The landscape of college athletics has just been changed.

[NashBuff]

Maybe pairing CU and Utah with those schools in the same conference will help regionally, but I guess I am not as optimistic. To me its a larger issue centered on a culture. Between CU, AU, Utah and ASU - Arizona is the only program in 2010 to average more than 50,000 per game last season.

Real weak of you to bring that up. Utah's stadium isn't even 50k and they did average 45k fans. ASU fans are pretty fickle but they do average in the high 40k range just like CU and UA fans are fickle too. I think the problem has more to do with whether they are in the same conference or not. Now with having the largest population centers and their sports teams being in the same conference, there is a very good likehood that fan support should go up at those four schools. I'm very certain that CU will average over 50k fans this coming season due to the interest in the Pac-12 and plus Oregon & USC will be in town as well which will really help those numbers. The only home games this season will be Pac-12 games although Cal is going to be an OOC game.

Utah will sell out their stadium and would sell out their stadium if it had 53k no questions asked. ASU has a highly anticipated season coming and some big time games in OOC play as well so they should go over 50k. I don't know enough about UA but they can do 50k as well so it's possible that all four schools average 50k fans this coming season.

CU was under 50k because NU, OU, and Texas didn't visit Boulder last season. With the quality of the Pac-12 teams as a whole being better than the Big 12 teams as a whole, there is good reason to believe that CU will have higher averages as a Pac-12 member than as a Big 12 member.

Regardless of what happens, CSU fans will have to step up big time.

 

[azbuff]

I'm not concerned. Colorado has succeeded historically regardless of regional support. Take care of business and it will take care of you. In reference to the RMS, woopdy doo, we had what 3 maybe 4 years of interest? That is a blip on the radar, a mouse fart in the big scheme of Colorado and college football history. Who cares?

I do and I like the rivalry. Everyone bitches about it, but most of the bitching is based on the game being played at Invesco. I hope we beat the **** out of CSU every year, but in order to beat them every year, we have to play them every year. Play the NCAA video game on any platform and our rival is...CSU. This ****ing "holier than thou" attitude permeating the boards is disgusting. "**** the little guys, we will have our day in the sun, regardless!" The "little guys" are part of what makes college sports great, which is what CSquared is saying.

I'm elated we get this big money deal with the Pac-12, but the implications of exactly what it means are being ignored. First, I don't want to kill off all the little guys in college sports. And second, everyone seems to ignore the fact that every other school in the Pac-12 is receiving the exact same amount of revenue. Add to that the widely circulated theory that the AD will lose the $5m in student fees it currently receives, and I'm not drinking nearly as much Kool-Aid as the rest of the AllBuffs Nation.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Regardless of what happens, CSU fans will have to step up big time.

I am honestly not trying to make this about CSU. More about what this could mean to the region and all of us who follow college athletics out here.

 

[sackman]

It's hard to be a CSU fan, though. The school has shown no commitment to athletic success at all. Before the fans step up, the school needs to step up, IMO. There's a blueprint for how to dig yourself out of a mid-major hole and that's Utah. CSU needs to have a serious capital campaign put in place to improve their athletic facilities, attract and retain quality coaches, and start beating the piss out of the rest of their league. They have about 10 years to get that done before the next round of conference expansion hits, IMO. If CSU can get it's act together, they have the ability to join the grown ups at the big table. I just don't see that kind of commitment from their administration, though.

 

[CsquaredCC]

It's hard to be a CSU fan, though. The school has shown no commitment to athletic success at all. Before the fans step up, the school needs to step up, IMO. There's a blueprint for how to dig yourself out of a mid-major hole and that's Utah. CSU needs to have a serious capital campaign put in place to improve their athletic facilities, attract and retain quality coaches, and start beating the piss out of the rest of their league. They have about 10 years to get that done before the next round of conference expansion hits, IMO. If CSU can get it's act together, they have the ability to join the grown ups at the big table. I just don't see that kind of commitment from their administration, though.

Sorry Sackman. I wasn't trying to hijack your thread with CSU talk. To me this whole issue with how the landscape is changing goes far deeper than that. CSU isn't even a part of that conversation right now and may never be.

CSU has a TON of work to do. I think most rational fans realize that. I do what what I can. I buy season tickets, support the RamClub and go to every game, but I am one person.

 

[Quattro]

The difference is that now, we should be able to compete in the facilities arms race. Remember, CU doesn't need the best facilities, we just need facilities that are respectable. We'll never have OSU, UO, or UT type facilities, but we don't need them to attract recruits, either. What we need is to have facilities that recruits come in and say "That's not as good as what they have at Oregon, but it's still pretty good".

Or we could build the best. "If you build it, they will come."

 

[NashBuff]

It's hard to be a CSU fan, though. The school has shown no commitment to athletic success at all. Before the fans step up, the school needs to step up, IMO. There's a blueprint for how to dig yourself out of a mid-major hole and that's Utah. CSU needs to have a serious capital campaign put in place to improve their athletic facilities, attract and retain quality coaches, and start beating the piss out of the rest of their league. They have about 10 years to get that done before the next round of conference expansion hits, IMO. If CSU can get it's act together, they have the ability to join the grown ups at the big table. I just don't see that kind of commitment from their administration, though.

I have a co-worker whose daughter did work with the CSU strength and conditioning and you are right on the mark about CSU's admin. Simply waiting on the admin to show support shouldn't be an excuse for not showing up to the games.

As for the impact on the small schools, I have heard about this gap being a threat to them for many years that I will believe it when I see it such as the schools dropping down to FCS alltogether and leaving just the BCS schools in FBS.

 

[Quattro]

Maybe pairing CU and Utah with those schools in the same conference will help regionally, but I guess I am not as optimistic. To me its a larger issue centered on a culture. Between CU, AU, Utah and ASU - Arizona is the only program in 2010 to average more than 50,000 per game last season. On a national scale, that seems extremely problematic.

Bad argument.

1. Folsom doesn't hold 50K
2. Still nearly 4 times more than CSU averaged

 

[CsquaredCC]

I have a co-worker whose daughter did work with the CSU strength and conditioning and you are right on the mark about CSU's admin. Simply waiting on the admin to show support shouldn't be an excuse for not showing up to the games.

As for the impact on the small schools, I have heard about this gap being a threat to them for many years that I will believe it when I see it such as the schools dropping down to FCS alltogether and leaving just the BCS schools in FBS.

Nevada is apparently on the brink: http://www.rgj.com/article/20110406...-cuts-could-jeopardize-Wolf-Pack-s-Div-status

 

[azbuff]

bad argument.

1. Folsom doesn't hold 50k
2. Still nearly 4 times more than csu averaged

1. Wrong

 

[Quattro]

1. Wrong

53, 613 by bad, forgot about the club seats that added capacity.

 

[NashBuff]

Don't get me wrong, this state needs CSU to be good to make college football go big time in this state and I would have no reservations about CSU joining the Pac-16 if the TX/OK schools go to the SEC instead. I do truly wish college football truly would matter in this state but CU can't done it alone and given that the Ft. Collins-Greeley-Loveland area has almost as many people as Colorado Springs, CSU certainly should be getting more support regardless of the admin's support. This also could mean that the Front Range region can only support one big time football program which would be CU based on the attendance figures of both football programs that have been down with their luck of late.

The onus is on CSU and their fans to make college football big in this state.

 

[NashBuff]

Nevada is apparently on the brink: http://www.rgj.com/article/20110406...-cuts-could-jeopardize-Wolf-Pack-s-Div-status

Can you see CSU being in that situation sooner than later?

 

[Quattro]

I hope to ****ing god CSU/Texas/OU/aTm/TT/OSU/Baylor/whoever the **** else from the Big 12 or MWC join the Pac. Texas ruined the Big 12 and would ruin the Pac 12 as well.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I do and I like the rivalry. Everyone bitches about it, but most of the bitching is based on the game being played at Invesco. I hope we beat the **** out of CSU every year, but in order to beat them every year, we have to play them every year. Play the NCAA video game on any platform and our rival is...CSU. This ****ing "holier than thou" attitude permeating the boards is disgusting. "**** the little guys, we will have our day in the sun, regardless!" The "little guys" are part of what makes college sports great, which is what CSquared is saying.

I'm elated we get this big money deal with the Pac-12, but the implications of exactly what it means are being ignored. First, I don't want to kill off all the little guys in college sports. And second, everyone seems to ignore the fact that every other school in the Pac-12 is receiving the exact same amount of revenue. Add to that the widely circulated theory that the AD will lose the $5m in student fees it currently receives, and I'm not drinking nearly as much Kool-Aid as the rest of the AllBuffs Nation.

I understand what you are saying az. I think we are making two different arguments. CC is making the argument that we might want to be concerned about the lack of regional college interest/competition, which could have a long term detrimental impact on our success. At least that is what I'm interpreting. I call BS on this. CU is much more acknowledged by who we beat in conference than who our regional competition is. Beat CSU in September, meh that's nice but doesn't mean much. Beat Nebraska in November...that is a BIG deal. I'm all for a mix up of regional competition, but to say we need it or should be concerned about CSU/AFA relevancy is completely unfounded and inaccurate.

 

[azbuff]

53, 613 by bad, forgot about the club seats that added capacity.

Wrong again. Capacity has been over 50,000 since the 1970s. CU first averaged over 50,000 in attendance in 1972 and averaged over 50,000 in attendance every year from 1990-1997 and again in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009.

 

[Quattro]

Wrong again. Capacity has been over 50,000 since the 1970s. CU first averaged over 50,000 in attendance in 1972 and averaged over 50,000 in attendance every year from 1990-1997 and again in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009.

New to me, guess I should actually pay attention to attendance stats before I post...

 

[CsquaredCC]

Can you see CSU being in that situation sooner than later?

I absolutely could see that happening to CSU in the not so distant future. Which honestly is stunning to me when you consider CSU has an enrollment of nearly 25,000 students.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I understand what you are saying az. I think we are making two different arguments. CC is making the argument that we might want to be concerned about the lack of regional college interest/competition, which could have a long term detrimental impact on our success. At least that is what I'm interpreting. I call BS on this. CU is much more acknowledged by who we beat in conference than who our regional competition is. Beat CSU in September, meh that's nice but doesn't mean much. Beat Nebraska in November...that is a BIG deal. I'm all for a mix up of regional competition, but to say we need it or should be concerned about CSU/AFA relevancy is completely unfounded and inaccurate.

CU was aided in achieving the levels it did in the early 1990's specifically because it was able to leverage a regional rivalry against Nebraska which is and was a Top 5 program. That is excatly my point. I think you need those regional rivalries that make the national media stop and take notice. I am not arguing that it has to be CSU. Maybe those rivalries develop out here between new conference foes. I am not saying it can't, but addressing Sackman's premise, the overall landscape has shifted and it goes far beyond just bottomline dollars and cents.

 

[Quattro]

Since CU will be on Fox/ESPN, wouldn't the national media already have noticed with ESPN's extreme east coast bias?

 

[azbuff]

Reallly? You didn't enjoy it in the 1990s when all programs were pretty decent? Personally, as a kid at the time, I loved that Colorado had all these relevant teams. Now, frankly, none of us are relevant and it stinks. Also, not sure if you've noticed, but CU's success has a correlation with CSU's. Of the last seven season where CU had a winning record ('96, '98, '99, '01, '02, '04, '05), CSU had a winning record in six of them. Sure, you can shrug this off as a statistical farce, but I like to call it a FOUNDATION.

 

[BlackNGold]

I think Texas is an interesting case. For the longest time I've agreed with you. I've been shocked that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, LSU, and Alabama have been proping up the lower schools in the conference. Like you, I've thought they'd want to try to get that additional advantage. But they haven't.

Texas is on the cutting edge of this strategy. This is another reason why I hope they fall on their faces. I worry that if it does work, there will be yet another split, and the monster programs will all go out on their own. Hopefully there is something in the contracts of these equal revenue conferences that prevent a school from doing that (so we'll be locked in for 12 years) but yeah I've always wondered what Ohio State folk thought about that "Northwestern gets as much from TV as Ohio State" saying, if it made them throw up a little bit.

The conference equal distribution does help hedge you against down years. Michigan was probably loving their split the last 5 years. So it's nice to have in your back pocket, you can have a few down years and the bottom won't fall out on you. But when you're booming (Texas), you're basically carrying the conference on your back, and it's weighing you down.

If Texas still does well with this even if they're not performing well on the field, then things might get....interesting....again.

I think it is having a bigger picture focus which Texas does not have. The Big 10 understands that equal revenue sharing helps strengthen the conference overall and that will lead to a better situation for everyone. The analog is the NFL - revenue sharing makes it the strongest player among pro sports as opposed to baseball which a lot of the small market teams know they will never win a pennant which in the long run hurts the league.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Reallly? You didn't enjoy it in the 1990s when all programs were pretty decent? Personally, as a kid at the time, I loved that Colorado had all these relevant teams. Now, frankly, none of us are relevant and it stinks. Also, not sure if you've noticed, but CU's success has a correlation with CSU's. Of the last seven season where CU had a winning record ('96, '98, '99, '01, '02, '04, '05), CSU had a winning record in six of them. Sure, you can shrug this off as a statistical farce, but I like to call it a FOUNDATION.

Great post. I am not one who is afraid to admit that CSU's success was as much tied to CU's in the 1990's and 2000's. I haven't done it, but I think if you looked at the overall trends you would probably see a pretty distinct correlation between CU's and Nebraska's success during that time frame as well.

 

[NashBuff]

I absolutely could see that happening to CSU in the not so distant future. Which honestly is stunning to me when you consider CSU has an enrollment of nearly 25,000 students.

That sucks man.

But commenting on your response to buffedup, I hate what I am seeing too myself. Will this eventually lead to higher ticket prices for fans? In the short term, probably not but in the long term, yes. And seeing that CU will be earning twice the money that the entire MWC earns in the same year has to raise some serious questions for both the MWC and WAC's long term future. The day of the BCS splitting off from the NCAA seems much more likely now but I don't think it will become that obvious until the Big East Football schools split from the non football schools. Their contract is being renegotiated with ESPN and will be the last of the BCS conferences to announce a new bigger TV deal. What the Big East does next will probably determine where the BCS schools go down the road.

The C-USA has a new TV deal and I believe it is only a matter of time before the C-USA surpasses the MWC. They have June Jones at SMU plus UCF is another up and coming program that could go to a BCS conference next.

The MWC is indeed in a tough spot right now.

 

[NashBuff]

Reallly? You didn't enjoy it in the 1990s when all programs were pretty decent? Personally, as a kid at the time, I loved that Colorado had all these relevant teams. Now, frankly, none of us are relevant and it stinks. Also, not sure if you've noticed, but CU's success has a correlation with CSU's. Of the last seven season where CU had a winning record ('96, '98, '99, '01, '02, '04, '05), CSU had a winning record in six of them. Sure, you can shrug this off as a statistical farce, but I like to call it a FOUNDATION.

I loved those days and do long for those days except when CSU beat CU.

 

[NashBuff]

Great post. I am not one who is afraid to admit that CSU's success was as much tied to CU's in the 1990's and 2000's. I haven't done it, but I think if you looked at the overall trends you would probably see a pretty distinct correlation between CU's and Nebraska's success during that time frame as well.

I believe this conference switch for CU will help the Buffs a lot down the road and indirectly help CSU as well. I still do insist on CSU fans showing more support although.

 

[CsquaredCC]

That sucks man.

But commenting on your response to buffedup, I hate what I am seeing too myself. Will this eventually lead to higher ticket prices for fans? In the short term, probably not but in the long term, yes. And seeing that CU will be earning twice the money that the entire MWC earns in the same year has to raise some serious questions for both the MWC and WAC's long term future. The day of the BCS splitting off from the NCAA seems much more likely now but I don't think it will become that obvious until the Big East Football schools split from the non football schools. Their contract is being renegotiated with ESPN and will be the last of the BCS conferences to announce a new bigger TV deal. What the Big East does next will probably determine where the BCS schools go down the road.

The C-USA has a new TV deal and I believe it is only a matter of time before the C-USA surpasses the MWC. They have June Jones at SMU plus UCF is another up and coming program that could go to a BCS conference next.

The MWC is indeed in a tough spot right now.

That to me is a serious problem. What happens to those MWC fans if those leagues don't survive? For me personally, I probably just check out of supporting or watching college athletics altogether besides possibly college basketball. There is enough pro sports to keep me entertained. But the large issue is that we have a state university pumping in 15,000+ gradudates into Colorado that really don't follow or care much about major college athletics in this state. How is that good for anyone? That to me is not a recipe for anyone reaching the "big time" in this state.

 

[BlackNGold]

Reallly? You didn't enjoy it in the 1990s when all programs were pretty decent? Personally, as a kid at the time, I loved that Colorado had all these relevant teams. Now, frankly, none of us are relevant and it stinks. Also, not sure if you've noticed, but CU's success has a correlation with CSU's. Of the last seven season where CU had a winning record ('96, '98, '99, '01, '02, '04, '05), CSU had a winning record in six of them. Sure, you can shrug this off as a statistical farce, but I like to call it a FOUNDATION.

Whoa!!! That is way off base. CU's success in the late 80s and 90's was a direct correlation to one Coach Mac and had nothing to do with CSU being successful...CSU did not have that much success in the the early 90s as you are indicating. CSU enjoying success under Earle Bruce and Sonny Lubbick had no impact on CU's success one way or another. I would not even call it a statistic...CU has historically had a winning program so the fact that CU is winning while CSU has a winning blip is not a surprise. CSU or Air Force winning does not build anything for CU....there is NO correlation.

 

[JJBuff]

But the large issue is that we have a state university pumping in 15,000+ gradudates into Colorado that really don't follow or care much about major college athletics in this state? How is that good for anyone? That to me is not a recipe for the "big time" in this state.

This sounds exactly like what CSU is doing right now anyway.

 

[azbuff]

Whoa!!! That is way off base. CU's success in the late 80s and 90's was a direct correlation to one Coach Mac and had nothing to do with CSU being successful...CSU did not have that much success in the the early 90s as you are indicating. CSU enjoying success under Earle Bruce and Sonny Lubbick had no impact on CU's success one way or another. I would not even call it a statistic...CU has historically had a winning program so the fact that CU is winning while CSU has a winning blip is not a surprise. CSU or Air Force winning does not build anything for CU....there is NO correlation.

Sorry, but you're wrong. First, I don't cite anything prior to 1997, so Coach Mac and the 80s are irrelevant (left in 1994, as I'm sure you're aware). While CU has historically had a winning program, it has only the seven winning seasons cited in my post over the last fifteen years. That's less than a 50% average of "winning seasons." Anyone with a brain can see a correlation. Whether its CSU playing off CU's success, CU using the benefit of a strong college football state to further its success, or some combination of the two, I don't know. Regardless, I'm on point.