CSU Stadium Renderings

[ragtimejoe1]

Instead of comparing ourselves to poop (CSewe), why don't we compare ourselves to the 3 that left the conference, and see how we stack up (or stacked up prior to them leaving). They left for a many rea$on$, certainly, but they had the vision we didn't (and don't) in order to have the opportunity to move up and out.

But we are fine being in a conference of teams that are more similar to us (in budget and everything else). To me, that is lazy assed apathetic poop. And as we sat around and looked at the shiny IPF that Glenn built, the neato RAC that Tiller built, and the half-done Wildcatter that Barta built (while licking our chops knowing we would soon be top dog), we still managed to get passed up budget wise, and are right back in the middle of the MWC (where we were before the 3 left).

I thought comparing to the sheep was all that mattered at WYO

Your point is a good one.

[joshvanklomp]

Would you rather be a school that does more with less or that does less with more?

[J-Rod]

Would you rather be a school that does more with less or that does less with more?

The latter, because even if you're doing less with more, you're likely still on the right side of the P5/G5 divide.

[McPeachy]

Would you rather be a school that does more with less or that does less with more?

Did you get that tag-line from the bottom of your UW athletic department issued note pad? If I had a dollar every time I overheard a UW athletics administrator mutter those words the last 10 years, I would move to Hawaii and live for free.

"UW Athletics - Doing More with Less" - f-word that.

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Would you rather be a school that does more with less or that does less with more?

Did you get that tag-line from the bottom of your UW athletic department issued note pad? If I had a dollar every time I overheard a UW athletics administrator mutter those words the last 10 years, I would move to Hawaii and live for free.

"UW Athletics - Doing More with Less" - f-word that.

I tend to agree but catch myself and ponder the following. I would rather do the absolute MOST with what we have than to do less with what we have.

This whole less with more/more with less doesn't really matter one way or the other. We have what we have. I want us to do the most with THAT. For the most part, I think the university does a good job of that. Outside of a couple special runs, we haven't had the on field/court success as we have all wanted but is not for lack of trying. Bohl is going to be good. Shyatt is starting to see the fruits of his initial labor. Our facilities are improving and are quickly becoming the best in the MWC if not the region or even country. Hell yeah, I would love us to be like Nebraska or Boise State and be a relative "powerhouse" in a small market state but that doesn't happen overnight.

[joshvanklomp]

Hell yeah, I would love us to be like Nebraska or Boise State and be a relative "powerhouse" in a small market state but that doesn't happen overnight.

One of the things we will always face with this though is the fact that while both of those schools are in "small market states" they are still in towns over 200k population. That is something the University of Wyoming will always fight against.

Even if we had a larger budget, I'm still not convinced it would put us over the P5 line.

[J-Rod]

Yeah, Lincoln has a population of around 300K with several surroundings towns too. Boise is has a population of around 250K, but that's just Boise, not counting the rest of the Tresure Valley, which can easily get the total population of the area over 600K. Those are technically still "small markets", but by comparison are metropolises compared to Laramie.

That is one area where "it is what it is" is just reality. Can't suddenly turn a town of 35K into something that large overnight. It takes decades.

[laxwyo]

McPeach is on point

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Yeah, Lincoln has a population of around 300K with several surroundings towns too. Boise is has a population of around 250K, but that's just Boise, not counting the rest of the Tresure Valley, which can easily get the total population of the area over 600K. Those are technically still "small markets", but by comparison are metropolises compared to Laramie.

That is one area where "it is what it is" is just reality. Can't suddenly turn a town of 35K into something that large overnight. It takes decades.

Agree completely.

[ragtimejoe1]

If small population was limiting then it was always limiting. Thus, we would never be in the upper end of the country in bball attendance, never sell out the War, and never be competitive. The only problem with that theory is we have done all of those. I reject the notion that those are abberations in which we simply defied ourselves. Rather, those are our potential that we are failing to achieve.

Small population limits our advertising potential which limits our conference options.

I also reject the notion that there are only 2 ways to use resources. I'd prefer to do more with more.

[J-Rod]

If small population was limiting then it was always limiting. Thus, we would never be in the upper end of the country in bball attendance, never sell out the War, and never be competitive. The only problem with that theory is as have done all of those. I reject the notion that those are abberations in which we simply defied ouselves. Rather, those are our potential that we are failing to achieve.

Small population limits our advertising potential which limits our conference options

Basketball vs. football are two different things. Basketball is cheaper, easier to succeed in. Small population doesn't guarantee a poor football program by any means, but it does make it extremely difficult to consistently be a football power. It hurts recruiting, among other things.

The best attendance averages in school history were in the late 80s and mid 90s when UW attracted 25K a game, give or take a few hundred people. That's never going to appeal to larger conferences. Colorado State has the same issue, and making a new stadium won't suddenly change that. They struggled to average 26K a game in the greatest season they might ever have. We can spin it all we like, that's never going to be appealing.

And I disagree that population was always limiting. It's a bigger deal in this era than the past. Once T.V. and boostership rose in college sports, it became a game of being the most appealing to young athletes and T.V. viewers. The late Beano Cook warned everyone decades ago that this would change the amateur sport for good.

[Wyokie]

The late Beano Cook warned everyone decades ago that this would change the amateur sport for good.

Just realized he died back in 2012. BTW, he was from San Francisco and attended University of Pittsburgh.

I still laugh at his prediction that Rick Mirer (QB, Notre Dame) in the '90s would win TWO Heisman Trophies. poop!!!!

[ragtimejoe1]

Our population and small University status limits us to MWC at best but I don't buy the notion it limits our success. Consistently, recruits rank relationship with coaches as the number 1 reason for choosing a school. More money means better recruiting, better coach salaries, etc.

The fact that we continue to lag behind in budget is the main nail in our coffin; small population in a rural area is just our main excuse.

[JimmyDimes]

Our population and small University status limits us to MWC at best but I don't buy the notion it limits our success. Consistently, recruits rank relationship with coaches as the number 1 reason for choosing a school. More money means better recruiting, better coach salaries, etc.

The fact that we continue to lag behind in budget is the main nail in our coffin; small population in a rural area is just our main excuse.

It isn't a nail in our coffin. It is something that can and should be addressed. But, keep in mind we offer the fewest sports of any MWC school and have some of the cheapest tuition. Those are big factors in athletic budgets. I do believe we need to spend more on some of the non revenue sports. Swimming needs a new pool. The AA needs to be completed. But, all of our sports except football (and maybe WBB) finished in the top half of the conference last year. We won the title in basketball. Women's soccer and Tennis were both in title games. Volleyball finished 2nd. Both the men's and women's swim teams were in the top 3 of their conferences (the men compete in the WAC). Wrestling finished 2nd...after 5 years of winning their conference title. And, Burman made the right hire in Bohl. Give him a couple more years and he will be competing for the football title.

We have more momentum now than we've had in years athletically.....since maybe the late 80's or early 90's. Every single sport is in an upswing. And that trend will continue.

I realize you don't like Burman.....but at least see the trees in the forest Joe.

[J-Rod]

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/ ... /29969299/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CSU as an athletic program is swiftly moving in the right direction thanks to what CSU President Tony Frank and former athletic director Jack Graham started and current AD Joe Parker is continuing.

LOL

I've said it a million times this off-season: get back to me in December. The stats and results do not lie: Garrett Grayson was everything to Colorado State football. When they finish the 2015 season under 7 wins (Phil Steele has them struggling), we'll see the hype slow down on CSU, much like it slowed down on Fresno. This is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to moderate success. Remove Grayson, and all the Rams are is Higgins and a roster full of JAGs. It's like 2007 Hawaii, 2010 Nevada, and 2013 Fresno all over again. This brief success is NOT a sign of things to come, but more an aberration based off the performance of a fluke top QB the Rams landed.

I'll stick to my preseason prediction: Wyoming will beat this team in Laramie this year.

[ragtimejoe1]

Shy was a great hire and I too predict Bohl is. However, we handicap them and, as frequently pointed out, require them to do more with less.

My concern is that though we have coaches who do more with less, we are losing ground on the budget side of things. That is not a sustainable path of success in college athletics.

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

If small population was limiting then it was always limiting. Thus, we would never be in the upper end of the country in bball attendance, never sell out the War, and never be competitive. The only problem with that theory is we have done all of those. I reject the notion that those are abberations in which we simply defied ourselves. Rather, those are our potential that we are failing to achieve.

Small population limits our advertising potential which limits our conference options.

I also reject the notion that there are only 2 ways to use resources. I'd prefer to do more with more.

It takes ridiculous B&G Glasses to think we are not hindered by our population. It's what makes those situations absolute aberrations. They only happened a few times... Thats the definition of an aberration. Lincoln sells out every game because they have tradition (and a much larger fan base). Even though they have had "down by their standards" years recently, they have enough history to stay sold out. If we were winning 8-10 every year in the football field and 25-28 in basketball we would be selling out again.

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Shy was a great hire and I too predict Bohl is. However, we handicap them and, as frequently pointed out, require them to do more with less.

My concern is that though we have coaches who do more with less, we are losing ground on the budget side of things. That is not a sustainable path of success in college athletics.

This is an honest question, not meant to rag on anyone or call anyone a liar.

Is there breakdown of budgets and where the money goes? How do we know we really lag behind everyone?

Just because the Sheep have a bigger budget ($xx,000,000) than UW ($x,000,000) doesn't necessarily mean it affects their programs in a manner different than ours...I would bet that he cost of running their university and their programs is much higher than ours as well...

[ragtimejoe1]

If we were winning 8-10 every year in the football field and 25-28 in basketball we would be selling out again.

That defines lack of success as our limitation rather than population. I agree.

[ragtimejoe1]

Shy was a great hire and I too predict Bohl is. However, we handicap them and, as frequently pointed out, require them to do more with less.

My concern is that though we have coaches who do more with less, we are losing ground on the budget side of things. That is not a sustainable path of success in college athletics.

This is an honest question, not meant to rag on anyone or call anyone a liar.

Is there breakdown of budgets and where the money goes? How do we know we really lag behind everyone?

Just because the Sheep have a bigger budget ($xx,000,000) than UW ($x,000,000) doesn't necessarily mean it affects their programs in a manner different than ours...I would bet that he cost of running their university and their programs is much higher than ours as well...

I'd have to look around. Budgets are available but breakdown of expenditures are harder to find (if available). Remember, when Burman took charge, our budget was greater than CSU. The 3 largest programs leave, we add a bunch of WAC schools and as still don't increase our budgetary situation relative to our peers. Almost every program in MWC has outpaced us in budgetary increases over the past 8 years. It is a concern.