http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/c.../24921919/

Mods please move to Conf Realignment board - posted on wrong site.

Quote from the article

Quote:CSU isn't as close to becoming a member of the Big 12 as anyone wants to admit. It lacks the athletic budget of the 10 current members, its new football stadium will seat 9,000 fewer fans than the Big 12's smallest (TCU) and because of the University of Colorado's recent affiliation, the conference knows the Rams don't occupy the Denver TV market. Three years ago, CSU, in simplest terms, had to pay KUSA to get it to air football games on its cable sister station, channel 20.

Colorado St got an up and comer who will find a P5 home in the future. He is well respected in Lubbock.

CSU averaged home attendance of 26,575 in a 10-win 2014 season. The lowest average attendance in 2014 in the Big 12 was posted by Kansas, which averaged 34,077 in a 3-win season. It's hard to imagine the Big 12 adding a school with CSU's current level of fan support.

Spending a mint on a stadium shows others the school is willing to commit.

That it couldn't reach its target from donations, something a little more sobering.

(03-18-2015 03:43 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  CSU averaged home attendance of 26,575 in a 10-win 2014 season. The lowest average attendance in 2014 in the Big 12 was posted by Kansas, which averaged 34,077 in a 3-win season. It's hard to imagine the Big 12 adding a school with CSU's current level of fan support.

The chicken and the egg argument. If CSU were playing Big 12 schools instead of MWC schools they could argue they'd probably average several thousand more people for games. Hard to argue that Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't outdraw Wyoming or Air Force.

(03-18-2015 07:33 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  The chicken and the egg argument. If CSU were playing Big 12 schools instead of MWC schools they could argue they'd probably average several thousand more people for games. Hard to argue that Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't outdraw Wyoming or Air Force.

Plus a new stadium that's closer to campus.

I know everyone thinks it's a waste of fingers to even type about Colorado St and the PAC.

But you can't ignore that 1) the PAC has two schools in basically five states (counting No Cal and So Cal as separate states, which they should be anyway) and 2) Colorado St is very similar to Washington St, both institutionally and athletically, especially now with the new stadium.


I know that PAC fans would be very displeased and underwhelmed if the PAC added BYU and Colorado St. Particularly the business types who are trying to find every possible angle to grow the PAC media revenue per school to keep up with the B1G and SEC.

Just saying.

Having high aspirations is admirable. But there is also something to be said for recognizing who and what you are. It should be enough to strive to be as good as you can be, whatever level you are at.

I was amused by the assertion that CSU's best bet for Power Conference status was the combination of the best teams from the MWC and AAC to form a P6. That's a dream that will probably never die, despite having zero chance of ever being realized. The "best of the rest" will just be the best G5 (or G6) conference. Nothing more. And the conference CSU is already in arguably already can lay claim to that.

(03-18-2015 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  Having high aspirations is admirable. But there is also something to be said for recognizing who and what you are. It should be enough to strive to be as good as you can be, whatever level you are at.

I was amused by the assertion that CSU's best bet for Power Conference status was the combination of the best teams from the MWC and AAC to form a P6. That's a dream that will probably never die, despite having zero chance of ever being realized. The "best of the rest" will just be the best G5 (or G6) conference. Nothing more. And the conference CSU is already in arguably already can lay claim to that.

This... especially the second paragraph. Close thread.

(03-18-2015 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  Having high aspirations is admirable. But there is also something to be said for recognizing who and what you are. It should be enough to strive to be as good as you can be, whatever level you are at.

I was amused by the assertion that CSU's best bet for Power Conference status was the combination of the best teams from the MWC and AAC to form a P6. That's a dream that will probably never die, despite having zero chance of ever being realized. The "best of the rest" will just be the best G5 (or G6) conference. Nothing more. And the conference CSU is already in arguably already can lay claim to that.

Is that what you would've said to Utah in 2010? Or to Arizona and Arizona State in 1977?

(03-18-2015 02:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  Having high aspirations is admirable. But there is also something to be said for recognizing who and what you are. It should be enough to strive to be as good as you can be, whatever level you are at.

I was amused by the assertion that CSU's best bet for Power Conference status was the combination of the best teams from the MWC and AAC to form a P6. That's a dream that will probably never die, despite having zero chance of ever being realized. The "best of the rest" will just be the best G5 (or G6) conference. Nothing more. And the conference CSU is already in arguably already can lay claim to that.

Is that what you would've said to Utah in 2010? Or to Arizona and Arizona State in 1977?

Why would I not say that? The circumstances for those schools were far different than the circumstances facing CSU.

(03-18-2015 03:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would I not say that? The circumstances for those schools were far different than the circumstances facing CSU.

Assuming Arizona was in, why would they add Arizona St yet conversely not add Colorado St with Colorado in?

(03-18-2015 03:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 03:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would I not say that? The circumstances for those schools were far different than the circumstances facing CSU.

Assuming Arizona was in, why would they add Arizona St yet conversely not add Colorado St with Colorado in?

Because this is not an exercise in building random conferences on the EA Sports video game.

(03-18-2015 04:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Because this is not an exercise in building random conferences on the EA Sports video game.

No one is forcing you to post on this thread.

(03-18-2015 03:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 03:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would I not say that? The circumstances for those schools were far different than the circumstances facing CSU.

Assuming Arizona was in, why would they add Arizona St yet conversely not add Colorado St with Colorado in?

Because that happened years ago when regional rivals were more important.

(03-18-2015 03:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 03:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would I not say that? The circumstances for those schools were far different than the circumstances facing CSU.

Assuming Arizona was in, why would they add Arizona St yet conversely not add Colorado St with Colorado in?

Because Utah was clearly a better choice than CSU by just about any metric one might use to decide these things.

(03-18-2015 05:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  Because Utah was clearly a better choice than CSU by just about any metric one might use to decide these things.

I was talking about Arizona St. Or actually, let's say that Arizona St. was the valuable property and Arizona wasn't as valuable. That analogy works better because ASU is near the urban center of AZ like CU is near the urban center of CO, while the other state school in each situation is farther away.

Why would the PAC add both Arizona schools if only one was needed to get into Arizona?

Whatever answer you use, should apply the same to Colorado.