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!

Naming rights for CSU's new stadium - ideas?

buffedup said:
I'm pretty sure Utah State is joining next year already. The MWC is keeping CSU because they need enough warm bodies to stay afloat.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right. I had forgotten. Hard to keep the MWC straight with all the shuffling lately. It's a good pickup for the MWC. In pure theory, perhaps CSU has more upside than USU for football, but in reality, USU is doing a solid job of improving onwards and upwards...and obviously CSU isn't.
 
Keep your head up kicker..
xbyagl.gif
 
I got laid out like that in HS. Watching that made me twitch a little for some reason
 
They should really cut football at a number of schools. I don't think CSU and Wyoming should have teams. They're net money losers for the university. Low attendance. Low TV ratings. Sub .500 programs. What’s the point?

Rocky Mtn. region is totally saturated with spectator sporting options, between pro and college. Too much supply, not enough demand.
 
Walter White said:
They should really cut football at a number of schools. I don't think CSU and Wyoming should have teams. They're net money losers for the university. Low attendance. Low TV ratings. Sub .500 programs. What’s the point?

Rocky Mtn. region is totally saturated with spectator sporting options, between pro and college. Too much supply, not enough demand.
Click to expand...

Inside 10 years, you may see just that. Higher Ed is due for a financial reality check.
CSU's Jack Graham and Tony Frank see the writing on the wall.

They are fighting an existential battle they can't afford to lose.
 
Skidmark said:
Inside 10 years, you may see just that. Higher Ed is due for a financial reality check.
CSU's Jack Graham and Tony Frank see the writing on the wall.

They are fighting an existential battle they can't afford to lose.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will cut football but they will be forced to go down to at least FCS if not lower. They simply do not and cannot generate revenues that allow them to compete. With the alternatives available they aren't going to generate revenues without getting much better and other schools with budgets they could never dream of stand in their way.

I see the CSU-Pueblo model as much more viable and sustainable than the CSU - Ft. Collins model ever will be.
 
MtnBuff said:
I don't think they will cut football but they will be forced to go down to at least FCS if not lower. They simply do not and cannot generate revenues that allow them to compete. With the alternatives available they aren't going to generate revenues without getting much better and other schools with budgets they could never dream of stand in their way.

I see the CSU-Pueblo model as much more viable and sustainable than the CSU - Ft. Collins model ever will be.
Click to expand...

Well said. I guess it's almost like a high school model that would work. No or few scholies for the players. Limited range of travel for games. Very small stadiums. Nothing wrong with that. It's more about the players, playing for the fun of it. Same as for nearly every other sport at small schools: XC, tennis, golf, soccer, etc.
 
Walter White said:
Well said. I guess it's almost like a high school model that would work. No or few scholies for the players. Limited range of travel for games. Very small stadiums. Nothing wrong with that. It's more about the players, playing for the fun of it. Same as for nearly every other sport at small schools: XC, tennis, golf, soccer, etc.
Click to expand...

FBS has a scholly limit of 85, UNC plays in FCS which has a limit of I believe (and may be wrong) of 63, CSU-Pueblo plays at D-II which has a limit of the equivelent of 36 full schollies but which may be divided among more than that number of players in the form of partial schollies.

As you mention other significant cost savings are also generated by spending much less on coaches who recieve much lower salaries and there are fewer allowed coaching positions. Schools also save substantial money on travel by playing more regional games and travelling cheaper with buses instead of planes, lower priced hotels or avoiding hotel stays, cheaper food options, etc. I heard of one school that makes a deal with their conference opponents to provide meals from student food services (dorm food) for traveling teams. Recruiting cost are also much, much lower than at higher levels.

CSU - Pueblo has secured community sponsorship to cover most of their scholarship cost. They also got the community to pay to build the stadium and locker and weight facilities. They seat officially about 6,000 but stuffed over 8,000 in for a playoff game last year.

I could see CSU - Ft. Collins being able to compete very well on the field and financially in FCS ball in the Big Sky. They would lose some fans who would be mad about losing "big time" football but gain others who would be happy to see them be competitive. I think that averaging over 16k would be very reasonable and would make them financially viable. They would definately still be a big step above the just for fun level but not getting their brains beat out by schools who have single game revenues larger than their season revenues are. Having some winning seasons would help rally the students and community around the school and make for a better experience overall.
 
buffedup said:
Temple professor says new stadium likely to lose money, and original feasibility study is "wildly optimistic". Not surprising. It is time to see if Frank puts his money where his mouth is, as he said if there is even a chance that they have to dip into general funds then they aren't building it.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...football-stadium-could-lose-money?source=jBar
Click to expand...

So...no Lady GaGa?

Think of all the money CSU could have saved simply by asking Allbuffs what we thought of the feasibility study.
 
Somebody reinstate OMFGasm, STAT! I'm dying to hear that idiot try to spin this one!
 
I can tell you

"That was just some schill paid for by the SOS crowd. He is getting paid to give out false and negative information. Lulz, jelly?"
 
dio said:
I can tell you

"That was just some schill paid for by the SOS crowd. He is getting paid to give out false and negative information. Lulz, jelly?"
Click to expand...
you forgot the quote to the ICON study. That's seriously what the guy on rivals did. :lol:
 
Tatanka™ said:
Somebody reinstate OMFGasm, STAT! I'm dying to hear that idiot try to spin this one!
Click to expand...

Like the other troll that visited this thread recently, 'Gasm will be unable to separate the issue of "scoreboard" from the subject of stadium funding and revenue.

Scoreboard! Jelly?
 
CSU’s vision for their football program is totally and completely misguided and irresponsible. That said, they’re not alone. Division one probably needs to be cut by a third, at a minimum. I think probably 2/3 of the d1 football programs lose money. CSU is paying a head coach seven figures for a team that averages 22k in attendance? Massive investments in facilities, staff, etc.? A $250 million stadium? If you’re a private school, fine, do what you like, but this is a public institution. CSU should not be in this business.
 
From rn:

"You think that a guy receiving a paycheck from SOS has no leanings
towards being against the stadium? How was he selected in the first
place? They went all the way to Temple to find a neutral economist on
this? Even base level knowledge as a reporter should be able to see
through this. It's the same reason that publicly traded companies are
often in cahoots with their auditors. They were able to handpick their
auditors until recent industry changes because it's an obvious conflict of
interest. To me this is similar."

Uh. Ok. But doesn't that same logic hold for ICON and their interests?
 
At first, I was supportive of CSU's attempt to build an on-campus stadium. Now, I'm not so sure. I think they're biting off more than they can chew. They're proposing twice the facility that they should have, at three times the cost. I worry that their f*ck ups will impact our efforts at facility upgrades at CU. Benson and DiStephano are political animals, and if they think they will be hurt politically by allowing a large facility upgrade project at CU, they'll kill it. I think the CSU stadium fiasco has the potential to cast all athletic facility upgrades in a negative light.
 
sackman said:
At first, I was supportive of CSU's attempt to build an on-campus stadium. Now, I'm not so sure. I think they're biting off more than they can chew. They're proposing twice the facility that they should have, at three times the cost. I worry that their f*ck ups will impact our efforts at facility upgrades at CU. Benson and DiStephano are political animals, and if they think they will be hurt politically by allowing a large facility upgrade project at CU, they'll kill it. I think the CSU stadium fiasco has the potential to cast all athletic facility upgrades in a negative light.
Click to expand...

They deserve this facility.
 
Orr said:
They deserve this facility.
Click to expand...

sacky only posted part of the equation. Where is lady gaga going to have her wedding. Where are the goldberg's going to have their bar mitzvah? What about Anne and Frank's wedding? Do the fine people of Colorado not deserve all those events?
 
If CSU were to face reality and drop their program down to the FCS level while at the same time trying to integrate the program back into the campus environment and build and nice 15K stadium for around $50 mil then I would think it's a good idea. But they have this completely delusional pipe dream that building an on-campus stadium will double their attendance and instantly lift them up to a BCS level.
 
sackman said:
At first, I was supportive of CSU's attempt to build an on-campus stadium. Now, I'm not so sure. I think they're biting off more than they can chew. They're proposing twice the facility that they should have, at three times the cost. I worry that their f*ck ups will impact our efforts at facility upgrades at CU. Benson and DiStephano are political animals, and if they think they will be hurt politically by allowing a large facility upgrade project at CU, they'll kill it. I think the CSU stadium fiasco has the potential to cast all athletic facility upgrades in a negative light.
Click to expand...

This is my number one concern - they could definitely poison the well here.
 
rodrigo said:
From rn:

"You think that a guy receiving a paycheck from SOS has no leanings
towards being against the stadium? How was he selected in the first
place? They went all the way to Temple to find a neutral economist on
this? Even base level knowledge as a reporter should be able to see
through this. It's the same reason that publicly traded companies are
often in cahoots with their auditors. They were able to handpick their
auditors until recent industry changes because it's an obvious conflict of
interest. To me this is similar."

Uh. Ok. But doesn't that same logic hold for ICON and their interests?
Click to expand...

They are in full retard mode with selective hearing over there. Two economists have come out and said that the projections by ICON are extremely optimistic. Historical fan support data does not support the numbers that they are getting from ICON. It wouldn't matter if 100 economist said that it is unwise to build it based on the numbers. They would just stick their fingers in their ears screaming "I can't hear you! La La La!":lalala:
 
I think it's pretty much a done deal. Frank will either announce as a full go or announce that they'll build when the funding is complete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top