August 20, 2008 5:08 PM
The CU-CSU series
Talks are on-going among CU, Colorado State and the Denver Metro Sports Commission about the future of the schools' football series.
At least publicly, all of the involved parties believe the series should continue. But the biggest question is: Where?
Here's CU athletic director Mike Bohn's nicely worded answer on his feelings about playing his in-state neighbor: ``I have tremendous respect for Colorado State and the series . . . I look forward to resuming it and having it be a nationally respected contest.''
Here's the caveat: CU desperately wants the 2009 game to be played in Boulder, and perhaps the 2012 game -- if the school's can clear the '09 stumbling block and agree to a resumption of the series.
On the DMSC side, president KieAnn Brownell says her organization has offered a ``sizeable guarantee'' to both schools to play the game at Invesco Field at Mile High.
Brownell says the Metro Denver Sports Commission has offered a ``sizeable guarantee'' to both schools to keep the game in Denver. ``It's in the state's best interest to play it (there).''
Maybe so, but Bohn isn't flinching on this one. He says it's in CU season-ticket holders' best interests for the Buffs to play six home games every year.
It's also in CU's best financial interests to avoid any future trips to Fort Collins, but CSU officials -- from athletic director Paul Kowalczyk on up -- don't seem to have a problem with the Rams' home games in the series being played in Denver.
So what we're left with is Bohn and CU standing firm with that six-home game stance, while the folks at CSU and in the DMSC want Denver as the anchor city.
Bohn and Kowalczyk could confer again this week. Somebody's got to budge to make it work, but budging in Boulder could be a problem.
August 21, 2008
2:32 PM
tom bushy writes:
CU has lost 1/2 of it games to CSU in its 8 meetings when playing at nuetral Mile High/Invesco. Obviously CU wants to run from playing CSU on at Invesco, even though it makes $3M more for both State owned programs versus playing at Folsom.
Put whatever spin on CU's cowardly manuevers, it's poor sportsmanship, and very self-centered.
Isn't CU's football program in Debt by $8M??
WAKE UP people of Colorado! You have a Public institution running away from a $3M windfall profit... just so it can gain Home Field Advantage and win a few more games. Pathetic...
August 21, 2008
6:24 PM
Grant Hale writes:
This is always a great matchup between two good programs. Every time the game is in Denver, it ends up being an exciting battle that usually comes down to the finish. And here we go again with CU threatening to either play their home games at Folsom or end the series all together. As a Colorado State Ram, I have enjoyed the games in Denver and I even went to Boulder the two years it was there in '04 and '05. If it is moved again in '09, then the series should be moved to Hughes in 2010.
If its not going to work out in Denver every year, then this series should go back to visiting the schools campuses every other year. It would bring in tons of money for both Boulder and Fort Collins during the year that they are hosting. It would also help build some home field advantage for both stadiums, knowing they will host the biggest game of the season every other year. I think it would be a huge boost to college football in Colorado and i would love to see the Rams kick butt at Hughes in 2010.
Go State!
August 21, 2008
7:06 PM
Ralph E. Buffalo writes:
Umm. . . .check your facts boys. First, CU Athletics is not in debt, at least not in the way you seem to imply. They are still paying off the expansion to their stadium, but it was financed by an 8 year loan, so yes, they are in debt, the same way someone making car or house payments is in debt. Their budget reached over $40 million last year, and they ended the 07-08 fiscal year well in the black. Sorry you guys might have to lose your one game a year in front of more the 50,000 fans, but most people would support an Athletic Director living up to his promises to season ticket holders.
Also, I have to say I love people pumping up only 8 years of an 80 year series. The overall record of 58-19-2 doesn't really imply rivalry, but more like a pretty one sided annual matchup. Its probably in CU's best interest to end the series and have seven home games every year.
August 21, 2008
7:42 PM
facts straight writes:
Sorry Buff fans this is fact.....
Colorado Sate has beaten CU more times than CU has beaten Nebraska.
Who is the rivalry?
August 22, 2008
6:36 AM
CUGrad writes:
Always love when Ram fans bring up Nebraska. I guess when little brother has nothing of his own to brag about, he has look to the bigger meaningful conference to draw inspiration.
August 22, 2008
10:19 AM
Hoppman writes:
I am not sure where Tom Bushy is getting the 3 mil for both teams, CU nets an additional $500,000 for playing in Denver. If you have a source on the 3 mil post it. That being said, CU doesn't need the CSU game each year. I would like to see CU play Air Force on occasion as well. The game belongs on the campuses at least some of the years, CU doesn't mind playing at Lubick field, they can beat down the lambs there just as easy as they can anywhere else.
As someone that was born and has lived in the state of Colorado for 44 years knows, big time college football starts and ends at CU so CSU has to play by their rules if they want to play, if not, go away.
August 22, 2008
2:59 PM
JGuerra writes:
Hoppman: Don't write ignorant comments ("beat down the lambs...). Beat down implies a wide margin of victory when most games between these two universities are very close. Even in Boulder (last second, non qb sneak by CSU the difference in 04). Sure you play in The Big Three (OU, Texas, Nebraska)- Little 9 conference; but don't mooch off of those three institutions glory. Don't bring up 1990 either because Georgia Tech were the champs (few Coloradans know this).
August 24, 2008
11:42 AM
DBConn writes:
Whoa there, JGuerra, let's examine this idea of "ignorant comments". The "Big Three - Little 9 conference" had FOUR teams in the top TEN of last years final polls, two of which you didn't even name, Mizzou and Kansas. They had five in the top twenty-five compared to the MWC's one.
And how pathetic is it that you Rams fans consistently point out that CU's national championship was shared with GT. A shared national championship is still a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and it's a helluva lot closer than the Rams have ever been or will be. CU has no need to "mooch off of those institutions glory".
Classic inferiority complex my friend.
August 26, 2008
6:29 AM
BuffMan writes:
As a life-long CU season ticket holder, I am pleased our AD is focused on what is most important to those who have supported the Buffs the most. I would prefer to see an alternating schedule for the Buffs: AFA one year, the "Goats" another, etc. The honest truth is simply this: CU season ticket holders enjoy their own seats in Folsom a whole lot more than Invesco Mile High, regardless who the "home" team may be. Frankly, I wish nothing but the best for CSU's program, but they, in fact, are simply just not in the same league as CU's regular national competitors such as NU, MU, OU & Texas. Beyond that, CSU should focus more on filling up Lubick Stadium better than they typically do, rather than wining about their "big game" with the Buffs.
August 26, 2008
8:12 AM
JGuerra writes:
DBConn: Well I don't count it as shared in 1990 because I am aware of the "5th down" that CU was awarded in a game that they would have lost otherwise. Are you seriously hyping up Kansas and Mizzou? At least I am aware that there are only two (BYU, perhaps TCU or Utah)teams in our conference that are consistent. It is definately in CU's best interest not to play the CSU game because they have too much to lose (and CSU could win no matter how bad they are that year). CU should put together a schedule similar to the Kansas one last year. That would be strong.
August 26, 2008
3:57 PM
Diablo writes:
I am a season ticket holder as well and want the series to be held in Denver but not with CSU every year. The problem with the presumption this is best for the state is incorrect when the same two teams play in the game each year. The big draw is CU and if it is CUs responsibility to help each school then they should also play Air Force and Northern Colorado.
As far as next year there is no other Big XII team with less than 6 home games and I want us to have the same advantage as the other Big XII schools and play 6 home games.
Mike Bohn, play the game next year in Boulder and look for other opponents to start the season. If CSU does not like it they can find another opponent and play them at Invesco each year.
August 28, 2008
7:48 AM
BUFF PRIDE 1 writes:
This is stupid!
The Buffs should keep their 6 homes games PLUS have the 7th "home game" at Mile Hi against the Rams. This series must continue. The schools need it, the fans love it, and the most accommodating site is Invesco. Come on, Bohn, let's get it done!
August 29, 2008
1:36 PM
GloryGlory writes:
This isnt about CU being scared to face CSU (You would have to be a moron to think that). Its about Bohn wanting 6 home games a year. CSU averages less than 20,000 people at their home games so to play infront of 50,000+ would make that game their most lucrative of the year. CU averages 50,000 people in Boulder so yes they do gain from what the DMSC is putting up but its not to the extent of what CSU gains. CU does not need this game, CSU does. Last time I checked CU's 36,000 tickets for this game were sold out and CSU's 28,000 were not.
August 30, 2008
1:55 PM
RamsWho? writes:
This is not and never will be a real rivalry. The mountain west can't hold a candle to the Big 12. It's only a rivalry to idiots from FoCo who are jealous of CU's superiority as a school and a football program. When CU wins this game every year for the next 15, maybe finally CSU retards (CU rejects) will acknowledge that this is not and never will be a rivalry. I hope they abandon the Invesco idea and so the Buffs can slap around the Rams at Folsom and at Hughes.
August 31, 2008
2:48 PM
Scott T writes:
Air Force would have a difficult time schduling CU on a consistent basis. In addition to conference games they are obligated to play Navy and Army every year. A poll of the CU season ticket holders would show that they probably dont care if one game every other year is played at a larger venue. Many other games are played at a neutral site every year. You dont hear OU or Texas bitching that the Red River war is played in Dallas rather than on campus. CU should win every year and havnt. The game is great for the state played in Denver. Only CU has a problem with it.
September 1, 2008
9:06 PM
Ivan K writes:
Let's face it: the reason CU doesn't care if the rivalry continues is because they have everything to lose by playing, and CSU has everything to gain by claiming a victory in this game. The numbers speak for themselves, CU's athletic budget will top $40 million this year as compared to CSU's modest $16 or $17 million spent in 2006 (less than fellow MWC A.F. and UNM). CU's football budget alone is over $7 million vs. CSU's budget of under $5 million. For all you elitist CU trustafarians who have your accountants do your taxes, that is a difference of about 40%. If I were you, I would also be embarrassed when a CU program which spends significantly more on a program plagued by illegal recruiting, rape, and budget problems loses to the State school up the road with approximately half the athletic budget. And to the argument about CU season ticket holders not getting there cushy seats at Folsom: Cry Me a River! The game is about the 70,000 fans who go to it every year, not the couple thousand CU season ticket holders whose arrogance and sense of entitlement is a disgrace to not only the great state of Colorado, but a disgrace to both CU and CSU.
September 3, 2008
9:20 AM
RamFan writes:
I would just like to say I find it extremely funny when CU fans (Rams Who) try to bring up how "superior" their academics are compared to CSU any time a sports debate arises. Last time I checked, they're both state schools and last time I checked, CU was ranked BELOW CSU on the Forbes best colleges of 2008. CU was even ranked below Metro. (CSU-302, Metro-305, CU-356). It's also comical to believe CSU students are CU rejects. Both schools are extremely easy to get into. Just because you have a trust fund from your parents out east and would like to think you are a ski bum does not make you smart.
September 7, 2008
12:16 AM
SpringsRamFan writes:
Make no mistake, we CSU fans understand that the CU game is not the most important game on our schedule(nor do we think it for CU). While an inferiority complex may occasionally raise it's head with CSU fans (yes, it is only occasionally - like it or not, we aren't really all that concerned with CU), this is not the basis for the argument to keep the game in Denver. The fact is, there is no bigger college game for the state of Colorado - in terms of excitement, revenue, recruiting advantage, etc. This is the case even when both programs are expected to be mediocre at best (i.e. the last four years). I understand the CU administration's desire to please it's season ticket holders ... but they should also consider a longer-term view of developing excitement to a broader base of fans and especially the next generation of fans that will eventually become their season ticket holders and, more importantly, their larger donors. Keep the game in Denver, it's the best thing for both programs, both now and for the future.
September 9, 2008
11:35 AM
Rammies writes:
Both teams need to face the music. Neither CSU nor CU is a powerhouse. I would just ask the question, “What is CU afraid of?� Let’s play some Football!!!!
September 9, 2008
12:54 PM
CSUWho? / How about those Buffs writes:
CU
2007 - W6 / L 7
2006 - W2 / L 10
2005 - W7 / L 6
2004 - W8 / L 5
2003 - W5 / L 7
2008 - W8 / L 5
Does this look like a winning team?
Wake UP!!!!! CU has nothing to talk about!!!!
March 12, 2010
1:01 AM
Jerome Stelling writes:
Lighting or illumination is the deliberate application of light to achieve some aesthetic or practical effect. Lighting includes use of both artificial light sources such as lamps and natural illumination of interiors from daylight. Daylighting (through windows, skylights, etc.) is often used as the main source of light during daytime in buildings given its low cost. Artificial lighting represents a major component of energy consumption, accounting for a significant part of all energy consumed worldwide. Artificial lighting is most commonly provided today by electric lights, but gas lighting, candles, or oil lamps were used in the past, and still are used in certain situations. Proper lighting can enhance task performance or aesthetics, while there can be energy wastage and adverse health effects of poorly designed lighting. Indoor lighting is a form of fixture or furnishing, and a key part of interior design. Lighting can also be an intrinsic component of landscaping.
October 8, 2010
3:26 AM
Jeannie Hellerman writes:
i don’t think its work
October 25, 2010
8:59 PM
Tracy Morgan writes:
Music started playing anytime I opened this web site, so irritating!
May 24, 2011
4:12 AM
window cleaning sydney writes:
After ruining the economy they are after the sports now.I bet they are happy with all that money.
June 7, 2011
3:38 AM
graffiti cleaning is hard writes:
Guys, a pretty good discussion going on here. I have my favorite but a good game is real pleasure.
June 13, 2011
12:28 PM
conta premium 4shared writes:
blog muito foda! Obrigado pelas ótimas matérias, vou publicar em meu site... Vendo conta premium 4shared, http://abracontaspremium.com.br
November 29, 2011
1:59 AM
gay webcam writes:
Hello! Yo podrĂa haber jurado que han estado en este blog antes, pero despuĂ©s de comprobar a travĂ©s de algunos de los post me di cuenta de que es nuevo para mĂ. De todos modos, definitivamente estoy feliz de haberlo encontrado y voy a ser el libro de marcado y control de sitio con frecuencia!
December 10, 2011
1:54 AM
Robbie Anderson writes:
I really enjoy the article. Will read on...
December 10, 2011
1:54 AM
Gabby Love writes:
I am so grateful for your article.Much thanks again.
December 10, 2011
1:54 AM
Cassie Wallace writes:
I am so grateful for your blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Great.
December 10, 2011
1:54 AM
Gennifer Cooley writes:
A round of applause for your blog.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
December 17, 2011
1:51 AM
Free Directory writes:
Thank you for a really good post. I found this quite useful and will check your site often. Regards Michael H
January 2, 2012
5:59 AM
Tyler M. writes:
LOL, u mad bro?