BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
nm
Last edited:
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!
Ralphie Report: Colorado Basketball: Plateauing at 5,345 Feet
- Thread starter RSSBot
- Start date
That was the crux of my argument in the last part of the article. This game could be huge going forward.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Great read. It's one thing to sell out KU and Arizona, but to me that KState game and also a jam packed Keg for an early (noon?) start against a solid but unranked Okie State will always stand out. Nebraska late in the season had a great crowd as well.
This season has been a mix of a not so great home OOC schedule and a conference slate with some bad timing. The cost is a factor for sure, but what if Gonzaga had visited instead of BYU? We'd have drawn another 1,000. What if we'd defeated SMU or ISU and made a foray into the top 25? That hype alone would have led us to add 500 to 1,000 more for many games IMO. What if Oregon hadn't been hidden on a crucial Broncos Sunday? We've lacked a signature opponent and we've lacked a signature moment that really captures the attention of casual fan and signals we're back to being an NCAA Tournament team. Oregon should have been that, but it's like that game was invisible.
This season has been a mix of a not so great home OOC schedule and a conference slate with some bad timing. The cost is a factor for sure, but what if Gonzaga had visited instead of BYU? We'd have drawn another 1,000. What if we'd defeated SMU or ISU and made a foray into the top 25? That hype alone would have led us to add 500 to 1,000 more for many games IMO. What if Oregon hadn't been hidden on a crucial Broncos Sunday? We've lacked a signature opponent and we've lacked a signature moment that really captures the attention of casual fan and signals we're back to being an NCAA Tournament team. Oregon should have been that, but it's like that game was invisible.
Yeah it has to be the right combination of factors for a 2011 type scenario to happen. Some of the necessary ones haven't been in place this year. Hopefully Tad lands a bigger OOC opponent to go along with CSU next year and we have two marquee games to get people hooked before conference even starts. Unfortunately we probably won't be playing Arizona in Boulder next year.
Need RG or who ever in his department works with the Pac-12 on scheduling to do everything they can to avoid Sunday games during the playoffs in cities with NFL teams. Also cut out this 9pm MT tipoff garbage during the week or 12pm MT tipoff on the weekends. They kill attendance.
I agree. I think this would be a step in the right direction and go a long way to solving some of the attendance issues.
A football comparison to the current Buff BBall team is one that goes 7-5, goes to a December bowl game in a mid-south town of 125,000 people and comes in as a 7 point underdog against an 8-5 team from a non-P5 conference. This is precisely Tad's team right now (at best) going into the dance as a 10 or 11 seed. I'm truly anxious to go OCD over Buff hoops, but I'm going to wait until they are consistently good. Till then, I wish them the best.
aghcsm
Well-Known Member
Very good. And there would be huge excitement if the football team were in that position next December. But imagine they continued to finish 7-5, 6-6, 8-5 and go to similar bowl games - it would be about 3 years and the call for a coach who could take us 'over the hump' would be raging. That's pretty much where the basketball team is at.
Last edited:
Agree.
This actually is what happened to the football team in the late '80s. Attendance in '87 and '88 was down after they kind of plateaud after showing huge strides in '85 and '86. Took the quantum leap of '89 to get people on board.
aghcsm
Well-Known Member
And nothing unique to CU, most major college programs that stall just above mediocrity get the same fan response, understandably.
Just take care of our own business and let the chips fall.
aghcsm
Well-Known Member
Spoken like a true buffalo.
Tonight is the fans opportunity to change the momentum. Need a great crowd at CEC. I was there for the games against #5 UT, #20 KSU, 4pt loss to #6 KU, The Pac-12 Tourney run, #9 UofA (valentine's day massacre), #19 Oregon, Buzzer beater over #6 KU, etc. Those games, and those atmospheres are unlike anything else I have experienced in sports. The CEC is a special special place when it is rocking like it can. People HAVE to show up tonight.
Finally read this. Heartbreaking. ugh. I hope RG figures out the student thing. It's killing this team, and it is exactly the kind of **** that would send Tad to better supported pastures.
Last edited:
It was interesting to read from a student's perspective.
In terms of the non-student attendance, I think price has less effect than the article assumes. Has more to do with start times, opponents, weather, traffic (partially due to the US36 construction that just finished), and -- mostly -- a carryover of students not showing up dramatically changing the energy and excitement of a game. It's simply less fun for the rest of us without a rocking student section.
As pointed out in the piece, many of the non-student tickets that have resulted in empty seats are the ones that cost the most and are owned by season ticket holders. It's a motivation problem, not a price problem with these tickets.
Which gets us to the real problems here.
1. RG's biggest failure as an AD within an otherwise stellar job performance has been his disconnect with the student fans. This needs to get fixed. Find budget for the student programs that worked and implement more of them until sponsorship opportunities can be secured for these things... and step up the advertising (particularly on social media) to students.
2. Tad's biggest failure with scheduling has been that while he learned his lesson exceptionally well after the NIT year (NCAAT snub) when non-con SOS in the 200s cost the Buffs a Dance card... he does not do a good job of bringing in "name" opponents for the non-conference home slate. Sure, Omaha and Hampton are Top 200 wins that build the RPI. But programs right around Hampton in RPI are St. Louis, DePaul and Missouri while programs right around Omaha are Arkansas and UNLV. Get more "name" programs on the home schedule next year.
In terms of the non-student attendance, I think price has less effect than the article assumes. Has more to do with start times, opponents, weather, traffic (partially due to the US36 construction that just finished), and -- mostly -- a carryover of students not showing up dramatically changing the energy and excitement of a game. It's simply less fun for the rest of us without a rocking student section.
As pointed out in the piece, many of the non-student tickets that have resulted in empty seats are the ones that cost the most and are owned by season ticket holders. It's a motivation problem, not a price problem with these tickets.
Which gets us to the real problems here.
1. RG's biggest failure as an AD within an otherwise stellar job performance has been his disconnect with the student fans. This needs to get fixed. Find budget for the student programs that worked and implement more of them until sponsorship opportunities can be secured for these things... and step up the advertising (particularly on social media) to students.
2. Tad's biggest failure with scheduling has been that while he learned his lesson exceptionally well after the NIT year (NCAAT snub) when non-con SOS in the 200s cost the Buffs a Dance card... he does not do a good job of bringing in "name" opponents for the non-conference home slate. Sure, Omaha and Hampton are Top 200 wins that build the RPI. But programs right around Hampton in RPI are St. Louis, DePaul and Missouri while programs right around Omaha are Arkansas and UNLV. Get more "name" programs on the home schedule next year.
I think Tad's problem with the "name" opponents, is that he wants 1 for 1's. He sees a 1 for 2 as a sign of disrespect. While I can fully get behind that mentality that CU should be respected, Tad needs to fall on his sword here I think. At least until we build up the national perception that a loss to CU isn't an early season resume killer. Maybe agree to a 1-1-1 with a neutral site game thrown in there. Something.
I believe KU only agreed to the 1and1 because Tad is an alumni.
Those programs I listed are not ones that would demand a 1-for-2 or a neutral site game. I'm saying to look at teams that are at the bottom of a P6 conference or have some national recognition (even if currently down) from a mid-major conference. We have to schedule some of that every year. And I get that it's hard to fill a home slate with teams looking for one-off paydays that actually maintain SOS for you while also giving the fans something interesting. But the Buffs have got to mix in some teams that people know. And there has to be at least 1 marquee game every year in the non-con.
P.S. You know what takes my pissedoffedness to the next level with taking that payday one-off in football to go to Michigan? The fact that Bohn didn't even leverage it into a home-and-home for basketball as part of the deal.
Bingo on the Michigan thing. Ridiculous. Would love if the TAMU football deal would get us a home and home in Bball too.
Does this happen often?
yes
Examples? Not arguing, just curious.
I believe our football home and home with UGA included a home and home for basketball. Could be wrong.
This is correct.
So this would have been arranged by Bohn then? Maybe he tried doing the same with Michigan and they said no. Whatever, I don't really care. **** Bohn!
Bohn's strategy changed. See OSU football 1off. The AD needed money, Bohn was looking to get the big payday.
Anybody think we win with 7,000 people there tonight? Anyone?
I didn't use a sarcasm font...