baseball than lacrosse. More people also watch baseball. But it's nowhere close to being able to give bang for the buck. Maybe draw 500 more fans than lacrosse (???), but start every season on long road trips because - unlike lacrosse - you can't play baseball in Colorado when the weather's ****ty (college baseball season starts in February), that same season demands indoor practice facilities on top of a stadium that can only be used for baseball, very few schools in the vicinity play so it would be harder to find opponents for non-conference, and it would be really difficult to ever be good at it and compete for a national championship.

Adding baseball would be a monumental mistake for CU.

Yep, **** baseball.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Right. Because weather impacts baseball and lacrosse the same way. And those 3, 4 and 5 game series don't add a ton of cost to keep a team in a hotel for a week.

Listen, I totally understand that people like baseball and would like to see it at CU for that reason. But if you think that it's a viable option without an unprecedented financial donation for facilities that would have a single purpose, you're just wrong. Even with that, CU would struggle to be good at it. We'd probably have a better chance of being good at softball given the in-state talent, but then you've got a whole other set of costs when you consider them as a pair due to the fact that they can't even play on the same field or practice fields.

In the big-money world of college sports, baseball finishes last on the bottom line. Division I-A baseball programs reported a median loss of nearly $700,000 in 2012, the highest among men's sports, according to the latest available NCAA report. Jun 6, 2014 http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_29eb808c-edd8-11e3-9f88-0017a43b2370.html

This is what I'm talking about. Even on top of the huge sunk costs and ongoing maintenance for dedicated facilities, even on top of it being paired with softball to add the biggest red ink sport on the women's side, and even on top of how difficult it is to compete in a warm weather sport when based in a cold weather climate, baseball is the biggest red ink sport in the NCAA men's offerings just on a median level. It would be beyond stupid if RG pursued it. However, we do need a featured men's sport for the spring schedule. There would be a benefit to that for the CU community. Lacrosse fits that bill. And since it's an emerging sport in the west, there's an opportunity for CU to quickly become good and to establish itself as a western elite -- just as it did in women's lacrosse.

Yep, **** baseball.

 

[SINKRATZ]

But not enough popularity to drive fan support to the point where it isn't the biggest red ink sport in men's college athletics.

I'll take your word on the economics of operating these sports but I'd love to see those numbers - I suspect they are both big money losers. DU is an excellent lacrosse program with a 2,000 seat stadium and had 5 home games and traveled to the east coast a dozen times - the economics of that can't be good.

I'm sure popularity of lacrosse is gaining but the Rockies who have never won anything still out draw the Outlaws 4:1.

Ironically, I happen to be finishing breakfast with the family at a diner in Avon and the TV is showing Mississippi State/Samford baseball - so that anecdotal evidence is all the proof I need

 

[onealcd]

The only way baseball could work in Boulder is if a minor league team wanted to move there and build a joint facility with the university, which doesn’t seem very likely with that huge facility that is going up in Windsor.

 

[Not Sure]

CU may own the land but they cannot build on it, because of Boulder.

The city will not issue water taps to CU to build on the south campus. The city wants that to remain open land as you enter Boulder.

So it isn't a real estate issue, but it is.

CU can build whatever it wants. I think you would be shocked if you knew just how much real estate the University actually owns. For instance, all the land bordered by 30th st to the West, Arapahoe to the North, Foothills Parkway to the East and Colorado Avenue to the South is owned by CU (save for a couple small parcels that face Arapahoe). In addition, nearly everything between Boulder Creek and Arapahoe between Folsom and 17th is owned by CU. Some of it might have other things on it at the moment, but that’s never stopped CU from building what it wants, where it wants.

I’ll say it again: this is not a real estate issue. It’s a money issue.

 

[Buffnik]

CU can build whatever it wants. I think you would be shocked if you knew just how much real estate the University actually owns. For instance, all the land bordered by 30th st to the West, Arapahoe to the North, Foothills Parkway to the East and Colorado Avenue to the South is owned by CU (save for a couple small parcels that face Arapahoe). In addition, nearly everything between Boulder Creek and Arapahoe between Folsom and 17th is owned by CU. Some of it might have other things on it at the moment, but that’s never stopped CU from building what it wants, where it wants.

I’ll say it again: this is not a real estate issue. It’s a money issue.

Also, I'd bet that Naropa would sell CU its land on Arapahoe in exchange for enough money to locate one unified campus for itself and build it out.

 

[MtnBuff]

I get the attraction to baseball. It is the game that lots of people here grew up playing, it used to be America's sport. It still has a lot of HS participation.

It isn't however a rational choice for the University of Colorado at Boulder to add to it's intercollegiate athletic program. It just doesn't make sense.

First off we won't win at it. We would be in the PAC competing against current #1 Oregon State, #3 Stanford, #18 UCLA, and traditional powers USC, Arizona, Arizona State, even Cal. In short we would get our A**es handed to us on a yearly basis.

We would need the fantasy donor to turn up with millions of dollars to build a baseball specific facility, and maintain it, and fund the program. You can argue but Nik posted the numbers, baseball is a big money losing sport for most schools. It might be cool to go out once in a while and see the Buffs play but there is no indication that baseball would draw any kind of significant crowds in Boulder. People who want to watch baseball can and will go to a Rockies game and yes low priced tickets are available. Comparing pro baseball to college baseball is not a valid comparison.

I would venture that due to increased travel cost plus the added expenses of doing most of your recruiting out of state that baseball at CU would lose even more money than the average program.

Personally I would be more likely to go to a baseball game than a lacrosse game but that doesn't mean baseball makes more sense for the university.

We already have lacrosse ready facilities. Should we need to upgrade it is less costly, less space consuming, and more versatile. A lacrosse facility can also be used for field hockey, potentially you could built a very nice 5-10k facility for lacrosse and soccer.

Lacrosse could be competitive in Colorado. DU has proven it can be done here. The game is rapidly growing in the state and producing the kind of talent that can be the core of a quality program. You can't say that about baseball.

Lacrosse also fits the demographics of CU-Boulder. As much as we would like to see more diversity CU is a school that primarily appeals to upper middle class suburban kids from private schools or more often better quality public schools. Surprise, these are the schools where lacrosse is growing the fastest.

You can love baseball all you want and live in the past when baseball mattered but unless you are willing to put up a few million dollars start-up and pledge more millions for ongoing support forget college baseball for Boulder.

 

[JOEinDenver]

I would like to counter that argument with the fact that baseball is the most boring of major sports, with action only 18% of the time.

Baseball ️ is a strategy game like chess. Simple minds don’t enjoy it as much.

 

[JOEinDenver]

I'll take your word on the economics of operating these sports but I'd love to see those numbers - I suspect they are both big money losers. DU is an excellent lacrosse program with a 2,000 seat stadium and had 5 home games and traveled to the east coast a dozen times - the economics of that can't be good.

I'm sure popularity of lacrosse is gaining but the Rockies who have never won anything still out draw the Outlaws 4:1.

Ironically, I happen to be finishing breakfast with the family at a diner in Avon and the TV is showing Mississippi State/Samford baseball - so that anecdotal evidence is all the proof I need

Outlaws, who are the Outlaws?

 

[SINKRATZ]

For all of lacrosse's popularity and its relatively affordability, not one of our peers in the Pac12 has added a varsity men's program, yet all of them have baseball. Cal has 30 varsity programs including men's and women's table tennis and still haven't added men's lacrosse despite fielding a women's program. Stanford has 37 programs including women's squash, yet no men's lacrosse.

I suspect it's because lacrosse (while gaining in popularity) is still largely an affluent, northeastern sport but hey maybe they just don't see the opportunity.

I acknowledge baseball is a long shot at CU, but there are plenty of reasons beyond just "I like baseball" to consider it over lacrosse.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Outlaws, who are the Outlaws?

Exactly

 

[MtnBuff]

For all of lacrosse's popularity and its relatively affordability, not one of our peers in the Pac12 has added a varsity men's program, yet all of them have baseball. Cal has 30 varsity programs including men's and women's table tennis and still haven't added men's lacrosse despite fielding a women's program. Stanford has 37 programs including women's squash, yet no men's lacrosse.

I suspect it's because lacrosse (while gaining in popularity) is still largely an affluent, northeastern sport but hey maybe they just don't see the opportunity.

I acknowledge baseball is a long shot at CU, but there are plenty of reasons beyond just "I like baseball" to consider it over lacrosse.

So why would it make sense to add a sport that is declining in popularity, especially among young people, would be very unlikely to be successful in competition, and would cost the school way more money for less benefit?

The only explanation is "I like baseball." I don't see a real benefit otherwise compared to less expensive alternatives. And we should have it because others have it isn't a good reason.

 

[ahoelsken]

For all of lacrosse's popularity and its relatively affordability, not one of our peers in the Pac12 has added a varsity men's program, yet all of them have baseball. Cal has 30 varsity programs including men's and women's table tennis and still haven't added men's lacrosse despite fielding a women's program. Stanford has 37 programs including women's squash, yet no men's lacrosse.

I suspect it's because lacrosse (while gaining in popularity) is still largely an affluent, northeastern sport but hey maybe they just don't see the opportunity.

I acknowledge baseball is a long shot at CU, but there are plenty of reasons beyond just "I like baseball" to consider it over lacrosse.

Read a post on here today from @ScottyBuff that has led me to change my mind on this-I think the logical sport for us to add (if I had to pick one on the men's side) isn't either of these two-Its hockey. Sure its a winter sport, but it wouldn't be that hard to get a Pac 12 hockey conference going. Arizona State competes in it as an independent, we start a program, get a couple other conference schools (say Stanford, USC, Washington, and Oregon) just for conversation's sake, and then there are 5-6 affiliate members who would probably jump at this idea-DU, CC, and AFA would all make sense. If a couple of the NW schools take the plunge, it probably wouldn't be that hard to talk the two Alaska schools into joining this-they'd make great targets for this either way-Phoenix, AZ and Boulder, CO are a lot closer to Fairbanks and Anchorage than Huntsville, AL and Bowling Green, OH are (two of their conference mates right now). Talk North Dakota into this (they've got a great hockey rivalry with DU from what I know) and you've probably got something. A hypothetical hockey program would probably be something we could put at the 1stbank center. I know this conversation has come up, but I've heard parking can be a problem there. Still, I don't think they use it for anything other than concerts.......it would probably be a win-win.

 

[HighlandsBuff]

For all of lacrosse's popularity and its relatively affordability, not one of our peers in the Pac12 has added a varsity men's program, yet all of them have baseball. Cal has 30 varsity programs including men's and women's table tennis and still haven't added men's lacrosse despite fielding a women's program. Stanford has 37 programs including women's squash, yet no men's lacrosse.

Utah has added Men's Lacrosse, they will start in two seasons.

http://utahutes.com/news/2017/6/15/general-utah-adds-mens-lacrosse-as-an-ncaa-sport.aspx

 

[PAC MAN]

Utah has added Men's Lacrosse, they will start in two seasons.

http://utahutes.com/news/2017/6/15/general-utah-adds-mens-lacrosse-as-an-ncaa-sport.aspx

Article says Utes will start this coming academic year (2018-19) which means next year.

 

[BuffsNYC]

Read a post on here today from @ScottyBuff that has led me to change my mind on this-I think the logical sport for us to add (if I had to pick one on the men's side) isn't either of these two-Its hockey. Sure its a winter sport, but it wouldn't be that hard to get a Pac 12 hockey conference going. Arizona State competes in it as an independent, we start a program, get a couple other conference schools (say Stanford, USC, Washington, and Oregon) just for conversation's sake, and then there are 5-6 affiliate members who would probably jump at this idea-DU, CC, and AFA would all make sense. If a couple of the NW schools take the plunge, it probably wouldn't be that hard to talk the two Alaska schools into joining this-they'd make great targets for this either way-Phoenix, AZ and Boulder, CO are a lot closer to Fairbanks and Anchorage than Huntsville, AL and Bowling Green, OH are (two of their conference mates right now). Talk North Dakota into this (they've got a great hockey rivalry with DU from what I know) and you've probably got something. A hypothetical hockey program would probably be something we could put at the 1stbank center. I know this conversation has come up, but I've heard parking can be a problem there. Still, I don't think they use it for anything other than concerts.......it would probably be a win-win.

DU has spent a lot of money to be one of the preeminent college hockey programs in the county. They would have no interest in joining a start up conference when they already took the lead to form the NCHC with other hockey blue bloods like NoDak and UMD.

 

[HighlandsBuff]

Article says Utes will start this coming academic year (2018-19) which means next year.

Good catch, I figured it would take longer. CU's club team has been playing lacrosse since 1960, so there's a lot of alumni and built in support right of the bat. MCLA D1 lacrosse, while club, is rather competitive, and CU has long been one of the premier programs. It's what I played in undergrad before coming to CU for law school. Utah is retaining it's club head coach, and CU could probably do the same with John Galvin, though more likely they would not.

Some other interesting thoughts from some articles about Utah's Move-

"Utah is set to become the first Power 5 program to add men's lacrosse since Michigan did so in 2012 (ending a 30-year gap since Notre Dame's first season) and just the 11th overall (four additional programs — Air Force, Army, Navy and UMass — play non-Power 5 FBS football and men's lacrosse)."

and that

"The program was endowed through a $15.6 million gift funded by an anonymous lead donor and other benefactors he enlisted. No state or university funds will be used to support the program."

It appears they are trying to find a home in either the Big East or the Big Ten... DU plays in the Big East, Air Force in the SoCon. Eventually, there will be critical mass to have a western conference, Pac-12 sponsored or otherwise. CSU's MCLA team has a rich history, I have no idea what their finances are like (I'd assume they aren't too great), but they may well add varsity lacrosse in the future as well. USC has long be rumored to be a potential entrant, and when critical mass is clear, Stanford will likely bring the sport online as well...

 

[SINKRATZ]

So why would it make sense to add a sport that is declining in popularity, especially among young people, would be very unlikely to be successful in competition, and would cost the school way more money for less benefit?

The only explanation is "I like baseball." I don't see a real benefit otherwise compared to less expensive alternatives. And we should have it because others have it isn't a good reason.

Since you're slow, I'll list some explanations other than "I like baseball"...

1) Rumors of baseball's demise it's being greatly over exaggerated by people like you. Despite some decline in baseball and some increase in lacrosse participation, baseball is still dramatically more popular and will be the case for the foreseeable future.
2) Even in one of your own rambling posts arguing for lacrosse, you admit you would be more likely to attend a baseball game than lacrosse.
3) Our peers all have baseball programs and almost none have men's lacrosse. That matters when it comes to scheduling, conference affiliation (hello, DU is in the Big East), rivalries, and fun for fans and alums.
4) Baseball provides significantly more opportunities for students and alumni to catch a game - DU had 5 home lacrosse games this year, UNC played 28 home baseball games.
5) There are 2 lacrosse programs west of the Mississippi, so we'll be playing the majority of our games on the east coast away from our alumni base whereas baseball can be played in California, Texas, Hawaii, etc.

I get that there are financial considerations and maybe those prevent baseball from being viable (though still waiting for somene to show me how much money these baseball programs are losing relative to lacrosse), but to say the only argument for baseball is "I like baseball" is wrong and lazy.

The only explanation I'm hearing for lacrosse is that it costs less - if that's the driver then just add wrestling.

 

[Buffnik]

Baseball ️ is a strategy game like chess. Simple minds don’t enjoy it as much.

You'd buy a ticket to watch chess?

Anyway, fwiw some of the dumbest humans I've ever met were MLB players. Not just "least educated", which would be more understandable since so many go from high school to the minor leagues without attending college. But really dumb. Certainly has its share of really smart guys, too, but being "cerebral" isn't exactly a requirement for the sport and being too much of a thinker may be a negative in a lot of ways.

 

[MtnBuff]

Since you're slow, I'll list some explanations other than "I like baseball"...

1) Rumors of baseball's demise it's being greatly over exaggerated by people like you. Despite some decline in baseball and some increase in lacrosse participation, baseball is still dramatically more popular and will be the case for the foreseeable future.
2) Even in one of your own rambling posts arguing for lacrosse, you admit you would be more likely to attend a baseball game than lacrosse.
3) Our peers all have baseball programs and almost none have men's lacrosse. That matters when it comes to scheduling, conference affiliation (hello, DU is in the Big East), rivalries, and fun for fans and alums.
4) Baseball provides significantly more opportunities for students and alumni to catch a game - DU had 5 home lacrosse games this year, UNC played 28 home baseball games.
5) There are 2 lacrosse programs west of the Mississippi, so we'll be playing the majority of our games on the east coast away from our alumni base whereas baseball can be played in California, Texas, Hawaii, etc.

I get that there are financial considerations and maybe those prevent baseball from being viable (though still waiting for somene to show me how much money these baseball programs are losing relative to lacrosse), but to say the only argument for baseball is "I like baseball" is wrong and lazy.

The only explanation I'm hearing for lacrosse is that it costs less - if that's the driver then just add wrestling.

No it isn't just money. It is also that we will suck at it as well compared to our conference mates.

And attendance for MLB has nothing to do with how successful a college baseball team would be with fans. I just don't see enough fans coming out to matter.

And LAX is much more popular with younger people than you think, while baseball is not on their radar.

Add a program in Colorado along with DU, and Utah and that number of home games starts to go up, and you are likely to see more western teams added.

If all you are hearing against baseball is cost you aren't listening.