If Colorado St
- Thread starter TD_istheman
- Start date
Mrs Buffett is a Colorado St grad and an expert skier so I guess that's one benefit of going to school in that neck of the " woods."
CSU hired a new AD who was a dynamic, high energy, idea, get it down guy/ AD.
Their communication with alums was amazing and it was a project that the top people at CSU were committed to.
They had a goal, they communicated the goal to alums, along with their plan to get things accomplished and the alums responded. Mostly based on the communication and connection to the new AD.
I remember one program which included working with a sports apparel co,involved new apparel design, with the goals of outfitting the fanbase with new exciting stuff plus a portion of the money went to the building fund.
In Mrs Buffett's opinion ( of course she's right ) the CSU fanbase was similar to PITT's a low energy, we've tried everything and nothings possible fanbase prior to the new AD Graham motivating them.
Graham eventually was replaced but was they guy who motivated the fansbase and got things done. Lots of time those type of people don't survive in a "steady state" environment but love a challenge!
Here's How They Did It:
For more than 30 years, people talked about the need to build a new CSU stadium to replace Hughes.
Some wanted it built on campus, while others suggested building it along Interstate 25 to draw more fans from Denver.
It was always just idle talk, though, pie-in-the-sky stuff for a school like Colorado State University.
So what turned that talk into the new $220 million stadium that opens Saturday, when the Rams host Oregon State at 12:30 p.m. in the first game of the 2017 college football season?
Jack Graham, Tony Frank and a change in state law that allowed the university to finance capital construction projects through the sale of revenue bonds.
All three were crucial in the process of getting the stadium designed, approved and built.
Graham, a former CSU quarterback and highly successful businessman, first discussed the idea with Frank in the fall of 2011 while the Rams were muddling their way through a third straight 3-9 season. Graham, who had donated money to help build the $13 million Indoor Practice Facility two years earlier, was asked to contribute money for a Hall of Fame exhibit at Moby Arena. He said he first wanted to meet with Frank, the university's president since 2008.
"I was grumpy with where CSU athletics were, specifically the football program," Graham said. "And I felt it was dilutive to the reputation of the university and dilutive to the athletic program at Colorado State."
Former home:Hughes Stadium says quiet goodbye before lights go out
Graham shared those concerns with Frank and was asked what he would do differently.
"I said you've got to change the culture in athletics at CSU, but none of that's going to happen until you get football right, because football is the engine that drives everything else, whether you like it or not, it's a reality,'' Graham said. "And I said you're never going to have a successful football program at Colorado State with a stadium off campus."
Frank was soon sold on the idea. So much so that he hired Graham to replace Paul Kowalczyk as the school's athletic director.
"Certainly, when Jack Graham became athletic director, that's when it became serious," said Mark Driscoll, another former CSU quarterback who served as the school's AD from 2003-06. "That was Jack's priority No. 1; it's time to make a change. Jack, of course, started the whole process."
Frank fired Graham a year before ground was broken on the new stadium because of concerns about his management style and disputes about how donors' pledges to the new stadium were being counted. But Frank was quick to credit Graham for getting the project started and pushing it through.
"Without that push, we simply wouldn't be here today," Frank said.
Related:First game at new Colorado State stadium a sellout
Frank, though, shepherded the project through intense scrutiny.
Despite years of talk about building a new stadium, Frank was the first CSU president "to put action behind the discussion," said Gary Ozzello, the university's executive director for community outreach and engagement. He came to CSU as a student in 1974 and never left, working more than 35 years in the athletic department, primarily as the director of media relations before moving into his current position in 2014.
"I think that he realized, which has now come to fruition, is what an on-campus stadium would do, not just for athletics, but for the entire campus and the community," Ozzello said. "… The biggest factor that really resonates with me is that Tony has a commitment in every sense to excellence."
CSU hired a new AD who was a dynamic, high energy, idea, get it down guy/ AD.
Their communication with alums was amazing and it was a project that the top people at CSU were committed to.
They had a goal, they communicated the goal to alums, along with their plan to get things accomplished and the alums responded. Mostly based on the communication and connection to the new AD.
I remember one program which included working with a sports apparel co,involved new apparel design, with the goals of outfitting the fanbase with new exciting stuff plus a portion of the money went to the building fund.
In Mrs Buffett's opinion ( of course she's right ) the CSU fanbase was similar to PITT's a low energy, we've tried everything and nothings possible fanbase prior to the new AD Graham motivating them.
Graham eventually was replaced but was they guy who motivated the fansbase and got things done. Lots of time those type of people don't survive in a "steady state" environment but love a challenge!
Here's How They Did It:
For more than 30 years, people talked about the need to build a new CSU stadium to replace Hughes.
Some wanted it built on campus, while others suggested building it along Interstate 25 to draw more fans from Denver.
It was always just idle talk, though, pie-in-the-sky stuff for a school like Colorado State University.
So what turned that talk into the new $220 million stadium that opens Saturday, when the Rams host Oregon State at 12:30 p.m. in the first game of the 2017 college football season?
Jack Graham, Tony Frank and a change in state law that allowed the university to finance capital construction projects through the sale of revenue bonds.
All three were crucial in the process of getting the stadium designed, approved and built.
Graham, a former CSU quarterback and highly successful businessman, first discussed the idea with Frank in the fall of 2011 while the Rams were muddling their way through a third straight 3-9 season. Graham, who had donated money to help build the $13 million Indoor Practice Facility two years earlier, was asked to contribute money for a Hall of Fame exhibit at Moby Arena. He said he first wanted to meet with Frank, the university's president since 2008.
"I was grumpy with where CSU athletics were, specifically the football program," Graham said. "And I felt it was dilutive to the reputation of the university and dilutive to the athletic program at Colorado State."
Former home:Hughes Stadium says quiet goodbye before lights go out
Graham shared those concerns with Frank and was asked what he would do differently.
"I said you've got to change the culture in athletics at CSU, but none of that's going to happen until you get football right, because football is the engine that drives everything else, whether you like it or not, it's a reality,'' Graham said. "And I said you're never going to have a successful football program at Colorado State with a stadium off campus."
Frank was soon sold on the idea. So much so that he hired Graham to replace Paul Kowalczyk as the school's athletic director.
"Certainly, when Jack Graham became athletic director, that's when it became serious," said Mark Driscoll, another former CSU quarterback who served as the school's AD from 2003-06. "That was Jack's priority No. 1; it's time to make a change. Jack, of course, started the whole process."
Frank fired Graham a year before ground was broken on the new stadium because of concerns about his management style and disputes about how donors' pledges to the new stadium were being counted. But Frank was quick to credit Graham for getting the project started and pushing it through.
"Without that push, we simply wouldn't be here today," Frank said.
Related:First game at new Colorado State stadium a sellout
Frank, though, shepherded the project through intense scrutiny.
Despite years of talk about building a new stadium, Frank was the first CSU president "to put action behind the discussion," said Gary Ozzello, the university's executive director for community outreach and engagement. He came to CSU as a student in 1974 and never left, working more than 35 years in the athletic department, primarily as the director of media relations before moving into his current position in 2014.
"I think that he realized, which has now come to fruition, is what an on-campus stadium would do, not just for athletics, but for the entire campus and the community," Ozzello said. "… The biggest factor that really resonates with me is that Tony has a commitment in every sense to excellence."
Last edited:
Did they have a new NFL-quality stadium within 3 miles of their campus available as a ready made option to replace their inadequate old stadium?
A stadium ( Heinz) that is totally inadequate for the needs of the PITT football program and isn't a long term option especially if the Steelers decide to relocate.
It was a "safe" option for a PITT administration who weren't and aren't today totally committed to a D1/P5 football program and offered a convienent "bailout" option if they ever decided to dump football or deemphasize football.
When you don't own anything is easy to walk away from things which suited the "lets not commit" personalities of the PITT admin.
Have you been to Ft Collins?
If not, let me put it into perspective. It would be like buying properties in Zelienople vs Oakland.
If not, let me put it into perspective. It would be like buying properties in Zelienople vs Oakland.
Last edited:
If Pitt decided to "walk away from things" they did so long before the move to HF. Quite honestly, it looks to be that Pitt is likely more serious about their commitment to football now than at any time since Sherrill was allowed to leave.
Time will tell.
I actually agree with you now but I doubted the previous group's readiness to stick things out especially after the Wanny axing and the coaching merry go round.
Now things have stabilized thankfully!
This is the truth, the rest of these answers are for losers, excuses and bullshiit
No need to join the ACC if there is no commitment to FB. Could've stayed in the AAC. May have kept Dixon (who was never on board with the ACC move) had they done that and opted to let BB drive the bus athletically and just have FB as a varsity sport as a pretense of being a "big time" university in terms of athletics.
Well, hopefully they've stabilized. We'll see.
But agree that under the previous leadership team it appeared that Pitt was lost and going nowhere in terms of football. The decision to bring SP back for a 2nd tenure as AD was pretty telling. When MN bailed SP out by bringing him back to Pitt again it put SP in the position of being beholden to those that seemed intent in running football on the cheap. That MN gave SP that wonderful financial going away present it sure looks like proof that SP did a great job of doing what MN wanted him to in terms of keeping FB spending in check. So SP was rewarded with full saddlebags of loot for being a "good boy".
Yep just walk over there to that stadium footprint and get out the shovels.
Oh wait there isn't one...
Take that 220 very large and double it in Oakland.....for starters
The stadium ridiculousness knows no bounds here.
I would never support financially, or otherwise, any plan to build a stadium with a bush league seating capacity. Anything under about 55,000 (Pitt Stadium capacity) screams "bush league" and is a capitulation to the idea we can never again field a top ten team and are content to always be mediocre. The optics of telling a recruit we only have a 42,000 seating capacity are terrible--far worse than empty yellows at Heinz, IMO. At least at Heinz, when we have a good team and an attractive opponent that travels well (a game or two a season) we can fill Heinz (or almost). Better that than turning away fans from a minor league size facility so we can have a near full house against a MAC opponent in September and brag "See no empty yellow seats."
Are the stadiums of TCU, Baylor, and Stanford "bush league."
No need to build an extra 10,000 seats which will be forever empty unless ND, PSU, or WVU come in.
Staying in the AAC and dissolving football might actually have shown better commitment if they'd have kept and built on basketball's authentic success, such as in Villanova fashion.
I just think the pretense that this administration is somehow more gung-ho about winning sports is facetious. They aren't LESS so, I guess is about the best anyone can say. But staying the same as your predecessor, when your predeessor was woefully inadequate, isn't exactly praise.
Faced with the nitty gritty on questions such as hiring head coaches, paying to keep successful assistant coaches, and discipline, the latest crew have gone the predictable cheap and hard-ass route. No better than their predecessors did.
Next merry go round Pitt may not have a seat when the music stops.
That is a total possibility.
Wait til this first time (In what will be MANY times upcoming) that it's Home for Pitt vs. Miami / Pitt vs. Virginia Tech for what will essentially be the ACC Coastal Championship....Heinz will be packed to the rafters.
^^^ Oh heads-up the Home Heinz Environment is AWESOME in the above clip......but Pitt doesn't win if you didn't know
haha
I don't believe that.
The only way Pitt would be kept out of big boy football is if Pitt chose not to play at the highest level. I also don't believe that will happen. But, you're implying it would not be Pittsburgh decision.
I strongly disagree with that sentiment. I think playing in a stadium that is way bigger than our needs makes us look far worse than playing in a smaller stadium that actually met our needs.
If you are playing in a packed 42,000 seat stadium, it looks and feels very similar to playing in a full 75,000 seat stadium. However, if you take those 42,000 fans and put them in the 75,000 seat stadium, it feels like a mausoleum.
The University of Pittsburgh's football program can never reach its full potential playing at Heinz Field. Some people may be loathe to accept that reality but it is none the less our reality based on decades upon decades of attendance records.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
The only place it could go would be to build it where Schenley Park is --- the only "open terrain" to build on that would be closer than Heinz and kindaaa be "technically on campus" --- but unless Pitt has some "Illuminati" secret Billionaire Alums who happen to be huge Pitt Football Fans who make the City / Trustee People controlling that land whoever some offer they can't refuse it will.never.happen.
Only truly realistic, real-life potential option is to one day hope the Steelers leave, then tear down that huge North Endzone upper-deck and make Heinz "New Pitt Stadium" or "UPMC Field". This is a very Long Game focus but this might actually happen in reality. Pitt could totally renovate Heinz (to be renamed of course) and Fit-It in design and color to make it pure Pitt.......this could happen in twenty years
.Personally I think it's straight-up MASOCHISM and I feel it's a shame a Pitt Supporter would keep going back to pining-for a "Pure Pitt On-Campus Field" --- but I do comprehend the thought --- it's just impossible I don't know why people make themselves suffer
haha.I'm sure Miami Hurricanes fans and UCLA fans are upset too they have to travel freagin' 25+ miles to get to their home stadiums from campus --> just gotta make the most of life's circumstances.
Last edited:
Yep. Just like MLS owes a ton of its success to cozier 20K seat packed stadiums instead of 20K inside of a 70K seat NFL stadium. The atmosphere at those games was embarrassing.
The only place it could go would be to build it where Schenley Park is --- the only "open terrain" to build on that would be closer than Heinz and kindaaa be "technically on campus" --- but unless Pitt has some "Illuminati" secret Billionaire Alums who happen to be huge Pitt Football Fans who make the City / Trustee People controlling that land whoever some offer they can't refuse it will.never.happen.
Only truly realistic, real-life potential option is to one day hope the Steelers leave, then tear down that huge North Endzone upper-deck and make Heinz "New Pitt Stadium" or "UPMC Field". This is a very Long Game focus but this might actually happen in reality. Pitt could totally renovate Heinz (to be renamed of course) and Fit-It in design and color to make it pure Pitt.......this could happen in twenty years
Personally I think it's straight-up MASOCHISM and I feel it's a shame a Pitt Supporter would keep going back to pining-for a "Pure Pitt On-Campus Field" --- but I do comprehend the thought --- it's just impossible I don't know why people make themselves suffer
I'm sure Miami Hurricanes fans and UCLA fans are upset too they have to travel freagin' 25+ miles to get to their home stadiums from campus --> just gotta make the most of life's circumstances.
No, I get the financial realities of the situation. I just think it was a terrible mistake in the first place. I agree that it's likely a permanent situation and that we're going to have to make the most of our poor choices.
However, the notion that they are going to consistently or semi-consistently fill a 68,000 seat stadium is just plain ridiculous. It's just completely delusional.
That. Will. Never. Happen. Either.
That's why I'm a tarp proponent. It's probably our only real chance of making this horrible situation slightly less debilitating to the program.
Revenue bonds are a financing mechanism genius! Not "free money" More positivity from the " squirrel hill raincloud."
Frank will present the financing plan — to borrow $220 million through the sale of revenue bonds — to the CSU Board of Governors for approval at its meetings Feb. 4-6 in Centennial. The board voted 8-0, with one member abstaining, in December to approve the stadium project pending approval of the financing plan.
I'm not implying it I am flat out saying it.
Scenarios exist which break up the ACC to the B1G and SEC &
Pitt doesn't go to either.
Pitt isn't brining much to the dance now is it....have that top line BB to point to ??
I.e. No seat when the music stops.
( not a prediction bear in mind jus sayin it is possible)
if somebody dropped 400 mil into Pitt's lap.... the Pinheads and Eggheads would demand it be spent on academic reforms /improvements and student living.
Spot on
an on campus stadium ain't happening.
U's and the government waste a lot of money on a lot of things including academic majors that don't make much sense and have little future. Grads max out their earning potential at $ 20k with no benefits.
The NEW ABNORMAL!
Last edited:
Very Simple. Atmosphere sucks at Heinz for a Pitt game. Period. We need a smaller building on campus that fits our attendance needs which I think is 55,000 to 60,000 with the ability to expand. If you read all the CSU info on the stadium, they wanted an on campus stadium where the students can walk to and have the atmosphere like you see at just about every school in the country. Again, they like many are investing in their football program which is a big business and commend them for it. Just like Baylor, Minnesota, USF/Temple (both are talking to get it done) and realize playing in a pro or off campus stadium doesn't work. Whether you like it or not, we compete with OSU, PSU, ND, UM, etc. for the elite 4/5 star players so when those players visit, they are going to envision themselves playing in Heinz (elite recruits don't care about the Steelers) vs the other schools buildings so ATMOSPHERE plays a huge part in recruiting the top players. For the 2018 class, we have ZERO 4/5 players after beating the National Champs and PSU. Sadly, PSU has 17 4/5 star players. You win and compete for championships with the no brainer 4/5 star players such as Boyd, Shady, Whitehead, etc. As I've said MULTIPLE times, there will be 2 or 3 star players like a Revis or Donald who are better than projected however the recruiting rankings don't lie and are in place for a reason. The teams that get the elite players (8 to 10 per class) are competing for championships so when we continue to be 8-4 or 7-5 we really can't complain because many of you (mostly Pitt Steeler fans) are OK with this arrangement. H2P
I wish there would be someone at Pitt, that could have a vision, and though it could take 4 to 6 years , plan for something on campus , and get everyone involved , it can be done. Pitt, as we have seen with the way the football program has been run for many years, football is not a priority. That's why we can't keep coaches or we hire crap, or both. See HAYWOOD etc
Wish that person would come along , cause they are not in sight up there right now. One can dream, they are dreaming all over this country , building on campus stadiums at smaller schools than Pitt, but we just talk about why we can't.
Wish that person would come along , cause they are not in sight up there right now. One can dream, they are dreaming all over this country , building on campus stadiums at smaller schools than Pitt, but we just talk about why we can't.
And if you see, the schools with a national football brand , bring in tons of money and notoriety to the school. Having a good football team brings better students , more alum involved , a win win in the long run. Pitt egg heads are so smart they are stupid. I don't mean our heyday of 4 years either , I mean win for a decade and watch things really blossom at Pitt, the whole university
