Home › Buffzone Columnists
Woelk: CU should call shots in series with CSU
OK, one more time for the folks who can't comprehend the business end of college football.
STORY TOOLS
More Buffzone Columnists
- Woelk: Easy way out apparently not Scott's way
- Woelk: MSU loss necessary hard lesson for Buffs
- Saturday showdown for Heisman
Share and Enjoy [?]
When Colorado is the home team for the Colorado-Colorado State game, CU should opt to play the game in Boulder if its needed to fill out a six-game home schedule at Folsom Field.
It's simple. Six home games is the minimum necessary to maintain a BCS program. It's what season ticket holders not only expect, it's what they deserve when they're shelling out their hard-earned bucks.
Monday, yet another reason for CU to call the shots in the series became clear, when CU sold out its official ticket allotment of about 36,000 tickets. CSU, meanwhile, remained several thousand short of hitting its number (30,000).
What that means is from now until game time, CU fans can still buy tickets-- but the tickets they buy will be CSU's tickets. The money will go to CSU's coffers.
In other words, Colorado State will be banking what amounts to corporate welfare, thanks to Colorado. The Rams can't sell their own tickets, but they'll whine that the game should always be played in Denver so CU can put money in their account.
That's welfare.
Fact is, CU doesn't need the Colorado State game. Colorado could let the series expire after 2009 and fill the opening on the schedule with any number of teams, beginning with Air Force, and make the same amount of money as they make playing the Rams.In fact, in the years Colorado could play the game at Invesco, the Buffs could make a national splash by pulling in a national name -- say a Southern Cal, UCLA or Michigan.
Those kinds of games would guarantee a national television audience, its accompanying pay day and a full house.
It's something CU should consider if CSU continues to balk.
What Rams officials hate to admit -- and yes, that would be A.D. Paul Kowalczyk, whose honesty seems to be hamstrung in this instance -- is that they need the game far more than Colorado needs it.
CSU needs the game to put money in the bank. The Rams will make more than $1 million playing the game this year, a pay day they can't come close to matching any other time of the year.
In comparison, CU has the potential to net as much as $1.8 million for a game at Folsom Field. The number at Invesco can be more in certain years, depending upon television revenue, sponsorship money, etc., but it's a fluid number.
It's the Rams who desperately need the game with Colorado -- and the sooner they admit that to themselves and the public, the sooner they can get on with the task of extending the series past the next couple of years.
It's not as if Colorado wants to play every game in Boulder. In fact, CU would likely be happy with a deal that would see just three of the next 10 in Boulder. Play the rest at Invesco, make some money for both schools and everyone goes away happy.
And, in the years the game is played in Boulder, CSU still makes roughly $600,000 -- again, more than the Rams make on any other game.
Another option is for CSU to play the game occasionally in Fort Collins, but Kowalczyk and Co. aren't that stupid (we hope). Such a move would cost the Rams roughly $500,000 per game -- a number CSU can't afford.
Remember, CSU is a program that last year drew less than 19,000 fans for a rivalry matchup with Wyoming. In CSU's last three games combined last year, the Rams didn't draw 50,000.
That's one good home game for Colorado.
Simply, CSU needs every dollar it can get.
But that doesn't mean it's CU's job to prop up its neighbor to the north. CU is not in the business of helping support a program that can't support itself -- and a program with which CU competes for ticket dollars, donations and recruits, just for starters.
But CU is in the business of building a program and making its athletic department a revenue-producing entity. If that means playing one of every three games in the series in Folsom Field, that's what athletic director Mike Bohn should do.
Meanwhile, enough whining from the Metro Denver Sports Commission, Mayor Hick and all the other politicos who find college football important once a year. They yap about making it a "major event," but fact is, they can't even sell decent sponsorship to the game. The MDSC -- another entity that needs to learn to stand on its own -- uses the game to pad its coffers, and offers almost nothing in return.
And finally, there are those who insist the game is "good for college football," and thus should be played in Denver every year.
A CU-Air Force matchup would meet the same criteria. You'd also be hard-pressed to say a nationally televised CU-Michigan game to open the season wouldn't be "good for college football."
Yes, college athletics has become a business -- and in this case, CU must do what's right for it's business.
There's no other solution.
Posted by BuffMan6236 on August 26, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dead bang on Neill!
Another option is for Cu to get $1.5million for the game and CSU to get $.5 million, which is basically what happens when we play some other team from a sub-par conference.
No more welfare for sheep! Let them find their own pastures!
Posted by montanabuff on August 26, 2008 at 5:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good article, Neill. If CSU wants to play its home game against the Buffs in Denver, so be it. CU needs to have its six games at home (or seven, like much of the rest of the Big 12). Let CSU figure out its own financial issues.
On another matter:
For those of you who regularly scroll through the DC comment area, you are familiar with my postings. You may have also noticed that after my comments, I usually list a link to a website, http://www.cuatthegame.com For those of you who haven’t visited, CUatthegame is a free website devoted to CU football.
Posted this morning on the website is the preview for the CSU game. There is an in-depth look at how the game should play out on Sunday, with a prediction of which team should win (the Buffs!).
Plus, there is good CSU trivia (e.g., What ignoble all-time NCAA record did the Rams set during their 0-12 season in 1981? What record did Sonny Lubick post against the Buffs?), and a segment entitled: “This date in history - August 31st” (The birth of the “Quack Attack” (1985); the first-ever Big 12 game (1996); and, for CU fans: Koy Detmer v. Washington State’s Ryan Leaf (1996). Still more: There is a look back at the 2004 CU/CSU game (which, as I’m sure you will recall, came down to the very last play).
In deference to our DC hosts, I am not going to make any similar pitches to visit the website again this season. If you are interested, log on to www.cuatthegame.com , check it out, and, if you like what you see, get on the email update list so that you will not miss future posts.
Thanks for your time. Go Buffs!
http://www.cuatthegame.com
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to mention having to spend the entire year being laughed at by CSU fans after we slap you around the field on an annual basis.
Posted by CUCSU1 on August 26, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is disappointing to see such a great series come down to the numbers.
Yes, CU does benefit from having the game in Folsom and CSU does gain much greater windfall from having the game in Denver than Hughes, but you are underestimating the importance of this rivalry to the Buffs and their fans. Replacing the game with a “national powerhouse” should create revenue, recall that CU playing a storied program doesn’t guarantee a sellout (at Invesco or Folsom…see NU). Replacing it with Air Force is comparable, but will not draw the fans like the rams.
There were two red letter games on CU’s schedule during the Barnett era, Nebraska and CSU. While Hawk has made it a point to say that each game is as important as the next, believe that the buffs and their coaches put a little extra emphasis on this week’s match up.
If CU is in the business of making money, then perhaps they should work first on selling out all conference home games, quit bidding on money guzzling projects (Big 12 T&F championships) and move athletic operations to a private corp like Florida and other big time schools. CU should just suck it up and continue to series even if it means making small concessions, its importance goes beyond a chipping away a little more debt.
Posted by SnowBuff on August 26, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Annual basis? Interesting. What is the record of the series? What about in the last 5 years?
Six game hoowie? Sorry buddy seems like you and your school are not ready to understand BCS football. Why should the governor play favorites between CU & CSU?
Posted by Horns_and_Cape on August 26, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great read, Neil. Content and reason vs. story telling and emotion. Stay angry rams. It's sure to shore up your "argument."
Posted by archalon on August 26, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What some of us have been saying all along , Neill.
Make it a kickoff classic - Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, or any Pac 10 team would be better for the game. If CSU was a program that could hold the game at Hughes, maybe they could keep it. But the reality is CU can do better.
Posted by archalon on August 26, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And to throw the Rams a bone, they could schedule the same. How much interest would CU-Michigan on Saturday and CSU- vs. Nebraska, Cal or another program on Sunday bring to Invesco over a holiday weekend ?
That would be a win-win
Posted by shoulder2shoulder on August 26, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
get rid of the CSU game!!!!!!
Posted by CaliBuff on August 26, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! Less than 19,000 at a rivalry game is embarassing. What else do people do up there on a Saturday? This is Division 1 football!!!!
Posted by Ralphie2 on August 26, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on!
Go BUFFS!
Posted by bouldabuff on August 26, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I could not have said it better myself Neil.
Posted by smokey on August 26, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perfect call, Niell. I like watching competetive football contests, but the fact is was a forced "rivalry", and no non-conference game should be regularly played in a neutral or pro stadium. Saying that it's a "fun" series is just too subjective to measure.
In all fairness, CU has lived up to it's end of the bargain each and every year. The CSU athletic department (and fan base) is just too inconsistent and inexperienced to be counted on for anything in return year in and year out. Maybe in 5-10 years the landscape up in GoatTown will make a few leaps - but for now, leave them to figure it out.
Posted by bouldabuff on August 26, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is the CSU game really important to CU fans?
It is not all that important to me and I am a CU alum, went to high school in CO, and I have a few die-hard CSU friends. I should care more but when you are expected to win each year, even when CU is down, then how is it a rivalry? CU has won nearly 75% of these games.
In the last 20 years CU's win percentage is higher than 75%
It is a "good interstate rivalry" vkberlin? For who?
Why are we "wasting" our big venue game on CSU? I guarantee Air Force would sell out their ticket allotment.
Posted by ruffemupbuffaloes on August 26, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The good news for the cash strapped lambs is they won't be spending much money on artillery shells on Sunday. Bohn promised the fan base at least 6 home games per season. '09 should be at Folsom, minimum. And really, who cares what the MDSC has to say?
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the article has a lot of truth to it but ignores a few factors.
1. csu has a smaller student body and resides in a less populated area. we shouldn't have been given that many tickets to begin with.
2. yes, attendence at hughes stadium was at an all-time low last year. half of that is because we were horrible, had been bad for the previous 3 seasons as well, and because...
3. football just isn't as big at csu as cu, for whatever reason. it could be because we have never been really good, like cu has, could be because the stadium is off campus and just doesnt have that visibility, who knows.
4. no matter how few tickets we sell, no matter how bad we are during a given season, this is still an important game and is NOT viewed by diehard cu or csu fans as just any other game. can you honestly think of a better way than to spend a day playing a team you despise?
5. does cu, honestly, want to schedule a TOUGHER game instead of the rams? that honestly makes no sense. if you go undefeated you are still playing for the national championship. you really want USC put in place of csu?
6. i understand money is important, but see #4.
7. csu should let CU have some games in boulder, if thats what it takes to continue the series. not my first choice, but like the article mentions, we don't have all the leverage here.
just my take on it. i would be devestated if they discontinuted the series.
Posted by buff4ever on August 26, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neil,pretty much said what all of the CU supporters think. We are tired of playing them every year and stating it is good for the state is a crock because CU does not play anyone else in the state so only CSU benefits.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Um, the word is "intrastate". The "interstate" rivalry that CU has is Nebraska.
As for the series. keep it going but play a few games in Boulder. What is the serious argument against CU hosting the game in our own venue to ensure that we have 6 true home games? You think you can pi$$ off the season ticket holders and build a program at the same time?
And why exactly do season ticket holders get such crappy seats at Mile-Hi? Who is getting the good seats?
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i've been checking out this site to gain some perspective before the big game on sunday. i never thought, before now, that there were any cu fans/alums/whatever who disliked this game. interesting.
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i'm a csu season ticket holder and have solid seats at mile high. maybe it's because no other csu fans bought any! ;)
Posted by buffalotom on August 26, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
well said, Woellk. an observation or two:
1. the series was forced on cu by csu-supporting legislators who threatened cu - like our new pal ukberlin2 does - back in the 1980's. at that time, csu's ath dept was sinking financially as its stadium was sinking physically. csu was considering abandoning football, going d1aa or d2, etc. clearly, those politicians realized that a cu/csu game would be a big boost to csu; since cu obtains less than 7% of its funding from the legislature, there is little to lose. in fact, minimal financial dependence on the state may be a good thing - as is the case with penn state;
2. rivalry? nonsense check the scores over the past 30 years: mac lost once ('86) to csu, neuheisel did not lose to csu. the series became close only during the barnett era and was a function of barnett's approach to recruiting; that situation appears to be changing;
3. it is a no-win situation for cu to have a 'rivalry' with a non-bcs school so spread that game around with more attractive opponents;
4. when csu attempted to set a marquee game at invesco (with usc initially), it was cancelled after usc blew out the rams and, i suspect, csu couldn't provide the necessary financial guarantees to usc or others; this dispelled the myth that csu had 'arrived' and didn't need the cu game - clearly it does as Weollk argues;
5. if cu wants a big denver game in addition to its six home games, it should look to a name program from an area it recruits and which travels well, e.g, usc, ucla, cal, lsu, michigan, notre dame (lots of domers in the area, too), and so on.
6. we owe thanks to Bohn for protecting and advancing the interests of cu alums, fans, the program, and the team.
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All you guys have is a chance at bragging rights.
You're picked to finish 5th or 6th in the north by a lot of experts in the preseason.
You're friends to the North (NU) is being picked as an instant success and possible sleeper to take 1st in the North.
Playing a smaller school gives you a chance, a chance to be embarrassed like the Montana State game.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on August 26, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ridiculous
tickets tell the story, 65,000+ are going to show up for this game, and neither Folsom nor Hughes can handle it
No other matchup rivals those numbers and THATS the bottom line
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i guess i do agree, csu needs the game more than cu. not only for the money, but maybe more importantly, for something to be excited over. i don't get nearly as hyped up for any other csu home games. at least not lately, given our win-loss record. we haven't played an important non-cu game in a while.
Posted by bouldabuff on August 26, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How exactly do the "People of Colorado" benefit from a college football game? Who are you referring to?
Bufftime - the ones getting the good seats are the 10,000 people getting tickets from the Metro Denver Sports Commission. My season tickets are 109 at Folsom and I will be in section 509 at Invesco.
signed - Mr. Arrogant
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone notice how much Hypolite kisses up?
If Hawkins ever makes a sudden right turn he's going to break his nose.
Posted by Ramamana on August 26, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You guys love playing the Rams, admit it! But Neill is right, we do need the money.
Please KEEP this game on the schedule!!
GO RAMS! Good for us, good for CO, good for CU! GO RAMS!!!!!
Posted by bufffan8 on August 26, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bohn is just doing his job. His job is to get 6 home games in Boulder.
BuffTime - I am still looking for the answer to your question about seats as well. I believe Bronco season tix holders get first shot at their seats but I am not sure.
Posted by bouldabuff on August 26, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very well put buffalotom
Posted by smokey on August 26, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
feardaram, you have an honenst perspective, but what it's going to take is for people surrounding the csu program to get excited WITHOUT relying solely on this matchup. It will take that solid foundation for csu to be able to offer up a series where there are benefits for all involved.
As for the MDSC and the state politicians, you have no say anymore. When you reduce education spending to nearly nothing you lose your leverage in situations like these.
Posted by dabuffs50 on August 26, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Ramamania,
What time do you go into work today? I really like the way you bag my groceries so that my eggs don't break.
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
smokey... it's a little hard to get excited when you haven't had a winning season in 4 years, with attendence at games going the same route. the same will happen this year if we don't pull off some wins in the first few games. i went to all the games last year, i love watching the rams play and i love hanging out with friends. not everyone in FoCo shares my views though. lots of fair weather fans.
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm off today dabuff, I've got to stick around while this unemployed CU grad mows my lawn.
Nice guy but he has sticky fingers.
Posted by buffdaddy on August 26, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no benefit to Colorado playing the CSewes. If we win we were supposed to and if we lose it's an embarassment. I would much rather play a strong national program as mac said "if you want to be the best, you have to play the best" and well, the ag school to the north isn't even the best in a weak sister conference.
Posted by rswright on August 26, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Show me the money. Bring in the bucks. CU is in big time sports entertainment for the same reason as the Broncos.
The surplus last year was the first in decades. Give Mike what he needs to succeed and the first thing he needs is, you guessed it.
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sounds like some of you just want to bring in a better program so that if you lose you have an excuse. if you are supposed to win, then win. if you lose, then you really weren't that good and shouldn't get all upset. if you scheduled USC instead of us that would be a sure loss. sure, you'd have an excuse and more money, but it still doesn't help the record.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about this for Colorado being able to benefit from the CU-CSU game:
If they actually can play a competitive series that people want to watch on TV (I think moving it back a week or two helps this case), then maybe they can get a corporate sponsor for the yearly event. This would bring in extra money into BOTH schools and also the local economy around the stadium. The more money either program can bring in on their own the less money down the road they will need from the state.
Also, everyone (especially rs) likes to forget that the towns that host football games make a considerable amount of money off of the extra people who come to town. More parking revenue, more sales revenue, more restaurant revenue. Sure, CU or CSU don't see that money but small businesses in the state do.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gotta agree with feardaram. So what if we are "supposed" to beat CSU? Then its a good tune-up game for conference play. I would rather play CSU than play South West North Carolina State. Plus if we handle the business well enough it is a good chance to play some of the second, third and fourth string guys to get some experience.
And those of you who think it has been as close as it has been these past few years only because Barnett didn't recruit well, I disagree. Sonny did a good job with his team in the late 90's early 2000's. They were winning their games quite a bit for a while there. If we had scheduled UCLA to play us these past couple of years they weren't so great either. If Fairchild can build up the program in the mold of say Boise State/Fresno State then they might get some national credibility too.
The more kids looking to play in Colorado the better. We can hope (ok we shouldn't have to hope too much) that the better ones pick CU.
Posted by bouldabuff on August 26, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BuffTime - only the small businesses in Metro Denver see that additional revenue. The same businesses that benefit from every Rockies, Nugs, Avs, and Broncos game. I think Metro Denver businesses are doing pretty well without the Rocky Mountain "Showdown"
---I apologize for being so cynical today.
I agree with trying to get additional Corporate sponsorship though - money that will actually go to the schools.
Posted by bufffan8 on August 26, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Simple solution here. Play in Boulder next year - Bohn gets his 6 home games. Then go back to Invesco in '10. Both schools should squeeze the MDSC for more $$ as well.
Posted by feardaram on August 26, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
serious question, is there anywhere in boulder to tailgate, since i've always parked in shopping center parking lots for the games there?
Posted by nocobuffan on August 26, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Until CSU fans get their act together and start supporting their team, I say drop them from the schedule after the 09 game in Folsom. Why reward mediocrity at CSU with a game against CU and the prestige of playing a BCS team. I think it would even help CSU to focus on their real rivals at Wyoming and the Mountain West. I live in Ft. Collins and am amazed that the few loyal fans here and past coaches as well, seem to put all of their energy in trying to beat the Buffs and sacrifice the remainder of their schedule. Perhaps another option for CSU is to drop from Div. I and move to a level where they play UNC and create a "rivalry' with the folks from Greeley !! Currently CSU is much more on par with UNC than CU. CU 52-CSU 6 GO BUFFS !!
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's well known in Ft. Collins that Darelene Scott is afraid of contact.
High school is over.
Posted by bufffan8 on August 26, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
fear - yes there are parking lots for tailgating. Go to cubuffs.com and there is a map of all the parking.
Posted by nocobuffan on August 26, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ramamania- I think the Darelene Scott you refer to is a local checker at King Soopers and her fear is based on past infections- #2 for the Buffs will run all over the lambs--- CU 52- CSU 6
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, really, it's been reported he screams like a little girl when he takes a hit.
Posted by dabuffs50 on August 26, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have read some dumb comments on these boards, but this Ramamania has brought it to a whole new level.
Posted by bzainthemd on August 26, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look,
I love the CSU rivalrly, even if we are "supposed" to beat them every year. ND is "supposed" to beat Navy every year. Is Notre Dame trying to get rid of Navy? I love it that they get up for this game and you CSU guys come over here and talk smack, some more intelligently than others. I don't even live in CO anymore, but to my friends from both schools who I still talk to and those who live by me, this is a great game. I can't wait every year for this...even if it would be a big let down to lose. It is a great game to get started before we play the big boys. We need to work it out to keep it. Bring it to Folsom. Whatever it takes to keep it. I don't want another Top 10 school on our OOC schedule. It is hard enough with the Rams who want to beat us badly.
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CU has an elitist attitude.
They are a state school, no better than any other state school in Colorado.
They don't even win many ball games since McCartney left 20 years ago. Most of the current players weren't even born yet.
Bring it on Puffs!!!!
Posted by LGDAF on August 26, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CU is 88-70 since 1995, which is the year after Coach Mac left (not quite 20 years but nice try). Even my 7 year old 2nd grade son can do that math.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, great knowledge of CU/Colorado history there. Clearly you got a quality education at CSU.
McCartney left in the mid-90's. We don't recruit 10 yr olds.
To say that CU is no better than CSU is not quite accurate either. Yes, CSU has a very good vet program (one of the best in the country actually) and some other good programs, but overall it is not on the same tier as CU. It has it's strengths but they are not enough to bring up the overall school ranking.
Call me elitist if you want, but when it comes to higher education, quality counts.
Posted by walto_clown on August 26, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
vkberlin,
Great idea in involving the Governor in decisions regarding CU/CSU football.
Should the Governor additionally mobilize the national guard to defend Folsom against anybody who attempts to play a game there?
It was silly, IMO, for the President of OU to write a letter to the NCAA following the Oregon loss.
It was an embarrassment to the state of Georgia when that state's legislature recommended federal direction to govern BCS processes (after their school lost to two division opponents, but still believed their team belonged in the BCS championship game).
It would be a similar embarrassment for the leadership of Colorado to involve itself in such matters.
Also, you recommend witholding funding from CU. Aside from the absurdity of the statement (you don't get money because you didn't play another in state school?), I suspect the consequences of such sanctions would adversely affect academic programs rather than athletics.
As I understand it, CU's athletic department is self-supporting, NOT state-supported. That's exactly why each and every cent matters, when it comes to balancing the budget to support non-revenue sports.
As for me, I'm lukewarm toward the game. I enjoy it, but I think it's reasonable to play it at Folsom every other year (CSU can dictate where it's played during their year).
Go Buffs!
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sonny was 93-76 during those years.
Seems CSU has a better win loss record.
Posted by LGDAF on August 26, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess that makes CSU a better football team. I'd take our record against Big VIII/XII competition over yours against WAC/Mtn West competition any day.
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is that why you guys hired a WAC coach with an inflated record, who still hasn't cut it in the big 12?
5 days the Rams pounce!!!!
We'll soon read quotes from Hawkins about how the experience of losing will make them a stronger team.
Posted by LGDAF on August 26, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't know that a Ram 'pounces'. Just make sure it doesn't pounce or run over one of your cheerleaders this year.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Um, CU was nationally ranked in the top 20 4 times after McCartney left. 3 of those was in the top 10 (to end the season). Only 4 times in that span did CU not make a bowl appearance. How many national rankings has CSU ever had? How many seasons did they not make a bowl game?
CU had a couple of dog years mixed in there too. If not for those CSU wouldn't even be close.
For those wondering, CU went 90-70 in since 1995.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, how many years are you going back for that win-loss record for CSU? You want me to add in the 1994 season too? We went 10-2 and finished ranked 3rd that year...
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Soon to be 90-71
Posted by nwbuff32 on August 26, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CSU's all time record
460-503-33
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CU's:
658-419-36 (.607)
We even have a .758 record playing in Fort Collins... Say, isn't CSU in Fort Collins? Damn... CU even has a better record in Ft. Collins than CSU does!
Posted by Black_Rob on August 26, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crazy old Kenny. Pretending to be a CSU fan now. Can't wait to see how hard he shows up to support Eastern WA and West VA.
Posted by DrTom on August 26, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A lot of CU fans just don't understand the game at all.
CSU has been sticking to you guys for the past several years, what happened in 1938 makes no difference today.
Sunday another thumping coming to the bewilderment of the puff team and their fans.
Posted by Ramamana on August 26, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for all of my weak Ramamania posts! Just trying to get a little Jim Rome Jungle type smack going as I learn the ropes of posting and smack-talk!
RAMS ROCK!!!!!
Posted by buffalotom on August 26, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
its all in good spirit.
ukberlin2 insists on misstating history. facts: cu/csu in the '04 and '05 folsom field games DID sell out, about 54k each time, csu gets about 10k tickets for those games; csu has not sold its allotment the last two years at invesco, cu has, so cu fans that purchase now subsidize csu (further, would csu be on national tv if it was playing someone other than cu?), as Woellk notes, above; further, attendance the last two years at invesco is about 68k, that's 14k more than folsom, not 30k, csu is not holding up its end of the deal - for ticket allotments its use-or-lose; if the series continues, which it shouldn't, cu should change contract terms to meet its needs, i.e., more tickets from csu's share, more tickets from the mdsc share, more $$ from mdsc and sponsors. still, that doesn't solve the poor seating for cu season ticket holders relative to folsom;
that said, cu needs to
Posted by buffalotom on August 26, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sorry ... cu needs to revise the contract or move on if the game no longer meets its needs.
Posted by dabuffs50 on August 26, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Safety School, Safety School.... I can hear it already
Posted by ruffemupbuffaloes on August 26, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just visited coloradoan.com and now I know why the CSU fans are posting here. No one in Ft. Collings gives a rip about the rams or this game. 4 posts on one article, none on the other. Doom and gloom is what you read. Can't sell tickets, put an inferior product on the field, game to Folsom in 09 and then it should die. I'd love to open the season with UCLA and new-weasle in 2010 if at all possible. Now that would bring some interest.
Regardless... 21 point edge to the Buffs and record numbers of students from both schools arrested after having a a long time to drink before the game and the ability to buy liquor in Colorado on Sundays. Crowd watching will be more interesting than the game.
Posted by reallifeshocker on August 26, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
this is great. you have to be a crazy cat in ft. collins to not beleive that the game is important only to csu. lose: "well, we tried, but they are bigger than us, and get all the breaks". win: "we're superior on strength of character and desire". cu can only win economically, and that remains in question, at least in a relative sense. the game is fun, for cu it's like jumping out of an airplane unsure if your parachute will open , then floating to the gound safely with satisfaction of simply escaping. for csu, it's like throwing out that hook, and somehow landing that gal, way the heck out of your league, and for that moment, experiencing ecstacy of monumental proportions.
Posted by houston_buff on August 26, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's get the game over with. First it was months of DS run, then a bunch of police blotter and now this redundant rant about the location of the game. Who the hell does not where to tailgate at Folsom?? You ninny-get off our site. It was funny the first 80 post now it's just overlooked. The game will not get changed-politics still run this deal. But it would be nice to get AF-better fans, better school. However the cadets create much greater competition than the Aggies when chasing tail at the game. Keep that in mind fellas.
Posted by BuffTime on August 26, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
vkberlin2, you seem to have quite an inflated sense of how much tax payers in Colorado support either CU or CSU. The vast majority of operating money for the universities comes from student tuition (CU has way more out of state students than CSU) and corporate and federal grants to carry out research. Thanks to some pretty idiotic politicians the state supports these schools even less than they used to.
I happen to be in the camp that thinks CU should continue the series because living here in Colorado you do hear and see average Coloradoans taking sides and debating who will win. Not all of them went to either school but there is interest. The main reason more people go to the game at Invesco is because it is closer to the bulk of the residents in the state than either CU or CSU and is easier to get to. People will go to CU to see games, but for this series they prefer Denver.
Your logic also fails in that you assume CU couldn't get as many or more people to see CU play any other team at Mile High other than CSU. ND, UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan, all of the have quite a few fans who live in/near Colorado. Add to that those fans willing to travel and I would bet you would sell out those games too. CSU would have quite a bit of trouble getting any other team other than CU to sell out a game with them at Invesco. That is just how it is.
So it isn't CU-CSU at Invesco or nothing. It isn't Keep the series at Invesco because CU owes it to the state of Colorado. The simple fact is that the series is fun, but they need to fix some issues with it to make it better. They need to fix the seating issues for season ticket holders and they need to move it back at least to the second week to give each team the chance to get over opening game jitters and work out the kinks.
Posted by ruffemupbuffaloes on August 26, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Next thread please. This one is way old, boring and like beating a dead horse. After the blood letting on Sunday, no one will want to televise the RMS because one of the opponents seemingly doesn't have a gun for this shootout. Let's get Kenny to put on his Eastern Washington mask and bury Ramamania. In case you didn't know EWU's mascot is an eagle. Talleagle perhaps. See my Buff bretheren at Invesco Sunday. Cake walk will be the RMN headlines on Monday. Not even close.
Posted by rodrigo on August 27, 2008 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good call ruff. Next...
Posted by oz_in_cali on August 27, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I posted the bulk of this on a previous article, but included it here because I feel it appropriately addresses the discussion.
Personally, I like the RMS and will even concede that since the series been revived, little brother has earned the right to call it a rivalry. Nobody can deny that we have had some donnybrooks, and some hard feelings that always make it a dangerous game (even this year).
Having said that, I would prefer the series not be locked in every season. I have no problem playing, CSU or Wyoming or Air Force, in fact a match-up (in Denver if you want) every few years with one of those teams would be fun.
But Marcus J hit the nail on the head when he said "As long as it makes national TV every year then it's a good game." If CSU cannot sell of its tickets they should be returned, and they should not benefit from tickets they cannot sell.
Unless the Buffs can schedule a big name in place of CSU its really not worth changing. What's the point of scheduling a team that may or may not be as good as CSU, in place of a game like the RMS (in which our boys have to be on their toes even in a year like this one where we should beat 'um down pretty good).
If they can replace the game with a middle of the road BCS team or a big name team that is being carried by the ghost of it's past (like miami, ucla, penn state, fsu, Nebraska - oops we already play them every year, but beating them twice might be fun), and that would get our boys on TV (like the RMS does) then sweet.
Otherwise, bring on li'l brother CAM.
In either case, Lil' brother needs to quit cryin' and face up to reality. I agree with the post that CSU should do a home and home with the bugeaters. Those suckers deserve each other.
Oh and vkberlin, get clue. Government intervention is not neccesary to keep alive a rivalry (and barely a rivalry, at that) in which one state institution looses money. The of the main roles of government should be to maximize the revenue for state institutions, not to force institutions to subsidize lesser institutions simply for the sake of a football game. Your posts are certainly welcome, but it would be nice if you knew what the hell you are talking about.
GO BUFFS!!
Posted by buffalotom on August 27, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ukber: appreciate your points. but, don't let the facts contradict a good hypothetical. to wit:
1. official attendance:
MILE HI 73,438 2000
MILE HI 75,022 2001
MILE HI 75,531 2002
INVESCO 76,219 2003
FOLSOM 54,954 2004
FOLSOM 54,972 2005
INVESCO 65,701 2006
INVESCO 68,133 2007
2. folsom totals artificial? nope.
3. selling one's allocation is important, not total sales; seats need to be reallocated on a yearly basis.
4. case in point: cu has sold its allocation this year, 36-39k depending upon the reporter (den post v longmont time). csu? has not sold its allocation of 30k, only about 20k at last count.
5. bufftime is correct, state support is minimal, do your homework, less than 7% for cu, more for csu. why? because as bufftime correctly states, cu is better at raising dollars on its own so the legislature punishes cu for that capability by giving relatively more funding to csu. again, look it up;
5. the above assumes the game should continue. bowing to reality, it probably will. cu's best solution is to win consecutive csu games by large margins; csu needs to upgrade its program. if not, cu needs to look elsewhere for games at folsom, per my previous posts;
6. none of this solves the poor seating and lame atmoshpere at invesco.
Posted by oz_in_cali on August 27, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
is it just me, or does ramamania's tired rant sound a lot like kenny?
Man, what a loser.
Posted by BuffTime on August 27, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's a fresh idea; How about renaming it the "Rocky Mountain Invitational" when we don't play the lambs? Then we can keep it as a kick-off classic so to speak and be a mini-bowl game? We will never have a proper bowl game because of the cold weather in Denver plus the fact that we usually have a playoff caliber team that might need to use the stadium, but it is great weather at the end of August/beginning of September...
Posted by buffalo_flyer on August 27, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's another idea, step up and beat the rams soundly before talking about the "inferior" program up north, last I checked, they've managed to post a 4-4 record since playing at Invesco. And quite frankly everyone knows Sonny mismanged the second half last year which allowed the buffs to escape with a win.
Trying to turn the RMS into some type of invitational with some other out of state team is a horrible idea. The only reason this game is played at Invesco is because its the RAMS, Thats the matchup that gets EVERYONE in this state fired up! Otherwise play at Folsom
Posted by BuffTime on August 27, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the Rams could sell out their allotment of tickets consistently then I would agree with keeping them as the yearly game at Invesco. Fro a strictly business point of view, they don't do it. Who says we can't play the at home and then play someone else at Invesco?
Posted by buffalotom on August 27, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bufftime:
just received an email from the cu ath dept. the email stated that the dept was out of tickets but tickets are available from ticketmaster. where does that money go? right, to csu. our fans putting money in the lambs pocket. you're right, if this game continues, the allocations should change.
Posted by sardine on August 28, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!!!
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.